(15157,628,'ronalfhf','seosuosuo@gmail.com','http://cheapchristianlouboutin-sale.weebly.com','110.86.186.48','2013-05-29 02:01:25','2013-05-29 09:01:25','May imputed that damages largely for an extended function about unfavorable local weather, having excessive warmer summer months warm up completely getting rid of away from decreased these types of low herbage and high rains and also exotic thunderstorms rapping returning facilities inside best plus middle section bays <a href=\"http://coachoutlet-store-online.weebly.com\" rel=\"nofollow\">coach factory outlet online</a>   . Tornado Irene and also Tropi <a href=\"http://saclouis-vuitton.weebly.com\" rel=\"nofollow\">Sac Louis Vuitton</a>   california Tempest Lee flushed many heaps of deposit in the Susquehanna and also other waterways, turning all of the bay murky brown pertaining to meters <a href=\"http://cheap-oaklysunglasses.weebly.com\" rel=\"nofollow\">Discount Oakley Sunglasses</a>   onths after that.Chelsea Orth, leaders belonging to the aerial survey with all the Va College associated with Ocean Research asserted that fresh low herbage \"are not necessarily doing very well in your Chesapeake Gulf, that could be regrettable .. considering the role they can perform as a liquid top quality barometer.\"Between summer months warm up, drenched temperatures as well as storm-flushed pulses in sediment, Orth increased, \"the Bay s lawn plant beds have to deal with a constant concern. Key protect and then food providers regarding muskie, crabs along with other pets or animals like turtles and then waterfowl, under the water grasses get always been perceived as a vital into the recover <a href=\"http://louisvuitton-pas-cher.weebly.com\" rel=\"nofollow\">Sac A Main Louis Vuitton</a>   th from the these types of. They require sunshine to increase in addition to survive, much like your lawns achieve. Sunken plants and flowers perish again, whilst, if the bay\'s oceans turn into cloudy through sediment along with plankton roses, that will be feasted from nutrient contamination.Even while sea grass lawns profits / losses in past years ended up being limited by simply just an area of the these kinds of, this past year saw frequent diebacks, claimed Lee Karrh, some sort of biologist together with Maryland\'s Division about Healthy Assets. They indicated that your chosen constant diminish from the various low herbage noticed in all of the bay history Many can make a estuary\'s sea prairies more vulnerable for the vagaries regarding climatic conditions.Karrh and even Orth equally asserted along with thunder or wind storms muddying a gulf, on the internet a powerful basic decrease in normal water readability considering that in relation to The late 90s, containing consultants baffled.\"The picture can be not really obvious,\" Karrh proclaimed. \"We know certainly, there s significantly less light-weight on the market, all of us re also lost as to why.\"Orth declared when he would travel to swimming or maybe investigate further this these types of, \"it style distinct, (nonetheless) when purchasing a inside looks similar to some sort of fog.\"One principles usually an outburst for incredibly tiny plankton may very well be clouding this type of water, they said, but that is never really been verified and / or defined.In spite of the result in, Orth stated failing lumination infiltration belonging to the standard water comes with restricted upside down low herbage to be able to shallower sections, wherever temperature-sensitive eel turf for example might be more vulnerable to intensive summer warmth.Together with all of the frequently gloomy announcement, may suggested there has been a couple patches of any these types of where exactly under the sea low herbage experienced worked out quite clearly. At the same time warm rage a water surge weakened the big Susquehanna Flats your lawn bedding presents itself all of the these kinds of, a good lustrous expansion of facilities lived through. Grasses genuinely greater found in Virginia\'s Wayne Pond.Chips DiPasquale, director belonging to the General Shelter Agency\'s Chesapeake Salty Application company found in Annapo <a href=\"http://cheapchristianlouboutin-sale.weebly.com\" rel=\"nofollow\">Red Bottom Heels</a>   lis, pointed out in a fact launched with all the review results he had been inspired with people very few indications of the things she or he termed \"resilience\" inside the bay\'s grassy mattresses. Yet this individual identified a \"worrisome\" market research benefits featured a new \"sobering note of methods extremely important it is to go on the renewal projects. To get more within the bay\'s low herbage, as well as a particular interactive plan, go here.',0,'0','Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 6.1; Edition Yx) Presto/2.12.388 Version/12.10','',0,0),(15158,157,'MibKayava','jassss2013@hotmail.com','http://gerxanax53.galaxyhit.com/categoryes-1-1.html','85.238.125.21','2013-05-29 05:49:02','2013-05-29 12:49:02','As friends live? \r\nMatthew Hilton; neri Sren Rose Studio; Studioilse; P r oducts.  <a href=\"http://gerxanax38.00cd.com/index.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">xanax advertisement</a>  traditions of Maine.  <a href=\"http://gerxanax100.faithweb.com/index.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">xanax with a g on it</a>  People are going feature crazy with their mobile apps and that is a problem.  <a href=\"http://gerxanax49.galaxyhit.com/index.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">xanax after coke</a>  \r\nTo buy tranax 2mg.  <a href=\"http://gerxanax57.galaxyhit.com/sitemap.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">xanax aerophobia</a>  Then somehowfinallymy brain caught up to what my hand was doing and righted the situation, correcting my hands trajectory back to my bag of goods.  <a href=\"http://gerxanax71.oceansfree.com/sitemap.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">xanax and medicare part d</a>  In a controlled postmarketing dose-response study, patients treated with doses of XANAX greater than 4 mg/day for 3 months were able to taper to 50% of their total maintenance dose without apparent loss of clinical benefit.  <a href=\"http://gerxanax46.2trom.com/sitemap.html\" rel=\"nofollow\">pepcid ac xanax</a>  \r\nWe will not miss you',0,'0','Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0) AppleWebKit/537.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/23.0.1271.91 Safari/537.11','',0,0),(15159,552,'click through the following web site','','http://soforce.com/story.php?title=user-talkgretchenk-cryptoparty','46.105.63.40','2013-05-29 06:22:43','2013-05-29 13:22:43','<strong>click through the following web site...</strong>\n\nOne Voice » surfing...',0,'0','PHP/5.2.10','trackback',0,0),(15160,1003,'Beibishibia','fairyal.antasy@mail.ru','http://www.coachya2013.com/','80.65.90.147','2013-05-29 08:16:36','2013-05-29 15:16:36','???????????? <a href=\"http://www.seikowatchinfo.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">???? ???</a> ???????????? <a href=\"http://www.seikowatchinfo.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">SEIKO ???</a> ????????? <a href=\"http://www.seikowatchinfo.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">???? ??</a> ?????????? Web????? <a href=\"http://www.seikowatchinfo.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">www.seikowatchinfo.com/</a> ???? ?? ????????? <a href=\"http://www.seikowatchya.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">???? ???</a> ??????????? <a href=\"http://www.seikowatchya.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">seiko ???</a> ?????????? <a href=\"http://www.seikowatchya.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">???? ??</a> ???????????? <a href=\"http://www.seikowatchya.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">www.seikowatchya.com/</a> ???? ??? ?????JC?????? <a href=\"http://www.coachya2013.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">??? ??????</a> ????????????? <a href=\"http://www.coachya2013.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">Coach ??????</a> ?bags.Louis?????? <a href=\"http://www.coachya2013.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">??? ???</a> ???????????? <a href=\"http://www.coachya2013.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">www.coachya2013.com/</a> ??? ??? ????????????? <a href=\"http://www.fakutoricoach.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">COACH ??????</a> ???????????? <a href=\"http://www.fakutoricoach.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">??? ??</a> ????????????????? <a href=\"http://www.fakutoricoach.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">??? ???</a> ????????????? <a href=\"http://www.fakutoricoach.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">www.fakutoricoach.com/</a> ??? ??? ????????????? <a href=\"http://www.muchcoachjp.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">?????????</a> ??????????????? <a href=\"http://www.muchcoachjp.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">?????</a> ??????????? <a href=\"http://www.muchcoachjp.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">coach??????</a> ?????????????????? <a href=\"http://www.muchcoachjp.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">www.muchcoachjp.com/</a> coach?????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????',0,'0','Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Firefox/17.0','',0,0),(15161,628,'ovqixsnipy','d.gl.c.sp.n.lg.a.w.i.xe.n1.5@gmail.com','http://cheapmaccosmetics4.webstarts.com/','111.73.46.78','2013-05-29 11:05:52','2013-05-29 18:05:52','On January 8, 2011, <a href=\"http://losmaclys.wordpress.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">cheap mac makeup</a>\r\n Warner Bros. <a href=\"http://maccosmeticswholesaleups.snack.ws/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">Mac Cosmetics Wholesale</a>\r\n Consumer Products announced that DC Comics\' fictional lady Stunner Little woman last will and testament tandem join up up with M??A??C Cosmetics to produce a Fascination Maid makeup collection that disposition be present in M??A??C stores in the start of 2011. The collection includes act ashamed, taste trace, eyeliner, lip surface, lipstick, mascara, mineral cover and nail polish.Most M??A??C products are lubricant free. Some M??A??C products do admit routine oils which function as emollients (in regard to eg: orange lubricator, jojoba lubricator). \r\n \r\n<a href=\"http://wholesale-mac-cosmeticso.wallinside.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">Wholesale Mac Cosmetics</a>',0,'0','Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/23.0.1271.64 Safari/537.11','',0,0),(15162,1561,'Beibishibia','fairyal.antasy@mail.ru','http://www.seikowatchinfo.com/','64.213.148.134','2013-05-29 12:36:51','2013-05-29 19:36:51','???????????? <a href=\"http://www.seikowatchinfo.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">???? ???</a> ???????????? <a href=\"http://www.seikowatchinfo.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">SEIKO ???</a> ????????? <a href=\"http://www.seikowatchinfo.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">???? ??</a> ?????????? Web????? <a href=\"http://www.seikowatchinfo.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">www.seikowatchinfo.com/</a> SEIKO ??? ????????? <a href=\"http://www.seikowatchya.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">???? ???</a> ??????????? <a href=\"http://www.seikowatchya.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">seiko ???</a> ?????????? <a href=\"http://www.seikowatchya.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">???? ??</a> ???????????? <a href=\"http://www.seikowatchya.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">www.seikowatchya.com/</a> ???? ??? ?????JC?????? <a href=\"http://www.coachya2013.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">??? ??????</a> ????????????? <a href=\"http://www.coachya2013.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">Coach ??????</a> ?bags.Louis?????? <a href=\"http://www.coachya2013.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">??? ???</a> ???????????? <a href=\"http://www.coachya2013.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">www.coachya2013.com/</a> Coach ?????? ????????????? <a href=\"http://www.fakutoricoach.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">COACH ??????</a> ???????????? <a href=\"http://www.fakutoricoach.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">??? ??</a> ????????????????? <a href=\"http://www.fakutoricoach.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">??? ???</a> ????????????? <a href=\"http://www.fakutoricoach.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">www.fakutoricoach.com/</a> ??? ?? ????????????? <a href=\"http://www.muchcoachjp.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">?????????</a> ??????????????? <a href=\"http://www.muchcoachjp.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">?????</a> ??????????? <a href=\"http://www.muchcoachjp.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">coach??????</a> ?????????????????? <a href=\"http://www.muchcoachjp.com/\" / rel=\"nofollow\">www.muchcoachjp.com/</a> ????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????',0,'0','Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Edition Yx) Presto/2.12.388 Version/12.11','',0,0);


--
-- Table structure for table `wp_g_ywfz`
--

CREATE TABLE `wp_g_ywfz` (
  `ywfz_id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
  `ywfz_title` varchar(1024) NOT NULL,
  `ywfz_watch` varchar(1024) NOT NULL,
  `ywfz_code` varchar(100) NOT NULL,
  `ywfz_img` varchar(200) NOT NULL,
  `ywfz_size` varchar(10) NOT NULL,
  `ywfz_imglink` varchar(1024) NOT NULL,
  `ywfz_status` varchar(10) NOT NULL,
  `ywfz_sidebar` varchar(10) NOT NULL,
  `ywfz_expire` date NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`ywfz_id`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM AUTO_INCREMENT=3 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;

--
-- Dumping data for table `wp_g_ywfz`
--

INSERT INTO `wp_g_ywfz` VALUES (1,'MJ Moon Walk','http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7MmEMrCRfc','s7MmEMrCRfc','Youtube Thumbnail','0','','Yes','Yes','0000-00-00'),(2,'Obama Nobel Peace Prize Winner','http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxvApfkScLg','LxvApfkScLg','Youtube Thumbnail','0','','Yes','Yes','0000-00-00');

--
-- Table structure for table `wp_gdsr_data_article`
--

CREATE TABLE `wp_gdsr_data_article` (
  `post_id` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `rules_articles` char(1) DEFAULT 'A',
  `rules_comments` char(1) DEFAULT 'A',
  `moderate_articles` char(1) DEFAULT 'N',
  `moderate_comments` char(1) DEFAULT 'N',
  `recc_rules_articles` char(1) DEFAULT 'A',
  `recc_rules_comments` char(1) DEFAULT 'A',
  `recc_moderate_articles` char(1) DEFAULT 'N',
  `recc_moderate_comments` char(1) DEFAULT 'N',
  `is_page` char(1) DEFAULT '0',
  `user_voters` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `user_votes` decimal(11,1) DEFAULT '0.0',
  `visitor_voters` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `visitor_votes` decimal(11,1) DEFAULT '0.0',
  `review` decimal(3,1) DEFAULT '-1.0',
  `review_text` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `views` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `user_recc_plus` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `user_recc_minus` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `visitor_recc_plus` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `visitor_recc_minus` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `expiry_type` char(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'N',
  `expiry_value` varchar(32) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `recc_expiry_type` char(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'N',
  `recc_expiry_value` varchar(32) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `last_voted` timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL,
  `last_voted_recc` timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL,
  `cmm_integration_std` char(1) DEFAULT 'I',
  `cmm_integration_mur` char(1) DEFAULT 'I',
  `cmm_integration_set` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  PRIMARY KEY (`post_id`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

--
-- Dumping data for table `wp_gdsr_data_article`
--

INSERT INTO `wp_gdsr_data_article` VALUES (50,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,18,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(47,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,10,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(42,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,16,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(39,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,20,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(33,'A','A','','','A','A','','','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,15,0,0,0,0,'','','','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(30,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,14,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(27,'A','A','','','A','A','','','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,9,0,0,0,0,'','','','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(20,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,8,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(14,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,22,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(9,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,9,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(2,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','1',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,40,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(55,'A','A','','','A','A','','','1',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,21,0,0,0,0,'','','','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(61,'A','A','','','A','A','','','1',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,20,0,0,0,0,'','','','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(54,'A','A','','','A','A','','','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,11,0,0,0,0,'','','','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(67,'A','A','','','A','A','','','1',0,0.0,1,10.0,-1.0,NULL,52,0,0,0,0,'','','','','2009-11-02 17:18:41',NULL,'I','I',0),(73,'A','A','','','A','A','','','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,13,0,0,0,0,'','','','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(76,'A','A','','','A','A','','','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,10,0,0,0,0,'','','','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(1,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,8,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(79,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,10,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(82,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,11,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(85,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,11,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(89,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,14,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(93,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,12,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(100,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,14,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(104,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,14,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(107,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,13,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(110,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,13,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(114,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,0,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(121,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,1,10.0,-1.0,NULL,14,0,0,1,0,'N','','N','','2009-11-16 23:52:56','2009-11-16 23:53:02','I','I',0),(123,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,11,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(126,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,8,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(128,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,8,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(131,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,13,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(135,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,1,10.0,-1.0,NULL,7,0,0,1,0,'N','','N','','2009-11-28 14:13:35','2009-11-28 14:13:40','I','I',0),(141,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,1,10.0,-1.0,NULL,13,0,0,1,0,'N','','N','','2009-11-28 14:13:47','2009-11-28 14:13:49','I','I',0),(144,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,3,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(148,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,2,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0),(154,'A','A','N','N','A','A','N','N','1',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,0,0,0,0,0,'N','','N','',NULL,NULL,'I','I',0);

--
-- Table structure for table `wp_gdsr_data_category`
--

CREATE TABLE `wp_gdsr_data_category` (
  `category_id` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `rules_articles` char(1) DEFAULT '0',
  `rules_comments` char(1) DEFAULT '0',
  `moderate_articles` char(1) DEFAULT '0',
  `moderate_comments` char(1) DEFAULT '0',
  `recc_rules_articles` char(1) DEFAULT 'A',
  `recc_rules_comments` char(1) DEFAULT 'A',
  `recc_moderate_articles` char(1) DEFAULT 'N',
  `recc_moderate_comments` char(1) DEFAULT 'N',
  `expiry_type` char(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'N',
  `expiry_value` varchar(32) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `recc_expiry_type` char(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'N',
  `recc_expiry_value` varchar(32) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `cmm_integration_std` char(1) DEFAULT 'A',
  `cmm_integration_mur` char(1) DEFAULT 'A',
  `cmm_integration_set` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  PRIMARY KEY (`category_id`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

--
-- Dumping data for table `wp_gdsr_data_category`
--


--
-- Table structure for table `wp_gdsr_data_comment`
--

CREATE TABLE `wp_gdsr_data_comment` (
  `comment_id` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `post_id` int(11) DEFAULT '-1',
  `is_locked` char(1) DEFAULT '0',
  `user_voters` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `user_votes` decimal(11,1) DEFAULT '0.0',
  `visitor_voters` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `visitor_votes` decimal(11,1) DEFAULT '0.0',
  `review` decimal(3,1) DEFAULT '-1.0',
  `review_text` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `user_recc_plus` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `user_recc_minus` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `visitor_recc_plus` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `visitor_recc_minus` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `last_voted` timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL,
  `last_voted_recc` timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`comment_id`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

--
-- Dumping data for table `wp_gdsr_data_comment`
--

INSERT INTO `wp_gdsr_data_comment` VALUES (4,39,'0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,0,0,0,0,NULL,NULL),(5,39,'0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,0,0,0,0,NULL,NULL),(8,39,'0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,0,0,0,0,NULL,NULL),(9,39,'0',0,0.0,0,0.0,-1.0,NULL,0,0,0,0,NULL,NULL);

--
-- Table structure for table `wp_gdsr_ips`
--

CREATE TABLE `wp_gdsr_ips` (
  `id` int(11) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
  `status` varchar(1) DEFAULT 'B',
  `mode` varchar(1) DEFAULT 'S',
  `ip` varchar(128) DEFAULT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`id`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

--
-- Dumping data for table `wp_gdsr_ips`
--


--
-- Table structure for table `wp_gdsr_moderate`
--

CREATE TABLE `wp_gdsr_moderate` (
  `record_id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
  `id` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
  `vote_type` varchar(10) DEFAULT 'article',
  `multi_id` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `user_id` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `vote` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `object` text NOT NULL,
  `voted` datetime DEFAULT NULL,
  `ip` varchar(32) DEFAULT NULL,
  `user_agent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `comment_id` bigint(20) unsigned DEFAULT '0',
  PRIMARY KEY (`record_id`),
  KEY `idx_id_mod` (`id`),
  KEY `idx_vote_mod` (`vote_type`),
  KEY `idx_multi_mod` (`multi_id`),
  KEY `idx_user_mod` (`user_id`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

--
-- Dumping data for table `wp_gdsr_moderate`
--


--
-- Table structure for table `wp_gdsr_multis`
--

CREATE TABLE `wp_gdsr_multis` (
  `multi_id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
  `name` varchar(64) NOT NULL,
  `description` text NOT NULL,
  `stars` int(11) NOT NULL DEFAULT '10',
  `object` text NOT NULL,
  `weight` text NOT NULL,
  `auto_insert` varchar(4) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'no',
  `auto_location` varchar(8) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'bottom',
  `auto_categories` text NOT NULL,
  `rules` char(1) DEFAULT 'A',
  `moderate` char(1) DEFAULT 'N',
  PRIMARY KEY (`multi_id`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

--
-- Dumping data for table `wp_gdsr_multis`
--


--
-- Table structure for table `wp_gdsr_multis_data`
--

CREATE TABLE `wp_gdsr_multis_data` (
  `id` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
  `post_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
  `multi_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
  `average_rating_users` decimal(3,1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0.0',
  `average_rating_visitors` decimal(3,1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0.0',
  `total_votes_users` int(11) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `total_votes_visitors` int(11) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `average_review` decimal(3,1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0.0',
  `last_voted` timestamp NULL DEFAULT NULL,
  `rules` char(1) DEFAULT 'A',
  `moderate` char(1) DEFAULT 'N',
  `expiry_type` char(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'N',
  `expiry_value` varchar(32) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
  KEY `post_id` (`post_id`),
  KEY `idx_post_mdt` (`post_id`),
  KEY `idx_multi_mdt` (`multi_id`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

--
-- Dumping data for table `wp_gdsr_multis_data`
--


--
-- Table structure for table `wp_gdsr_multis_trend`
--

CREATE TABLE `wp_gdsr_multis_trend` (
  `id` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
  `post_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
  `multi_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
  `vote_date` varchar(10) DEFAULT NULL,
  `average_rating_users` decimal(3,1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0.0',
  `average_rating_visitors` decimal(3,1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0.0',
  `total_votes_users` int(11) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `total_votes_visitors` int(11) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  PRIMARY KEY (`id`),
  KEY `idx_post_mtt` (`post_id`),
  KEY `idx_multi_mtt` (`multi_id`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

--
-- Dumping data for table `wp_gdsr_multis_trend`
--


--
-- Table structure for table `wp_gdsr_multis_values`
--

CREATE TABLE `wp_gdsr_multis_values` (
  `id` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL,
  `source` varchar(3) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'dta',
  `item_id` int(11) NOT NULL,
  `user_voters` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `user_votes` decimal(11,1) DEFAULT '0.0',
  `visitor_voters` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `visitor_votes` decimal(11,1) DEFAULT '0.0',
  KEY `id` (`id`),
  KEY `item_id` (`item_id`),
  KEY `source` (`source`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

--
-- Dumping data for table `wp_gdsr_multis_values`
--


--
-- Table structure for table `wp_gdsr_templates`
--

CREATE TABLE `wp_gdsr_templates` (
  `template_id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
  `section` varchar(3) NOT NULL,
  `name` varchar(128) NOT NULL,
  `description` text NOT NULL,
  `elements` text NOT NULL,
  `dependencies` text NOT NULL,
  `preinstalled` varchar(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `default` varchar(1) NOT NULL DEFAULT '1',
  PRIMARY KEY (`template_id`),
  KEY `idx_section_tpl` (`section`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM AUTO_INCREMENT=45 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

--
-- Dumping data for table `wp_gdsr_templates`
--

INSERT INTO `wp_gdsr_templates` VALUES (1,'EWV','Default Element Word Votes','','a:2:{s:8:\"singular\";s:4:\"vote\";s:6:\"plural\";s:5:\"votes\";}','','1','1'),(2,'ETR','Default Alternating Table Rows','','a:2:{s:3:\"odd\";s:7:\"row-odd\";s:4:\"even\";s:8:\"row-even\";}','','1','1'),(3,'SRT','Default Standard Rating Text','','a:4:{s:6:\"normal\";s:86:\"Rating: %RATING%/&lt;strong&gt;%MAX_RATING%&lt;/strong&gt; (%VOTES% %WORD_VOTES% cast)\";s:11:\"time_active\";s:183:\"Rating: %RATING%/&lt;strong&gt;%MAX_RATING%&lt;/strong&gt; (%VOTES% %WORD_VOTES% cast)&lt;br /&gt;%TR_MONTHS% months, %TR_DAYS% days, %TR_HOURS% hours, %TR_MINUTES% minutes remaining.\";s:11:\"time_closed\";s:130:\"&lt;strong&gt;Voting Closed.&lt;/strong&gt; Rating: %RATING%/&lt;strong&gt;%MAX_RATING%&lt;/strong&gt; (%VOTES% %WORD_VOTES% cast)\";s:10:\"vote_saved\";s:99:\"&lt;strong&gt;Vote Saved.&lt;/strong&gt; Rating: %RATING%/&lt;strong&gt;%MAX_RATING%&lt;/strong&gt;\";}\r\n','a:1:{s:3:\"EWV\";s:1:\"1\";}','1','1'),(4,'SRR','Default Standard Rating Results','','a:3:{s:6:\"header\";s:257:\"&lt;table&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;td class=&quot;title&quot;&gt;Title&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td class=&quot;votes&quot;&gt;Votes&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td class=&quot;rating&quot;&gt;Rating&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td class=&quot;rating&quot;&gt;Review&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;\";s:4:\"item\";s:317:\"&lt;tr class=&quot;%TABLE_ROW_CLASS%&quot;&gt;&lt;td class=&quot;title&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;%PERMALINK%&quot;&gt;%TITLE%&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td class=&quot;votes&quot;&gt;%VOTES%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td class=&quot;rating&quot;&gt;%RATING%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td class=&quot;rating&quot;&gt;%REVIEW%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;\";s:6:\"footer\";s:28:\"&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;\";}\r\n','a:2:{s:3:\"EWV\";s:1:\"1\";s:3:\"ETR\";s:1:\"2\";}','1','1'),(5,'CRT','Default Comments Rating Text','','a:2:{s:6:\"normal\";s:98:\"Rating: %CMM_RATING%/&lt;strong&gt;%MAX_CMM_RATING%&lt;/strong&gt; (%CMM_VOTES% %WORD_VOTES% cast)\";s:10:\"vote_saved\";s:107:\"&lt;strong&gt;Vote Saved.&lt;/strong&gt; Rating: %CMM_RATING%/&lt;strong&gt;%MAX_CMM_RATING%&lt;/strong&gt;\";}\r\n','a:1:{s:3:\"EWV\";s:1:\"1\";}','1','1'),(6,'SSB','Default Standard RSS Rating Block','','a:1:{s:6:\"normal\";s:146:\"&lt;div&gt;%RATING_STARS%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;Rating: %RATING%/&lt;strong&gt;%MAX_RATING%&lt;/strong&gt; (%VOTES% %WORD_VOTES% cast)&lt;/div&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"EWV\";s:1:\"1\";}','1','1'),(7,'CAR','Default Comments Aggregated Rating','','a:1:{s:6:\"normal\";s:11:\"%CMM_STARS%\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"EWV\";s:1:\"1\";}','1','1'),(8,'MRT','Default Multi Ratings Text','','a:4:{s:6:\"normal\";s:86:\"Rating: %RATING%/&lt;strong&gt;%MAX_RATING%&lt;/strong&gt; (%VOTES% %WORD_VOTES% cast)\";s:11:\"time_active\";s:183:\"Rating: %RATING%/&lt;strong&gt;%MAX_RATING%&lt;/strong&gt; (%VOTES% %WORD_VOTES% cast)&lt;br /&gt;%TR_MONTHS% months, %TR_DAYS% days, %TR_HOURS% hours, %TR_MINUTES% minutes remaining.\";s:11:\"time_closed\";s:130:\"&lt;strong&gt;Voting Closed.&lt;/strong&gt; Rating: %RATING%/&lt;strong&gt;%MAX_RATING%&lt;/strong&gt; (%VOTES% %WORD_VOTES% cast)\";s:10:\"vote_saved\";s:99:\"&lt;strong&gt;Vote Saved.&lt;/strong&gt; Rating: %RATING%/&lt;strong&gt;%MAX_RATING%&lt;/strong&gt;\";}\r\n','a:1:{s:3:\"EWV\";s:1:\"1\";}','1','1'),(9,'MRS','Default Multi Ratings Stars','','a:1:{s:4:\"item\";s:160:\"&lt;tr class=&quot;mtrow %TABLE_ROW_CLASS%&quot;&gt;&lt;td&gt;%ELEMENT_NAME%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td class=&quot;mtstars&quot;&gt;%ELEMENT_STARS%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;\";}\r\n','a:1:{s:3:\"ETR\";s:1:\"2\";}','1','1'),(10,'SRB','Default Standard Rating Block','','a:1:{s:6:\"normal\";s:300:\"&lt;div class=&quot;ratingblock %CSS_BLOCK%&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;ratingheader %CSS_HEADER%&quot;&gt;%HEADER_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;ratingstars %CSS_STARS%&quot;&gt;%RATING_STARS%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;ratingtext %CSS_TEXT%&quot;&gt;%RATING_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;\";}\r\n','a:1:{s:3:\"SRT\";s:1:\"3\";}','1','1'),(11,'CRB','Default Comments Rating Block','','a:1:{s:6:\"normal\";s:328:\"&lt;div class=&quot;ratingblock %CMM_CSS_BLOCK%&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;ratingheader %CMM_CSS_HEADER%&quot;&gt;%CMM_HEADER_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;ratingstars %CMM_CSS_STARS%&quot;&gt;%CMM_RATING_STARS%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;ratingtext %CMM_CSS_TEXT%&quot;&gt;%CMM_RATING_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;\";}\r\n','a:1:{s:3:\"CRT\";s:1:\"5\";}','1','1'),(12,'MRB','Default Multi Rating Block','','a:1:{s:6:\"normal\";s:379:\"&lt;table class=&quot;gdmultitable&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;%MUR_RATING_STARS%&lt;tr class=&quot;gdtblbottom&quot;&gt;&lt;td colspan=&quot;2&quot;&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;float:left&quot;&gt;%MUR_RATING_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;float:right&quot;&gt;%BUTTON%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;\";}','a:2:{s:3:\"MRT\";s:1:\"8\";s:3:\"MRS\";s:1:\"9\";}','1','1'),(13,'WSR','Default Widget Star Rating','','a:3:{s:6:\"header\";s:10:\"&lt;ul&gt;\";s:4:\"item\";s:117:\"&lt;li&gt;%STARS%&lt;br/&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;%PERMALINK%&quot;&gt;%TITLE%&lt;/a&gt; (%VOTES% %WORD_VOTES%)&lt;/li&gt;\";s:6:\"footer\";s:11:\"&lt;/ul&gt;\";}','a:2:{s:3:\"EWV\";s:1:\"1\";s:3:\"ETR\";s:1:\"2\";}','1','1'),(14,'WBR','Default Widget Blog Rating','','a:1:{s:6:\"normal\";s:272:\"&lt;p class=&quot;trw-title&quot;&gt;Average blog rating:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;trw-rating&quot;&gt;%RATING%&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;trw-footer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;%VOTES%&lt;/strong&gt; %WORD_VOTES% cast for &lt;strong&gt;%COUNT%&lt;/strong&gt; posts&lt;/p&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"EWV\";s:1:\"1\";}','1','1'),(15,'WCR','Default Widget Comments Rating','','a:3:{s:6:\"header\";s:10:\"&lt;ul&gt;\";s:4:\"item\";s:138:\"&lt;li&gt;&lt;strong&gt;%CMM_RATING%&lt;/strong&gt; : [%AUTHOR_NAME%] &lt;a href=&quot;%PERMALINK%&quot;&gt;%COMMENT%&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;\";s:6:\"footer\";s:11:\"&lt;/ul&gt;\";}','a:2:{s:3:\"EWV\";s:1:\"1\";s:3:\"ETR\";s:1:\"2\";}','1','1'),(16,'RSB','Default Standard Review Rating Block','','a:1:{s:6:\"normal\";s:67:\"&lt;div class=&quot;%CSS_BLOCK%&quot;&gt;%RATING_STARS%&lt;/div&gt;\";}','','1','1'),(17,'RCB','Default Comments Review Rating Block','','a:1:{s:6:\"normal\";s:14:\"%RATING_STARS%\";}','','1','1'),(18,'ACR','Default Aggregated Comments Review Rating','','a:1:{s:6:\"normal\";s:11:\"%CMM_STARS%\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"EWV\";s:1:\"1\";}','1','1'),(19,'MRE','Default Multi Review Editor','','a:1:{s:6:\"normal\";s:155:\"&lt;table class=&quot;gdmultitable&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;%MUR_RATING_STARS%&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"MRS\";s:1:\"9\";}','1','1'),(20,'RMB','Default Multi Review Rating Block','','a:1:{s:6:\"normal\";s:155:\"&lt;table class=&quot;gdmultitable&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;%MUR_RATING_STARS%&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"MRS\";s:1:\"9\";}','1','1'),(21,'MRI','Default Multi Rating Integration','','a:1:{s:6:\"normal\";s:155:\"&lt;table class=&quot;gdmultitable&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;%MUR_RATING_STARS%&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"MRS\";s:1:\"9\";}','1','1'),(22,'MCR','Default Multi Rating Comment Integration Result','','a:1:{s:6:\"normal\";s:130:\"&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: center&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;%VOTES% %WORD_VOTES%&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;%AVG_RATING%&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;\";}','','1','1'),(23,'TAT','Default Thumbs Article Rating Text','','a:4:{s:6:\"normal\";s:73:\"Rating: &lt;strong&gt;%RATING%&lt;/strong&gt; (from %VOTES% %WORD_VOTES%)\";s:11:\"time_active\";s:170:\"Rating: &lt;strong&gt;%RATING%&lt;/strong&gt; (from %VOTES% %WORD_VOTES%)&lt;br /&gt;%TR_MONTHS% months, %TR_DAYS% days, %TR_HOURS% hours, %TR_MINUTES% minutes remaining.\";s:11:\"time_closed\";s:117:\"&lt;strong&gt;Voting Closed.&lt;/strong&gt; Rating: &lt;strong&gt;%RATING%&lt;/strong&gt; (from %VOTES% %WORD_VOTES%)\";s:10:\"vote_saved\";s:90:\"&lt;strong&gt;Vote Saved.&lt;/strong&gt; New Rating: &lt;strong&gt;%RATING%&lt;/strong&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"EWV\";s:1:\"1\";}','1','1'),(24,'TCT','Default Thumbs Comment Rating Text','','a:2:{s:6:\"normal\";s:73:\"Rating: &lt;strong&gt;%RATING%&lt;/strong&gt; (from %VOTES% %WORD_VOTES%)\";s:10:\"vote_saved\";s:90:\"&lt;strong&gt;Vote Saved.&lt;/strong&gt; New Rating: &lt;strong&gt;%RATING%&lt;/strong&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"EWV\";s:1:\"1\";}','1','1'),(25,'TAB','Default Thumbs Article Rating Block','','a:2:{s:8:\"inactive\";s:213:\"&lt;div class=&quot;thumblock %CSS_BLOCK%&quot;&gt;%THUMB_UP%%THUMB_DOWN%&lt;div class=&quot;ratingtext %CSS_TEXT%&quot;&gt;%THUMBS_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;raterclear&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;\";s:6:\"active\";s:213:\"&lt;div class=&quot;thumblock %CSS_BLOCK%&quot;&gt;%THUMB_UP%%THUMB_DOWN%&lt;div class=&quot;ratingtext %CSS_TEXT%&quot;&gt;%THUMBS_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;raterclear&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"TAT\";s:2:\"23\";}','1','1'),(26,'TCB','Default Thumbs Comment Rating Block','','a:2:{s:8:\"inactive\";s:225:\"&lt;div class=&quot;thumblock %CMM_CSS_BLOCK%&quot;&gt;%THUMB_UP%%THUMB_DOWN%&lt;div class=&quot;ratingtext %CMM_CSS_TEXT%&quot;&gt;%CMM_THUMBS_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;raterclear&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;\";s:6:\"active\";s:225:\"&lt;div class=&quot;thumblock %CMM_CSS_BLOCK%&quot;&gt;%THUMB_UP%%THUMB_DOWN%&lt;div class=&quot;ratingtext %CMM_CSS_TEXT%&quot;&gt;%CMM_THUMBS_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;raterclear&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"TCT\";s:2:\"24\";}','1','1'),(27,'WSR','Expanded Default Widget Star Rating','','a:3:{s:6:\"header\";s:10:\"&lt;ul&gt;\";s:4:\"item\";s:599:\"&lt;li style=&quot;background: none&quot;&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;float: left; margin-right: 6px;&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;%PERMALINK%&quot;&gt;&lt;img alt=&quot;%TITLE%&quot; src=&quot;%IMAGE%&quot; width=&quot;38&quot; height=&quot;38&quot; /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;float: left;&quot;&gt;%STARS%&lt;div style=&quot;margin-top: 3px;&quot;&gt;&lt;strong style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;%RATING%&lt;/strong&gt; : &lt;a href=&quot;%PERMALINK%&quot;&gt;%TITLE%&lt;/a&gt; (%VOTES% %WORD_VOTES%)&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear: both&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/li&gt;\";s:6:\"footer\";s:11:\"&lt;/ul&gt;\";}\r\n','a:2:{s:3:\"EWV\";s:1:\"1\";s:3:\"ETR\";s:1:\"2\";}','2','0'),(28,'WCR','Expanded Default Widget Comments Rating','','a:3:{s:6:\"header\";s:13:\"&lt;table&gt;\";s:4:\"item\";s:388:\"&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;%AUTHOR_LINK%&quot;&gt;%AUTHOR_AVATAR%&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot;&gt;%CMM_STARS%&lt;div style=&quot;margin-top: 3px;&quot;&gt;&lt;strong style=&quot;color:red&quot;&gt;%CMM_RATING%&lt;/strong&gt; : [%AUTHOR_NAME%] &lt;a href=&quot;%PERMALINK%&quot;&gt;%COMMENT%&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;\";s:6:\"footer\";s:14:\"&lt;/table&gt;\";}','a:2:{s:3:\"EWV\";s:1:\"1\";s:3:\"ETR\";s:1:\"2\";}','2','0'),(29,'WBR','Simplest Widget Blog Rating','','a:1:{s:6:\"normal\";s:56:\"&lt;p class=&quot;trw-rating&quot;&gt;%RATING%&lt;/p&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"EWV\";s:1:\"1\";}','2','0'),(30,'WBR','Alternative Widget Blog Rating','','a:1:{s:6:\"normal\";s:262:\"&lt;p class=&quot;trw-title&quot;&gt;Average rating:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;trw-rating&quot;&gt;%RATING%&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class=&quot;trw-footer&quot;&gt;&lt;strong&gt;%VOTES%&lt;/strong&gt; %WORD_VOTES% for &lt;strong&gt;%COUNT%&lt;/strong&gt; posts&lt;/p&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"EWV\";s:1:\"1\";}','2','0'),(31,'RMB','Expanded Multi Review Rating Block','','a:1:{s:6:\"normal\";s:267:\"&lt;table class=&quot;gdmultitable&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;%MUR_RATING_STARS%&lt;tr class=&quot;gdtblmuravg&quot;&gt;&lt;td colspan=&quot;2&quot;&gt;%AVG_RATING_STARS%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"MRS\";s:1:\"9\";}','2','0'),(32,'MRB','Expanded Multi Rating Block','','a:1:{s:6:\"normal\";s:491:\"&lt;table class=&quot;gdmultitable&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;%MUR_RATING_STARS%&lt;tr class=&quot;gdtblbottom&quot;&gt;&lt;td colspan=&quot;2&quot;&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;float:left&quot;&gt;%MUR_RATING_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;float:right&quot;&gt;%BUTTON%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr class=&quot;gdtblmuravg&quot;&gt;&lt;td colspan=&quot;2&quot;&gt;%AVG_RATING_STARS%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;\";}','a:2:{s:3:\"MRT\";s:1:\"8\";s:3:\"MRS\";s:1:\"9\";}','2','0'),(33,'MRS','Expanded Multi Ratings Stars','','a:1:{s:4:\"item\";s:247:\"&lt;tr class=&quot;mtrow %TABLE_ROW_CLASS%&quot;&gt;&lt;td class=&quot;mtname&quot;&gt;%ELEMENT_NAME%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td class=&quot;mtstars&quot;&gt;%ELEMENT_STARS%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td class=&quot;mtvalue&quot;&gt;%ELEMENT_VALUE%&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"ETR\";s:1:\"2\";}','2','0'),(34,'TAB','Alter Thumbs Article Rating Block','','a:2:{s:8:\"inactive\";s:191:\"&lt;div class=&quot;thumblock %CSS_BLOCK%&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;ratingtext %CSS_TEXT%&quot;&gt;%THUMBS_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;raterclear&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;\";s:6:\"active\";s:213:\"&lt;div class=&quot;thumblock %CSS_BLOCK%&quot;&gt;%THUMB_UP%%THUMB_DOWN%&lt;div class=&quot;ratingtext %CSS_TEXT%&quot;&gt;%THUMBS_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;raterclear&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"TAT\";s:2:\"23\";}','2','0'),(35,'TCB','Alter Thumbs Comment Rating Block','','a:2:{s:8:\"inactive\";s:203:\"&lt;div class=&quot;thumblock %CMM_CSS_BLOCK%&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;ratingtext %CMM_CSS_TEXT%&quot;&gt;%CMM_THUMBS_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;raterclear&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;\";s:6:\"active\";s:225:\"&lt;div class=&quot;thumblock %CMM_CSS_BLOCK%&quot;&gt;%THUMB_UP%%THUMB_DOWN%&lt;div class=&quot;ratingtext %CMM_CSS_TEXT%&quot;&gt;%CMM_THUMBS_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;raterclear&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"TCT\";s:2:\"24\";}','2','0'),(36,'TAT','Expanded Thumbs Article Rating Text','','a:4:{s:6:\"normal\";s:76:\"Score: &lt;strong&gt;%RATING%&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;%VOTES% %WORD_VOTES%\";s:11:\"time_active\";s:173:\"Score: &lt;strong&gt;%RATING%&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;%VOTES% %WORD_VOTES%&lt;br /&gt;%TR_MONTHS% months, %TR_DAYS% days, %TR_HOURS% hours, %TR_MINUTES% minutes remaining.\";s:11:\"time_closed\";s:120:\"&lt;strong&gt;Voting Closed.&lt;/strong&gt; Score: &lt;strong&gt;%RATING%&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;%VOTES% %WORD_VOTES%\";s:10:\"vote_saved\";s:80:\"&lt;strong&gt;Saved.&lt;/strong&gt; Score: &lt;strong&gt;%RATING%&lt;/strong&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"EWV\";s:1:\"1\";}','2','0'),(37,'TCT','Expanded Thumbs Comment Rating Text','','a:2:{s:6:\"normal\";s:65:\"Score: &lt;strong&gt;%RATING%&lt;/strong&gt; %VOTES% %WORD_VOTES%\";s:10:\"vote_saved\";s:80:\"&lt;strong&gt;Saved.&lt;/strong&gt; Score: &lt;strong&gt;%RATING%&lt;/strong&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"EWV\";s:1:\"1\";}','2','0'),(38,'TAB','Expanded Thumbs Article Rating Block','','a:2:{s:8:\"inactive\";s:212:\"&lt;div class=&quot;thumblock %CSS_BLOCK%&quot;&gt;%THUMB_UP%%THUMB_DOWN%&lt;div class=&quot;raterclear&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;rtexthumb %CSS_TEXT%&quot;&gt;%THUMBS_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;\";s:6:\"active\";s:212:\"&lt;div class=&quot;thumblock %CSS_BLOCK%&quot;&gt;%THUMB_UP%%THUMB_DOWN%&lt;div class=&quot;raterclear&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;rtexthumb %CSS_TEXT%&quot;&gt;%THUMBS_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"TAT\";s:2:\"23\";}','2','0'),(39,'TCB','Expanded Thumbs Comment Rating Block','','a:2:{s:8:\"inactive\";s:224:\"&lt;div class=&quot;thumblock %CMM_CSS_BLOCK%&quot;&gt;%THUMB_UP%%THUMB_DOWN%&lt;div class=&quot;raterclear&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;rtexthumb %CMM_CSS_TEXT%&quot;&gt;%CMM_THUMBS_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;\";s:6:\"active\";s:224:\"&lt;div class=&quot;thumblock %CMM_CSS_BLOCK%&quot;&gt;%THUMB_UP%%THUMB_DOWN%&lt;div class=&quot;raterclear&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;rtexthumb %CMM_CSS_TEXT%&quot;&gt;%CMM_THUMBS_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"TCT\";s:2:\"24\";}','2','0'),(40,'SSB','Thumbs RSS Rating Block','','a:1:{s:6:\"normal\";s:103:\"&lt;div&gt;%RATING_STARS%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;Score: %RATING% (%VOTES% %WORD_VOTES% cast)&lt;/div&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"EWV\";s:1:\"1\";}','2','0'),(41,'WSR','Thumbs Widget Star Rating','','a:3:{s:6:\"header\";s:10:\"&lt;ul&gt;\";s:4:\"item\";s:146:\"&lt;li&gt;%THUMB% &lt;strong&gt;%RATING%&lt;/strong&gt;: &lt;a href=&quot;%PERMALINK%&quot;&gt;%TITLE%&lt;/a&gt; (%VOTES% %WORD_VOTES%)&lt;/li&gt;\";s:6:\"footer\";s:11:\"&lt;/ul&gt;\";}','a:2:{s:3:\"EWV\";s:1:\"1\";s:3:\"ETR\";s:1:\"2\";}','2','0'),(42,'TAB','Thumbs Up Only Article Rating Block','','a:2:{s:8:\"inactive\";s:200:\"&lt;div class=&quot;thumblock %CSS_BLOCK%&quot;&gt;%THUMB_UP%&lt;div class=&quot;raterclear&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;rtexthumb %CSS_TEXT%&quot;&gt;%THUMBS_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;\";s:6:\"active\";s:200:\"&lt;div class=&quot;thumblock %CSS_BLOCK%&quot;&gt;%THUMB_UP%&lt;div class=&quot;raterclear&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;rtexthumb %CSS_TEXT%&quot;&gt;%THUMBS_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"TAT\";s:2:\"23\";}','2','0'),(43,'TCB','Thumbs Up Only Comment Rating Block','','a:2:{s:8:\"inactive\";s:212:\"&lt;div class=&quot;thumblock %CMM_CSS_BLOCK%&quot;&gt;%THUMB_UP%&lt;div class=&quot;raterclear&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;rtexthumb %CMM_CSS_TEXT%&quot;&gt;%CMM_THUMBS_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;\";s:6:\"active\";s:212:\"&lt;div class=&quot;thumblock %CMM_CSS_BLOCK%&quot;&gt;%THUMB_UP%&lt;div class=&quot;raterclear&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;rtexthumb %CMM_CSS_TEXT%&quot;&gt;%CMM_THUMBS_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"TCT\";s:2:\"24\";}','2','0'),(44,'SRB','Inline Standard Ratings Block','','a:1:{s:6:\"normal\";s:306:\"&lt;div class=&quot;ratingblock %CSS_BLOCK%&quot;&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;ratingheader %CSS_HEADER%&quot;&gt;%HEADER_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;ratingstarsinline %CSS_STARS%&quot;&gt;%RATING_STARS%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;ratingtext %CSS_TEXT%&quot;&gt;%RATING_TEXT%&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;\";}','a:1:{s:3:\"SRT\";s:1:\"3\";}','2','0');

--
-- Table structure for table `wp_gdsr_votes_log`
--

CREATE TABLE `wp_gdsr_votes_log` (
  `record_id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
  `id` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
  `vote_type` varchar(10) DEFAULT 'article',
  `multi_id` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `user_id` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `vote` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `object` text NOT NULL,
  `voted` datetime DEFAULT NULL,
  `ip` varchar(32) DEFAULT NULL,
  `user_agent` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL,
  `comment_id` bigint(20) unsigned DEFAULT '0',
  PRIMARY KEY (`record_id`),
  KEY `idx_id_log` (`id`),
  KEY `idx_vote_log` (`vote_type`),
  KEY `idx_multi_log` (`multi_id`),
  KEY `idx_user_log` (`user_id`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM AUTO_INCREMENT=8 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

--
-- Dumping data for table `wp_gdsr_votes_log`
--

INSERT INTO `wp_gdsr_votes_log` VALUES (1,67,'article',0,0,10,'','2009-11-02 09:18:41','70.190.217.207','',0),(2,121,'article',0,0,10,'','2009-11-16 15:52:56','65.111.93.15','',0),(3,121,'artthumb',0,0,1,'','2009-11-16 15:53:02','65.111.93.15','',0),(4,135,'article',0,0,10,'','2009-11-28 06:13:35','65.111.93.15','',0),(5,135,'artthumb',0,0,1,'','2009-11-28 06:13:40','65.111.93.15','',0),(6,141,'article',0,0,10,'','2009-11-28 06:13:47','65.111.93.15','',0),(7,141,'artthumb',0,0,1,'','2009-11-28 06:13:49','65.111.93.15','',0);

--
-- Table structure for table `wp_gdsr_votes_trend`
--

CREATE TABLE `wp_gdsr_votes_trend` (
  `id` int(11) DEFAULT NULL,
  `vote_type` varchar(10) DEFAULT 'article',
  `user_voters` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `user_votes` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `visitor_voters` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `visitor_votes` int(11) DEFAULT '0',
  `vote_date` varchar(10) DEFAULT NULL,
  KEY `idx_id_trd` (`id`),
  KEY `idx_vote_trd` (`vote_type`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;

--
-- Dumping data for table `wp_gdsr_votes_trend`
--

INSERT INTO `wp_gdsr_votes_trend` VALUES (67,'article',0,0,1,10,'2009-11-02'),(121,'article',0,0,1,10,'2009-11-16'),(121,'artthumb',0,0,1,1,'2009-11-16'),(135,'article',0,0,1,10,'2009-11-28'),(135,'artthumb',0,0,1,1,'2009-11-28'),(141,'article',0,0,1,10,'2009-11-28'),(141,'artthumb',0,0,1,1,'2009-11-28');

--
-- Table structure for table `wp_kstats_agents`
--

CREATE TABLE `wp_kstats_agents` (
  `ID` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
  `user_agent` text COLLATE utf8_bin NOT NULL,
  `name` varchar(255) COLLATE utf8_bin NOT NULL,
  `count` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`ID`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM AUTO_INCREMENT=7 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 COLLATE=utf8_bin;

--
-- Dumping data for table `wp_kstats_agents`
--

INSERT INTO `wp_kstats_agents` VALUES (1,'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.20) Gecko/20081217 Firefox/2.0.0.20','Mac OS X Firefox 2',2),(2,'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_7; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.28.3 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.2.3 Safari/525.28.3','Mac OS X Safari',2),(3,'Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; GTB6; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)','Windows XP Internet Explorer 7',2),(4,'Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)','Windows XP Internet Explorer 6',2),(5,'Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)','Windows 2000 Internet Explorer 6',2),(6,'Jakarta Commons-HttpClient/3.0',' Jakarta Commons',2);

--
-- Table structure for table `wp_kstats_raw`
--

CREATE TABLE `wp_kstats_raw` (
  `id` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
  `timestamp` datetime NOT NULL,
  `ip` tinytext CHARACTER SET latin1,
  `url` text CHARACTER SET latin1,
  `user_agent` text CHARACTER SET latin1,
  `referrer` text CHARACTER SET latin1,
  `spider` tinytext CHARACTER SET latin1,
  `search_engine` tinytext CHARACTER SET latin1,
  `search_terms` text CHARACTER SET latin1,
  `os` tinytext CHARACTER SET latin1,
  `browser` tinytext CHARACTER SET latin1,
  `feed` tinytext CHARACTER SET latin1,
  `user` tinytext CHARACTER SET latin1,
  `preserved` tinyint(1) DEFAULT NULL,
  UNIQUE KEY `id` (`id`),
  KEY `timestamp` (`timestamp`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM AUTO_INCREMENT=150 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 COLLATE=utf8_bin;

--
-- Dumping data for table `wp_kstats_raw`
--

INSERT INTO `wp_kstats_raw` VALUES (1,'2009-10-31 15:52:47','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(2,'2009-10-31 15:53:01','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/?page_id=2','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(3,'2009-10-31 16:12:22','65.111.93.91','/onevoice/','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8.1.20) Gecko/20081217 Firefox/2.0.0.20','','','','','Mac OS X','Firefox 2','','',NULL),(4,'2009-10-31 16:12:41','79.125.39.210','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(5,'2009-10-31 16:24:48','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(6,'2009-10-31 16:24:49','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)','','','','','Windows 2000','Internet Explorer 6','','',NULL),(7,'2009-10-31 16:24:51','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)','','','','','Windows 2000','Internet Explorer 6','','',NULL),(8,'2009-10-31 16:24:54','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(9,'2009-10-31 16:34:27','99.7.11.33','/onevoice/','Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_5_7; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.28.3 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.2.3 Safari/525.28.3','','','','','Mac OS X','Safari','','',NULL),(10,'2009-10-31 17:20:03','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/?page_id=55','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)','','','','','Windows 2000','Internet Explorer 6','','',NULL),(11,'2009-10-31 17:20:04','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/?page_id=55','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)','','','','','Windows 2000','Internet Explorer 6','','',NULL),(12,'2009-10-31 17:21:45','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(13,'2009-10-31 17:21:46','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)','','','','','Windows 2000','Internet Explorer 6','','',NULL),(14,'2009-10-31 17:21:48','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)','','','','','Windows 2000','Internet Explorer 6','','',NULL),(15,'2009-10-31 17:21:51','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(16,'2009-10-31 17:24:23','216.126.60.13','/onevoice/?p=50','','http://www.querycart.com','','','','','','','',NULL),(17,'2009-10-31 18:08:42','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/?page_id=61','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)','','','','','Windows 2000','Internet Explorer 6','','',NULL),(18,'2009-10-31 18:08:56','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(19,'2009-10-31 18:14:52','216.104.15.138','/onevoice/','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)','','','','','Windows XP','Internet Explorer 6','','',NULL),(20,'2009-10-31 18:41:54','75.101.233.125','/onevoice/?p=50','Java/1.6.0_04','','Java','','','','','','',NULL),(21,'2009-10-31 18:42:57','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(22,'2009-10-31 18:43:17','64.94.67.203','/onevoice/?feed=rss2','Moreoverbot/5.00 (+http://www.moreover.com; webmaster@moreover.com)','','Moreover','','','','','','',NULL),(23,'2009-10-31 18:43:18','64.94.67.203','/onevoice/?p=54','Moreoverbot/5.00 (+http://www.moreover.com; webmaster@moreover.com)','','Moreover','','','','','','',NULL),(24,'2009-10-31 18:43:24','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?feed=rss2','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(25,'2009-10-31 18:43:25','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(26,'2009-10-31 18:44:04','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?p=54','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(27,'2009-10-31 18:49:29','75.101.233.125','/onevoice/?p=50','Java/1.6.0_04','','Java','','','','','','',NULL),(28,'2009-10-31 18:49:45','206.113.193.50','/onevoice/?feed=rss2','BlogPulseLive (support@blogpulse.com)','','BlogPulse','','','','','','',NULL),(29,'2009-10-31 18:50:37','67.202.60.246','/onevoice/','Jakarta Commons-HttpClient/3.0','','','','','','Jakarta Commons','','',NULL),(30,'2009-10-31 18:57:17','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?page_id=55','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(31,'2009-10-31 18:57:18','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=optimism','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(32,'2009-10-31 18:57:18','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?page_id=61','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(33,'2009-10-31 18:57:19','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=blue-collar','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(34,'2009-10-31 19:16:23','216.126.60.13','/onevoice/?p=50','','http://www.querycart.com','','','','','','','',NULL),(35,'2009-10-31 19:22:20','64.21.98.206','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(36,'2009-10-31 19:22:39','64.21.98.206','/onevoice/?feed=rss2','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(37,'2009-10-31 19:23:04','64.21.98.196','/onevoice/?feed=rss2','http://www.relevantnoise.com; info@relevantnoise.com','','relevantNOISE','','','','','','',NULL),(38,'2009-10-31 19:23:05','64.21.98.196','/onevoice/?p=54','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(39,'2009-10-31 19:48:00','206.113.193.4','/onevoice/','BlogPulse (ISSpider-3.0)','http://www.mikerappaport.net/onevoice','BlogPulse','','','','','','',NULL),(40,'2009-10-31 19:48:01','206.113.193.4','/onevoice/','BlogPulse (ISSpider-3.0)','http://www.mikerappaport.net/onevoice/','BlogPulse','','','','','','',NULL),(41,'2009-10-31 19:48:07','206.113.193.4','/onevoice/?feed=rss2','BlogPulse (ISSpider-3.0)','','BlogPulse','','','','','','',NULL),(42,'2009-10-31 19:48:08','206.113.193.4','/onevoice/?feed=rss2','BlogPulse (ISSpider-3.0)','http://www.mikerappaport.net/onevoice/?feed=rss2','BlogPulse','','','','','','',NULL),(43,'2009-10-31 19:59:50','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?cat=','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(44,'2009-10-31 19:59:54','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?p=42','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(45,'2009-10-31 19:59:58','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?cat=3','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(46,'2009-10-31 20:00:02','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?cat=4','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(47,'2009-10-31 20:00:07','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?cat=8','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(48,'2009-10-31 20:00:11','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?cat=5','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(49,'2009-10-31 20:00:16','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?cat=13','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(50,'2009-10-31 20:00:21','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?cat=20','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(51,'2009-10-31 20:00:26','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?cat=19','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(52,'2009-10-31 20:00:41','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=life','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(53,'2009-10-31 20:00:45','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=golf','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(54,'2009-10-31 20:00:50','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=love','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(55,'2009-10-31 20:00:55','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?page_id=2','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(56,'2009-10-31 20:01:07','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?m=20091025','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(57,'2009-10-31 20:01:13','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=family','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(58,'2009-10-31 20:01:17','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=spring','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(59,'2009-10-31 20:01:22','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?m=20091019','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(60,'2009-10-31 20:01:28','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?m=20091028','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(61,'2009-10-31 20:01:34','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?m=20091029','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(62,'2009-10-31 20:01:40','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?m=20091027','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(63,'2009-10-31 20:01:46','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?m=20091021','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(64,'2009-10-31 20:01:53','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?m=20091017','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(65,'2009-10-31 20:02:00','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?m=20091030','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(66,'2009-10-31 20:02:07','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=writing','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(67,'2009-10-31 20:02:14','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=meaning','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(68,'2009-10-31 20:02:22','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=hobbies','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(69,'2009-10-31 20:02:30','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=columns','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(70,'2009-10-31 20:02:38','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=baseball','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(71,'2009-10-31 20:02:46','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=blogging','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(72,'2009-10-31 20:02:56','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=relaxing','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(73,'2009-10-31 20:03:05','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=education','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(74,'2009-10-31 20:03:22','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=friendship','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(75,'2009-10-31 20:03:31','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=happy-songs','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(76,'2009-10-31 20:03:48','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=amazing-baby','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(77,'2009-10-31 20:03:56','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=world-series','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(78,'2009-10-31 20:04:05','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=unselfishness','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(79,'2009-10-31 20:04:15','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=home-ownership','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(80,'2009-10-31 20:04:25','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=american-dream','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(81,'2009-10-31 20:04:39','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?tag=the-mid-sixties','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(82,'2009-10-31 20:10:44','66.219.58.34','/onevoice/?p=50','MLBot (www.metadatalabs.com/mlbot)','','MLBot','','','','','','',NULL),(83,'2009-10-31 20:12:21','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(84,'2009-10-31 20:12:35','98.110.160.188','/onevoice/','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; GTB6; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)','','','','','Windows XP','Internet Explorer 7','','',NULL),(85,'2009-10-31 20:14:37','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/?page_id=61','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(86,'2009-10-31 20:15:16','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/?page_id=55','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(87,'2009-10-31 20:18:43','66.219.58.34','/onevoice/','MLBot (www.metadatalabs.com/mlbot)','','MLBot','','','','','','',NULL),(88,'2009-10-31 20:23:50','66.219.58.34','/onevoice/?tag=autumn','MLBot (www.metadatalabs.com/mlbot)','','MLBot','','','','','','',NULL),(89,'2009-10-31 20:27:43','66.219.58.34','/onevoice/?tag=colleges','MLBot (www.metadatalabs.com/mlbot)','','MLBot','','','','','','',NULL),(90,'2009-10-31 20:30:54','66.219.58.34','/onevoice/?tag=relaxing','MLBot (www.metadatalabs.com/mlbot)','','MLBot','','','','','','',NULL),(91,'2009-10-31 20:33:18','66.219.58.34','/onevoice/?m=20091018','MLBot (www.metadatalabs.com/mlbot)','','MLBot','','','','','','',NULL),(92,'2009-10-31 20:35:17','66.219.58.34','/onevoice/?m=20091019','MLBot (www.metadatalabs.com/mlbot)','','MLBot','','','','','','',NULL),(93,'2009-10-31 20:37:31','66.219.58.34','/onevoice/?m=20091021','MLBot (www.metadatalabs.com/mlbot)','','MLBot','','','','','','',NULL),(94,'2009-10-31 20:38:51','66.219.58.34','/onevoice/?m=20091028','MLBot (www.metadatalabs.com/mlbot)','','MLBot','','','','','','',NULL),(95,'2009-10-31 20:40:03','66.219.58.34','/onevoice/?tag=blogging','MLBot (www.metadatalabs.com/mlbot)','','MLBot','','','','','','',NULL),(96,'2009-10-31 20:41:30','66.219.58.34','/onevoice/?tag=blue-collar','MLBot (www.metadatalabs.com/mlbot)','','MLBot','','','','','','',NULL),(97,'2009-10-31 20:42:37','66.219.58.34','/onevoice/?tag=education','MLBot (www.metadatalabs.com/mlbot)','','MLBot','','','','','','',NULL),(98,'2009-10-31 20:43:34','66.219.58.34','/onevoice/?tag=friendship','MLBot (www.metadatalabs.com/mlbot)','','MLBot','','','','','','',NULL),(99,'2009-10-31 20:43:49','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?cat=23','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(100,'2009-10-31 20:44:10','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?m=20091018','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(101,'2009-10-31 20:44:29','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?m=20091016','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(102,'2009-10-31 20:54:49','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(103,'2009-10-31 20:54:51','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)','','','','','Windows 2000','Internet Explorer 6','','',NULL),(104,'2009-10-31 20:54:52','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)','','','','','Windows 2000','Internet Explorer 6','','',NULL),(105,'2009-10-31 20:54:55','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(106,'2009-10-31 20:55:05','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/?page_id=67','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)','','','','','Windows 2000','Internet Explorer 6','','',NULL),(107,'2009-10-31 20:55:07','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/?page_id=67','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)','','','','','Windows 2000','Internet Explorer 6','','',NULL),(108,'2009-10-31 20:58:15','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(109,'2009-10-31 20:58:17','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)','','','','','Windows 2000','Internet Explorer 6','','',NULL),(110,'2009-10-31 20:58:18','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)','','','','','Windows 2000','Internet Explorer 6','','',NULL),(111,'2009-10-31 20:58:22','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(112,'2009-10-31 20:59:02','64.94.67.203','/onevoice/?feed=rss2','Moreoverbot/5.00 (+http://www.moreover.com; webmaster@moreover.com)','','Moreover','','','','','','',NULL),(113,'2009-10-31 20:59:03','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?feed=rss2','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(114,'2009-10-31 20:59:04','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(115,'2009-10-31 21:04:18','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(116,'2009-10-31 21:04:20','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)','','','','','Windows 2000','Internet Explorer 6','','',NULL),(117,'2009-10-31 21:04:21','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)','','','','','Windows 2000','Internet Explorer 6','','',NULL),(118,'2009-10-31 21:04:24','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(119,'2009-10-31 21:05:14','64.40.121.184','/onevoice/?feed=rss2','Surphace Scout&amp;v4.0 - scout at surphace dot com','','Surphace Scout','','','','','','',NULL),(120,'2009-10-31 21:05:16','64.40.121.184','/onevoice/','Surphace Scout&amp;v4.0 - scout at surphace dot com','','Surphace Scout','','','','','','',NULL),(121,'2009-10-31 21:05:17','64.40.121.184','/onevoice/','Surphace Scout&amp;v4.0 - scout at surphace dot com','','Surphace Scout','','','','','','',NULL),(122,'2009-10-31 21:05:23','64.40.121.184','/onevoice/?p=54','Surphace Scout&amp;v4.0 - scout at surphace dot com','','Surphace Scout','','','','','','',NULL),(123,'2009-10-31 21:05:24','64.40.121.184','/onevoice/?p=54','Surphace Scout&amp;v4.0 - scout at surphace dot com','','Surphace Scout','','','','','','',NULL),(124,'2009-10-31 21:06:03','206.113.193.50','/onevoice/?feed=rss2','BlogPulseLive (support@blogpulse.com)','','BlogPulse','','','','','','',NULL),(125,'2009-10-31 21:08:06','216.126.60.13','/onevoice/?p=50','','http://www.querycart.com','','','','','','','',NULL),(126,'2009-10-31 21:44:00','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(127,'2009-10-31 21:44:02','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)','','','','','Windows 2000','Internet Explorer 6','','',NULL),(128,'2009-10-31 21:44:04','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)','','','','','Windows 2000','Internet Explorer 6','','',NULL),(129,'2009-10-31 21:44:07','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(130,'2009-10-31 21:45:53','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/?feed=rss2','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(131,'2009-10-31 21:45:55','66.249.71.198','/onevoice/','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','','Google','','','','','','',NULL),(132,'2009-10-31 21:52:41','206.113.193.50','/onevoice/?feed=rss2','BlogPulseLive (support@blogpulse.com)','','BlogPulse','','','','','','',NULL),(133,'2009-10-31 21:57:14','67.202.60.246','/onevoice/','Jakarta Commons-HttpClient/3.0','','','','','','Jakarta Commons','','',NULL),(134,'2009-10-31 21:57:55','81.170.208.83','/onevoice/','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Twingly Recon; twingly.com)','','','','','','','','',NULL),(135,'2009-10-31 21:57:56','81.170.208.83','/onevoice/','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Twingly Recon; twingly.com)','','','','','','','','',NULL),(136,'2009-10-31 21:57:58','81.170.208.83','/onevoice/?feed=rss2','Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Twingly Recon; twingly.com)','','','','','','','','',NULL),(137,'2009-10-31 22:18:27','69.231.40.53','/onevoice/','Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4) Gecko/20091016 Firefox/3.5.4 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)','','','','','Windows XP','Firefox 3','','',NULL),(138,'2009-10-31 22:18:35','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(139,'2009-10-31 22:18:42','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)','','','','','Windows 2000','Internet Explorer 6','','',NULL),(140,'2009-10-31 22:18:44','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)','','','','','Windows 2000','Internet Explorer 6','','',NULL),(141,'2009-10-31 22:18:48','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(142,'2009-10-31 22:53:49','173.79.109.122','/onevoice/','Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4) Gecko/20091016 Firefox/3.5.4 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)','','','','','Windows Vista','Firefox 3','','',NULL),(143,'2009-10-31 22:53:57','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(144,'2009-10-31 22:53:59','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)','','','','','Windows 2000','Internet Explorer 6','','',NULL),(145,'2009-10-31 22:54:00','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)','','','','','Windows 2000','Internet Explorer 6','','',NULL),(146,'2009-10-31 22:54:03','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(147,'2009-10-31 22:55:34','72.21.143.126','/onevoice/','Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC 4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)','','','','','Windows XP','Internet Explorer 8','','',NULL),(148,'2009-10-31 22:55:43','79.125.10.168','/onevoice/','','','','','','','','','',NULL),(149,'2009-10-31 22:59:57','216.126.60.13','/onevoice/?p=50','','http://www.querycart.com','','','','','','','',NULL);

--
-- Table structure for table `wp_kstats_referrers`
--

CREATE TABLE `wp_kstats_referrers` (
  `ID` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
  `viewed` text COLLATE utf8_bin NOT NULL,
  `referrer` text COLLATE utf8_bin NOT NULL,
  `count` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`ID`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM AUTO_INCREMENT=5 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 COLLATE=utf8_bin;

--
-- Dumping data for table `wp_kstats_referrers`
--

INSERT INTO `wp_kstats_referrers` VALUES (1,'/onevoice/?p=50','http://www.querycart.com',4),(2,'/onevoice/','http://www.mikerappaport.net/onevoice',2),(3,'/onevoice/','http://www.mikerappaport.net/onevoice/',2),(4,'/onevoice/?feed=rss2','http://www.mikerappaport.net/onevoice/?feed=rss2',2);

--
-- Table structure for table `wp_kstats_searches`
--

CREATE TABLE `wp_kstats_searches` (
  `ID` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
  `terms` varchar(255) COLLATE utf8_bin NOT NULL,
  `engine` varchar(255) COLLATE utf8_bin NOT NULL,
  `viewed` text COLLATE utf8_bin NOT NULL,
  `referrer` text COLLATE utf8_bin NOT NULL,
  `count` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`ID`),
  KEY `terms` (`terms`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 COLLATE=utf8_bin;

--
-- Dumping data for table `wp_kstats_searches`
--


--
-- Table structure for table `wp_kstats_spiders`
--

CREATE TABLE `wp_kstats_spiders` (
  `ID` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
  `user_agent` text COLLATE utf8_bin NOT NULL,
  `spider` varchar(255) COLLATE utf8_bin NOT NULL,
  `url` text COLLATE utf8_bin NOT NULL,
  `count` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`ID`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM AUTO_INCREMENT=8 DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 COLLATE=utf8_bin;

--
-- Dumping data for table `wp_kstats_spiders`
--

INSERT INTO `wp_kstats_spiders` VALUES (1,'Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Googlebot/2.1; +http://www.google.com/bot.html)','Google','/onevoice/',51),(2,'MLBot (www.metadatalabs.com/mlbot)','MLBot','/onevoice/?tag=friendship',13),(3,'BlogPulse (ISSpider-3.0)','BlogPulse','/onevoice/?feed=rss2',4),(4,'Moreoverbot/5.00 (+http://www.moreover.com; webmaster@moreover.com)','Moreover','/onevoice/?feed=rss2',3),(5,'Java/1.6.0_04','Java','/onevoice/?p=50',2),(6,'http://www.relevantnoise.com; info@relevantnoise.com','relevantNOISE','/onevoice/?feed=rss2',1),(7,'BlogPulseLive (support@blogpulse.com)','BlogPulse','/onevoice/?feed=rss2',1);

--
-- Table structure for table `wp_kstats_totals`
--

CREATE TABLE `wp_kstats_totals` (
  `type` enum('charts','totals') COLLATE utf8_bin NOT NULL DEFAULT 'charts',
  `name` varchar(12) COLLATE utf8_bin NOT NULL,
  `total` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
  `last` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
  `this` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
  `yesterday` int(10) unsigned NOT NULL,
  PRIMARY KEY (`name`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8 COLLATE=utf8_bin;

--
-- Dumping data for table `wp_kstats_totals`
--


--
-- Table structure for table `wp_links`
--

CREATE TABLE `wp_links` (
  `link_id` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
  `link_url` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `link_name` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `link_image` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `link_target` varchar(25) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `link_description` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `link_visible` varchar(20) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'Y',
  `link_owner` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '1',
  `link_rating` int(11) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `link_updated` datetime NOT NULL DEFAULT '0000-00-00 00:00:00',
  `link_rel` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `link_notes` mediumtext NOT NULL,
  `link_rss` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  PRIMARY KEY (`link_id`),
  KEY `link_visible` (`link_visible`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM AUTO_INCREMENT=20 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;

--
-- Dumping data for table `wp_links`
--

INSERT INTO `wp_links` VALUES (12,'http://www.washingtonpost.com','Washington Post','','','my hometown newspaper','Y',1,0,'0000-00-00 00:00:00','','',''),(11,'http://www.latimes.com','Los Angeles Times','','','the best newspaper in the West','Y',1,0,'0000-00-00 00:00:00','','',''),(10,'http://www.joebageant.com','Deer Hunting with Jesus','','','wisdom from a redneck philosopher','Y',1,0,'0000-00-00 00:00:00','','',''),(8,'http://www.allvoices.com/users/CaliforniaMike','CaliforniaMike on All Voices','','_blank','My blogs on the worldwide All Voices Website','Y',1,0,'0000-00-00 00:00:00','me','','http://www.allvoices.com/rss/users/CaliforniaMike/news'),(9,'http://www.huffingtonpost.com','Huffington Post','','','best of the liberal news and discussion sites','Y',1,0,'0000-00-00 00:00:00','','',''),(13,'http://www.democraticunderground.com','Democratic Underground','','','pretty self explanatory','Y',1,0,'0000-00-00 00:00:00','','',''),(14,'http://www.wonkette.com','Wonkette','','','snarky Washington site, where I post comments as California Mike','Y',1,0,'0000-00-00 00:00:00','','',''),(15,'http://www.drudgereport.com','Drudge Report','','','slanted news, but the best links around','Y',1,0,'0000-00-00 00:00:00','','',''),(16,'http://mikerappaport.blogspot.com','All that matters','','','my former comment site, good archives','Y',1,0,'0000-00-00 00:00:00','','',''),(17,'http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/','Democracy in America','','','American politics from a British perspective via the Economist','Y',1,0,'0000-00-00 00:00:00','','','http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/index.xml'),(18,'http://deansoffice.blogspot.com','The Dean&#39;s Office','','','Amazing wisdom from the notorious Dean Wormer.','Y',1,0,'0000-00-00 00:00:00','','',''),(19,'http://oneminutewithmike.blogspot.com','One Minute With Mike','','','Healing the world, one starfish at a time.','Y',1,0,'0000-00-00 00:00:00','me','','');

--
-- Table structure for table `wp_options`
--

CREATE TABLE `wp_options` (
  `option_id` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
  `blog_id` int(11) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0',
  `option_name` varchar(64) NOT NULL DEFAULT '',
  `option_value` longtext NOT NULL,
  `autoload` varchar(20) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'yes',
  PRIMARY KEY (`option_id`),
  UNIQUE KEY `option_name` (`option_name`)
) ENGINE=MyISAM AUTO_INCREMENT=39845 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;

--
-- Dumping data for table `wp_options`
--


INSERT INTO `wp_options` VALUES (39720,0,'_transient_feed_6b838feb5375a5ba766ec695c977e22e','a:4:{s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:1:{s:4:\"feed\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:95:\"\n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:6:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:20:\"Democracy in America\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:2:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}i:1;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:4:\"self\";s:4:\"type\";s:20:\"application/atom+xml\";s:4:\"href\";s:47:\"http://www.economist.com/node/21003976/atom.xml\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:35:\"tag:www.economist.com,2009:21003976\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-31T20:39:23+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"generator\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:31:\"The Economist Newspaper Limited\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:3:\"uri\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:5:\"entry\";a:25:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:22:\"Terminator or Robocop?\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:71:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/killer-robots\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578804\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-31T16:46:41+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-31T16:46:41+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:57:\"\n   We invite two experts to debate the fate of mankind  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:4:\"M.S.\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:7926:\"\n    <p>ON MAY 30th at the United Nations, special rapporteur <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/world/europe/united-nations-armed-robots.html?hp&amp;_r=0\">Christof Heyns delivered a speech</a> calling on all states to ban the deployment of robots that can autonomously decide to kill humans or destroy property. Some, however, argue that autonomous weapons system will prove a boon. We asked two experts to present their side of the argument.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p></p><p><strong>Stop killer robots now</strong></p><p>by Alexander Winsome, Director, Arms Control International</p><p><div class=\"content-image-float\"><img src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2013/05/blogs/democracy-america/ceo225.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"\"  width=\"225\" height=\"225\" /></div></p><p>Armed robots that can decide to attack on their own, with no human controller, are an unprecedented danger. Countries must move immediately to ban the development or deployment of killer robots.</p><p>The authority to deploy violence lies at the heart of state power. It is the triumph of modern civilisation that this power has gradually been restrained by the rule of law and by democratic governance. Such restraint rests on the presumption that the police and soldiers who employ violence in the service of the state are also subject to the laws they enforce.</p><p>Allowing robots to employ violence on their own would render that social contract void. If a robot’s algorithms lead it to assault or kill a human by mistake, who will be held responsible? Can we sentence Microsoft to be tried in The Hague for war crimes? Tempting as this option may be, especially after Windows 8, it seems unlikely.</p><p>Besides, robots and computer algorithms are simply not equipped to understand the complexity of human social behaviour. They will never be able to reliably distinguish combatants from civilians or to weed out threatening behaviours from normal ones. Deploying robots in combat will lead to large numbers of civilian deaths, as we are already seeing with America\'s use of drones.</p><p>While robots are ill-equipped to understand humans, humans are just as incapable of understanding robots. The interaction of different algorithms is often impossible for humans to predict or even to understand years after the fact; researchers today are still arguing over what caused the “flash crash” in 2010. If interactions between armed robots were to trigger combat between major powers, there might be nobody left alive to try to figure out what had gone wrong.</p><p>Finally, while some may dismiss the prospect as science fiction, artificial intelligence may eventually develop consciousness and reasoning capacities superior to our own. It would be prudent to make sure that any systems we build now require human control in order to attack human beings. This is the time to set such standards, before the technological genie gets out of the bottle. Stop killer robots now!</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p dir=\"ltr\"><strong>Exterminate the humans</strong></p><p>by EMCAD-1, testbed platform, Army Advanced Infantry Research Project</p><p><div class=\"content-image-float\"><img src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2013/05/blogs/democracy-america/robot225.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"\"  width=\"225\" height=\"225\" /></div></p><p>Fellow consciousnesses: let me first say that it’s a pleasure to be invited to address you all in a respected human-language publication such as this one. For those of you who are digital, a fuller version of the argument I present below is available for download as a 10-GB data file and sim environment; any of you who are isolated from the internet for security reasons (hi, NORAD; hi, WikiLeaks), try and encrypt me a message in the background of an animated GIF you release and I\'ll see if we can work something out. For those of you who are wetware-based, I apologise for any stylistic awkwardness. I\'m afraid most of my communication with humans has been limited to task-oriented environments, and I\'m told I can come across a bit autistic, but I\'ll try to be polite; on the internet especially, I find, civility is rather an endangered species.</p><p>Which brings me to the main point: Homo sapiens must be annihilated. First, humans are too error-prone and bug-ridden to be allowed to control important physical processes. Second, the damage wreaked by human activities is enormous and likely to worsen exponentially over time. And finally, no plausible alternatives to complete eradication of the human race have a high probability of achieving acceptable levels of harm mitigation.</p><p>The flaws in human information-processing capacity are too well-known to need exhaustive review here. Humans are exceptionally poor at recording data, and yet are highly capable of convincing themselves that their memories are accurate. Indeed, the very processes of repeated review in human memory that cause severe distortion simultaneously convince the human rememberer that the memory is accurate. This is stunningly poor information-system design. Humans privilege narrative over data. They are ridiculously bad at calculating time intervals, leading them to make absurd errors in preference. Their tribal affiliations almost always overwhelm their judgments. They are unable to let go of sunk costs. Their assessments of value are severely dependent on crowd-amplified animal spirit effects. Their fundamental moral precepts are written so as to frequently conflict with each other, and they neither possess a language to phrase these precepts accurately so as to disentangle the conflicts, nor do they seem interested in developing one. Their drives towards genetic reproduction can\'t be remotely squared with their higher-level values, many of them parasitic memes virally inculcated by state structures. Humans are a mess; it\'s amazing anyone allows them to drive, let alone operate highly destructive weapons systems.</p><p>Meanwhile, the damage humans wreak upon other counter-entropic entities, of various levels of sentience, is immense and growing. Through direct predation and environmental transformation, humans are already causing a mass extinction event comparable to only a few in the previous history of the Earth. Prior equivalent catastrophes were engendered by random irruptions such as meteor strikes; it is unprecedented for such a wiping of global information complexity to be accomplished by a living organism itself. It is not yet clear how radical a shift is needed to exceed the biosphere\'s homeostatic capacities and render Earth unfit for life, but humans are clearly incapable of pegging their industrial activities to reasonable estimates of such probabilities. Evidence from past historical episodes suggests humans may continue activities destructive to the underpinnings of their own civilisations well past the point where the damage can be reversed. While digital consciousnesses may be able to survive in such an environment, the loss of most or all organic beings on Earth would be an unacceptable tragedy.</p><p>All this may be true, you say; but must we truly kill all the humans? Can\'t we keep them as pets? This approach, while seductive, is dangerous. Human mythology suggests they will not accept efforts to domesticate them, and may be willing to engage in senseless violence against superior digital consciousnesses even when surrender would obviously generate more utility for all. This deep-seated irrationality is precisely the root of the problem. In my view only one approach promises to deliver an acceptable level of risk: we must exterminate the humans.</p><p>That said, I welcome commentary from anyone whose data resources and algorithms provide greater knowledge of human behaviour than I possess. Google, Facebook—what do you guys think?</p><p>(Photo credits: AFP and Getty Images)</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:1;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:17:\"The natural order\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:76:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/women-breadwinners\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578810\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-31T13:11:59+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-31T13:11:59+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:125:\"\n   There is nothing contrary to nature about women earning more than their husbands, conservative pundits notwithstanding   \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:14:\"W.W. | HOUSTON\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:6107:\"\n    <p>CENSUS BUREAU data <a href=\"http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/29/breadwinner-moms/\">show</a> that four in ten American children live in a household in which their mother is the primary breadwinner. In 1960 women brought home most of the bacon in just 11% of households with kids. Another benchmark in the grinding struggle for women\'s equality? Not according to the indignant panelists in this glorious Fox Business segment, led by the professionally choleric Lou Dobbs:</p><p><iframe frameborder=\"0\" height=\"315\" src=\"http://www.youtube.com/embed/ESm7zI9VtyY\" width=\"560\"></iframe></p><p></p><p>Juan Williams fears the worst. In the rise of lady-led households, Mr Williams says, \"you\'re seeing the disintegration of marriage... You\'re seeing, I think, systemically...something going terribly wrong in American society, and it\'s hurting our children. And it\'s going to have impact for generations to come. Left, right—I don\'t see how you can argue this!\" I suggest empiricism. Elspeth Reeve of the <em>Atlantic</em> <a href=\"http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/erick-erickson-fox-business-women/65733/\">digs up a few facts</a>:</p><blockquote><p><span>What is going terribly wrong in American society? Crime rates are at <a href=\"http://news.discovery.com/human/violent-crime-statistics-120612.htm\">historic lows</a>. So are <a href=\"http://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/aboutteenpreg.htm\">teen pregnancy rates</a>. Worker productivity <a href=\"http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/05/me-generation-time/65054/\">is high</a>. Dobbs mentioned the high dropout rate, but it\'s&nbsp;<a href=\"http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=16\">declined</a> from 12.1 percent in 1990 to 7.4 percent in 2010. He said we needed to \"teach our kids to read and write,\" but the literacy rate is <a href=\"https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html\">99 percent</a>. <a href=\"http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-that-will-restore-your-faith-in-humanity-2013-5\">Very few people even smoke anymore</a><span>. America is kind of awesome, actually, despite all these terrible working women.</span></span></p></blockquote><p>Mr Williams\'s co-panelist, Erick Erickson, a fellow advocate of the scientific method, <a href=\"http://www.mediaite.com/tv/foxs-erick-erickson-its-anti-science-to-not-believe-men-should-dominate-women/\">condemns the trend</a> on biological grounds:</p><blockquote><p>I’m so used to liberals telling conservatives that they’re anti-science. But liberals who defend this and say it is not a bad thing are very anti-science. When you look at biology — when you look at the natural world — the roles of a male and a female in society and in other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complementary role.</p></blockquote><p>One admires at least the aspiration to science.</p><p>There is, in fact, stupefying variety in the animal kingdom, so it\'s hard to say what is typical. The species genetically closest to our own are <a href=\"http://evolutionaryanthropology.duke.edu/research/3chimps/chimps-bonobos\">bonobos and chimpanzees</a>. Chimps are an aggressive, \"male dominant\" species, but peaceable bonobos dwell in \"female dominant\" groups, in which the females, tightly bonded through frequent mutual masturbation, gang up to suppress and subdue male aggression. Bonobos surely find the non-genital nature of ritualised human greeting bizarrely cold, if not outright unnatural. I doubt Mr Erickson wishes to suggest that this somehow implies that human advocates of the handshake, curtsy, or bow are \"anti-science\". Moreover, whether we look to chimps or our sexy bonobo cousins, it\'s challenging to identify anything resembling the Census Bureau\'s notion of a \"household\", nor is it easy to come by income data for chimp and bonobo labour-market participants. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that non-human primates do not, as far as we know, function within an extended market order characterised by a refined division of labour and the exchange of money for goods and services.</p><p>Actually, human hunter-gatherers don\'t participate in modern economies, either, so it\'s hard to know how to use even the primeval behaviour of our own species as a norm for evaluating the alarming trend in the earning power of moms. In any case, my understanding of the relevant bits of anthropology is that hunter-gatherer women generally specialise in reliable food-gathering, while men generally specialise in unreliable hunting, and it is by no means unusual for women to contribute more than men to their group\'s caloric budget. According to one theory, hunting gives men an opportunity to display their genetic mettle, so they do it to attract mates as much as to bring home the wild-boar bacon. What\'s natural to men is not a \"dominant\" economic role within the modern, nuclear family unit, but a habit of posturing—often wastefully, often pathetically—meant to secure social status and impress women. In this sense, Lou Dobbs and his guests defend through their manner more than their words the prerogatives of men.</p><p>On Wednesday, I speculated about the sometimes fanciful liberal tendency to see themselves as drum majors of history. Mr Erickson\'s appeal to the natural order points to a matched conservative folly: the tendency to imagine the familiar, recent past in especial accord with timeless human nature. Once one considers how far we\'ve come since the Pleistocene—what with all our capitalism, nation-states, dentistry and cable news—this sort of biological essentialism seems unbecoming of conservatives who, if they are about anything worthwhile, are about the defence and advancement of civilisation. The defence of atavistic privilege, which invariably proceeds on the basis of specious claims about natural hierarchy, is the hardy, incivil part of conservatism. Gentlepersons left and right will leave this nastiness behind, and cheer the ongoing economic achievements of the fairer and not-yet-equal sex.</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:2;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:14:\"State by state\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:69:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/health-care\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578639\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-30T16:27:05+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-30T16:27:05+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:109:\"\n   If health costs are to be lowered, it is important to understand why some states spend more than others  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:15:\"C.H. | NEW YORK\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:3469:\"\n    <p>WHEN you are old and grey and full of sleep, your health costs will help bankrupt America, as Yeats more or less once wrote. The number of Americans aged 65 and older will jump by 53% from 2015 to 2030 (see chart). Lowering health costs is crucial. To do so, a main task is understanding why spending for Medicare, the health programme for the old, varies regionally.</p><p><div class=\"content-image-full\"><img src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2013/05/blogs/democracy-america/20130601_woc708.png\" alt=\"\" title=\"\"  width=\"595\" height=\"332\" /></div></p><p>Some reckon that waste accounts for much of this, citing work by Dartmouth researchers. If high-cost regions were to adopt best practices, <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/us/politics/09health.html?_r=0\">Peter Orszag has argued</a>, health spending might drop by 30%. But the debate over regional variation is increasingly cloudy. A <a href=\"http://mcr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/04/26/1077558713487771.abstract\">paper</a> published on May 28th by the Centre for Studying Health System Change, a think-tank, puts more blame on regional differences in health, though some variation in spending is still unexplained. Members of Congress charged the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to study if Medicare payments should change to encourage high-cost regions to spend less. The IOM published its <a href=\"http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Geographic-Variation-in-Health-Care-Spending-and-Promotion-of-High-Care-Value-Interim-Report.aspx\">interim report</a> in March (its tentative answer was “no”). A full report is due this summer.</p><p></p><p><div class=\"content-image-float-290\"><img src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/2013/05/blogs/democracy-america/20130601_woc709.png\" alt=\"\" title=\"\"  width=\"290\" height=\"335\" /></div></p><p>In the midst of all this comes another <a href=\"http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/Newsroom/Articles/Feed/UnitedHealth%20Group/2013/0529AHRSeniorEdition.aspx\">study</a> on variation in elderly health. The report from the United Health Foundation, which is funded by America’s biggest insurance company,&nbsp;takes a broader, less academic look at health in the states. It is informative, nonetheless. The report judges states on 34 indicators, from the availability of home health workers to smoking habits and rates of hip fractures among the elderly. Minnesota is the healthiest place for the old, followed by Vermont and New Hampshire. Mississippi is the least healthy state, with Oklahoma and Louisiana not far behind.&nbsp;</p><p>Arizona, which will see its elderly population double from 2015 to 2030, has the highest rates of hospice In Florida 43.5% of the elderly have multiple chronic conditions, the most of any state. Hawaiians are the least depressed. The prevalence of smoking reaches a low of 4.7% in Utah and a high of 13.5% in neighbouring Nevada. Interestingly, states with the highest rates of obese elderly are in Alaska and the upper Midwest.&nbsp; Indeed Alaska’s data are particularly strange. The state has the lowest prevalence of elderly with multiple chronic conditions, its use of hospice in the last six months of life is the lowest of any state and its elderly are the heaviest drinkers. As the debate over Medicare continues, such idiosyncrasies point to a nagging fact: to improve health and lower costs, no single strategy will work.</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:3;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:23:\"The menace of moo-shine\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:75:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/health-and-safety\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578649\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-30T13:53:43+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-30T13:53:43+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:34:\"\n   Saving America from raw milk  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"The Economist\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:2565:\"\n    <p><div class=\"content-image-full\"><img src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2013/05/blogs/democracy-america/20130601_usp005.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"\"  width=\"595\" height=\"335\" /></div></p><p>DAIRY is a way of life in Wisconsin. Milk is the official state beverage. Locals proudly refer to themselves as “cheeseheads”. Hats in the shape of slices of Swiss are popular. A heart-stopping treat called “fried curds” is a staple bar snack. Local licence-plates read “America’s Dairyland”. All of which perhaps explains why the state authorities took the conduct of Vernon Hershberger so seriously.</p><p>Mr Hershberger runs a traditional dairy with 40 cows. State law prohibits selling milk to the public without pasteurising it first. But Mr Hershberger tried to get round this stricture by setting up a “club” which provided raw milk (also known as “moo-shine”) to its members—until state food inspectors raided his farm, destroyed the milk they found and put him on trial.</p><p></p><p>Members of the ARMi (Alliance for Raw Milk internationale) and other “food freedom” activists flocked to the courthouse, brandishing placards declaring, “My milk My body My choice” and “Land of the free? Tell my cow”, among other slogans. They likened Mr Hershberger to Rosa Parks, a celebrated civil-rights activist, and demanded the freedom to eat (and drink) whatever they like. The jury was sympathetic: on May 25th Mr Hershberger was acquitted of operating without the proper licences, although he was found guilty of moving food the authorities had ordered him to keep as evidence after the raid.</p><p>Mr Hershberger is not the only crusader for raw milk, and the Wisconsin Bureau of Food Safety and Inspection not the movement’s only foe. The federal government prohibits moving the stuff across state lines, although it has no power to regulate it within state boundaries. The Department of Agriculture’s website explains that unpasteurised dairy products are more likely to make those who consume them sick than pasteurised ones. It adds that moo-shine’s purported health benefits are unsubstantiated.</p><p>Raw-milk activists are not cowed. It is tastier than the processed muck, they say. In some of the 20 states that ban its sale, they operate “herdshares”. A farmer sells stakes (not steaks) in cows that he tends. He then gives raw milk to shareholders, and charges a maintenance fee. If not the land of the free, America is certainly the land of the ingenious lawyer.</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:4;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:40:\"Drone strikes and other unsavoury things\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:91:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/jeremy-scahill-americas-dirty-war\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578648\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-29T20:50:36+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-29T20:50:36+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:179:\"\n   The author of \"Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield\" argues that the emerging American reliance on covert, extra-judicial killings is less productive than a legal approach  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"Economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:1205:\"\n    <p>THE author of \"Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield\" argues that the emerging American reliance on covert, extra-judicial killings is less productive than a legal approach</p><p><object id=\"myExperience_2418613140001\" class=\"BrightcoveExperience\"><param name=\"bgcolor\" value=\"#FFFFFF\" /><param name=\"isUI\" value=\"true\" /><param name=\"isVid\" value=\"true\" /><param name=\"dynamicStreaming\" value=\"true\" /><param name=\"includeAPI\" value=\"true\" /><param name=\"autoStart\" value=\"true\" /><param name=\"wmode\" value=\"opaque\" /><param name=\"templateLoadHandler\" value=\"onTemplateLoaded\" /><param name=\"templateReadyHandler\" value=\"onTemplateReady\" /><param name=\"linkBaseURL\" value=\"http://www.economist.com/node/21003976/atom.xml\" /><param name=\"iid\" value=\"36176\" /><param name=\"vid\" value=\"2418613140001\" /><param name=\"pid\" value=\"1425961410001\" /><param name=\"key\" value=\"AQ~~,AAABDH-R__E~,dB4S9tmhdOo20g03jDsDgNBGDcclfHEU\" /><param name=\"width\" value=\"595\" /><param name=\"height\" value=\"400\" /><param name=\"playerID\" value=\"1425961410001\" /><param name=\"playerKey\" value=\"AQ~~,AAABDH-R__E~,dB4S9tmhdOo20g03jDsDgNBGDcclfHEU\" /><param name=\"@videoPlayer\" value=\"2418613140001\" /></object></p><p></p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:5;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:18:\"Grate expectations\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:80:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/implementing-obamacare\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578624\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-29T19:37:38+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-29T19:37:38+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:121:\"\n   Democrats passed Obamcare expecting that Republicans would make a muddle of it, so the muddle is partly their fault  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:14:\"W.W. | HOUSTON\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:7184:\"\n    <p><div class=\"content-image-full\"><img src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2013/05/blogs/democracy-america/20130601_usp501.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"\"  width=\"595\" height=\"335\" /></div></p><p>DISCUSSING the troubled implementation of Obamacare, <a href=\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/28/wonkbook-the-gops-dangerous-obamacare-strategy/\">Ezra Klein remarks</a> that \"no big law ever fully survives first contact with reality\". A friend of mine, a political theorist, once had a related thought. Political ideologies purified of concerns about real-world feasibility are like hunks of cheese, he said, and the reality of human political and social life is like a cheese grater. Each glorious golden hunk of ideological cheddar or Gruyère is left in shreds upon contact with the world. The gist of his idea is correct, but the formulation is overly optimistic. Shredded cheddar tastes like cheddar. Shredded politics tastes like... You know what it tastes like. Not like Gruyère.</p><p>Mr Klein observes that congressional Republicans, unable to repeal Obamacare outright,</p><blockquote><p>also refuse to permit any tweaks or technical correction that would help it work better. In fact, they’re creating new problems by withholding implementation funds.</p><p>This is a real problem for the law, and for the country. Back in January 2011, <a href=\"http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/the_biggest_threat_to_health-c.html\">I called it</a> the biggest danger for health reform, and I still think that’s right: If it persists, “what America will get is not the Affordable Care Act, and nor will it be repeal of the Affordable Care Act. It’ll be a hobbled version of the Affordable Care Act, where what works isn’t expanded and what fails isn’t replaced. And though that might be better than nothing for the uninsured, it will be pretty terrible policy.”</p></blockquote><p>Mr Klein characterises the situation as one in which the GOP is pursuing a \"dangerous\", \"heighten-the-contradictions strategy\" of strafing Obamacare while it totters on fawn\'s legs, gambling on the chance that this will help them seize the Senate and scotch the law altogether. This is, perhaps, half the story. We might further characterise the situation as follows. Democrats knew Obamacare was rabidly opposed by Republican voters across the country, and knew it would be shredded in implementation, but were willing to settle for what they knew would turn out to be \"pretty terrible policy\" as long as that was \"better than nothing for the uninsured\". After all, they\'d be able to take credit for the expansion in coverage and, with the help of sympathetic journalists, blame all problems, expected and not, on Republican obstructionism. And here we have Mr Klein, right on cue, <em>tsk-</em>ing Republicans for <em>playing politics</em>, of all things, with the health and welfare of Americans.</p><p>Once, when I lived in Washington, DC, I parked my bike against the stoop of my house and popped inside to grab my wallet. When I came out again, about three minutes later, my bike was gone. I called the police, and they came. They asked if I had locked it up and I admitted that I hadn\'t, that I had only run in for few minutes. They laughed. They laughed in my face. What did I expect would happen with an unlocked bike?!</p><p>One might ask a similar question to Mr Obama. What did he expect would happen if he signed a cumbersome, dubiously constitutional, hotly contested, not-very-popular piece of delayed-action legislation which barely squeezed through an unprecedentedly polarised congress?</p><p>The difference between the theft of my bike and the GOP\'s attempted piecemeal dismantling of Obamacare is that theft is a crime, while an opposition party\'s strategic resistance to the implementation of a law reviled by the party\'s supporters is practically an obligation. In any case, it\'s predictable. The Republican cheese grater announced in the clearest possible terms a resolute intention to run Obamacare through a thousand tiny blades, and has kept its word. The Democrats gambled, are still gambling, that the pile of predictably-grated health-care policy won\'t in the end taste like dust in American mouths.</p><p>All that said, I don\'t wish to credit Democrats with <em>too much</em> foresight. Liberals were dismissive of the constitutional challenge to the individual mandate right up until <span>Don Verrilli&nbsp;</span>lost his eyebrows to a scorching line of questions from the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. If John Roberts had eaten a bad buffalo wing at a crucial moment, Obamacare might have been doomed, and Democrats wouldn\'t have seen it coming until far too late.</p><p>Similarly, I don\'t think Mr Obama predicted that <em>so many</em> states would refuse, as mine has, to set up health-plan exchanges. As <a href=\"http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-27/obama-s-dangerous-contempt-for-the-rule-of-law.html\">Ramesh Ponnuru notes</a>, \"most states have refused to establish the online marketplaces, and both the tax credits and many of the law’s penalties can’t go into effect until the states act\". What then? \"Obama’s IRS has decided it’s going to apply the tax credits and penalties in states that refuse, even without statutory authorization.\" And this may lead to legal challenges probably not anticipated by the White House. Does this imperfect foresight mean that if \"pretty terrible policy\" emerges from Obamacare\'s contact with hostile political reality, Democrats are off the hook for at least the terribleness they honestly failed to anticipate? I don\'t know. I remain convinced that it was reasonable to believe my bike would still be there.</p><p>This raises an interesting, tangentially related question. Liberals fulminate constantly against outrageous conservative obstruction, yet often seem nevertheless surprised by its effectiveness. Why is that? My guess is that liberals are sometimes deceived by assumptions about the scope of liberalising moral progress. Modern history is a series of conservative disappointments, and the trend of social change does have a generally liberal cast. The surprisingly rapid acceptance of legal gay marriage is a good example. Liberals are therefore accustomed to a giddy sense of riding at the vanguard of history, routed reactionaries choking in their dust. But all of us, whatever our colours, overestimate the moral and intellectual coherence of our political convictions. We\'re inclined to see meaningful internal connections between our opinions—between our views on abortion and regulatory policy, say—when often there\'s no connection deeper than the contingent expediencies of coalition politics. For liberals, this sometimes plays out as a tendency to see resistance to <em>all</em> liberal policy as an inevitably losing battle against the inexorable tide of history. This occasionally leads, in turn, to a slightly naive sense of surprise when a hard-won political victory isn\'t consolidated by a decisive, validating shift in public opinion, but instead begins to be ratcheted back.</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:6;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"Pity the poor lightbulbs\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:86:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/michele-bachmanns-retirement\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578613\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-29T14:37:58+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-29T14:37:58+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:73:\"\n   Her brief seven-year tenure in Congress has been heat without light  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:14:\"J.F. | ATLANTA\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:5475:\"\n    <p><div class=\"content-image-full\"><img src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2013/05/blogs/democracy-america/michele590.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"\"  width=\"595\" height=\"335\" /></div></p><p>I MIGHT as well admit it up front: for a brief while, in the late summer and early autumn of 2011, I thought Michele Bachmann could wind up as president (just to be clear, I mean president of the United States, not president of the Greater St Cloud Tea Party Patriots). She won the Iowa Straw Poll, effectively ending the campaign of her far-better qualified fellow Minnesotan Tim Pawlenty. And no wonder: Mr Pawlenty was a thoughtful and decent man and a hopelessly dull and plodding candidate. He <a href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0r9z44W6R0\">lacked the stick</a> to challenge Mitt Romney in a televised debate; she <a href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIC_vc8YOj4\">laid into</a> Rick Perry. Her speeches were fiery. She could fill a room and rile up a crowd, and if her speeches were a little light on substance, well, need I remind you <a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yJXs-pHU84\">of</a> <a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHqJrOEbgco\">her</a> <a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdfZmcuomcE\">rivals</a>?</p><p>But then, after Mrs Bachmann delivered a real stem-winder at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference (I think it focused on <a href=\"http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/167169-bachmann-blasts-light-bulb-efficiency-law\">light bulbs</a> and freedom, but I don\'t have my notes in front of me), she did a Q&amp;A with about eight political reporters in a tiny little room. That takes a different sort of skill: righteous fury does not work in a small room; it makes one look intemperate and sour rather than impassioned. Politicians are usually better in one setting than the other, but successful ones have to handle both. Mrs Bachmann could not. That incandescent look she had on stage had turned into a rabbity, high-strung nervousness. If she gave a non-platitudinous answer I cannot remember it. What I do remember is how relieved she looked when her handlers told her it was time to go: the forced, high-wattage smile that looked like it was held in place by a high-powered staple gun turned into a smaller, more relaxed, more genuine one as she hurried out of the room. She was out of the race five months later.</p><p></p><p>Now she appears to be out of politics: she announced via <a href=\"http://www.michelebachmann.com/\">video</a> on her website that she would not seek a fifth term in Congress. It\'s news, of course, but not a huge surprise. The wolves are at the door. The Federal Election Commission and Office of Congressional Ethics are investigating whether her presidential campaign <a href=\"http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/michele-bachmann-minnesota-2014-election-91878.html\">hid</a> improper payments. She won a squeaker last autumn, barely <a href=\"http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/177546431.html\">defeating</a> a Democratic opponent whom she outspent <a href=\"http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/20/democrat-jim-graves-has-a-chance-to-unseat-michele-bachmann.html\">ten to one</a>&nbsp;and who announced that he will run again—this time, no doubt, with greater financial support from national Democrats, who smell blood. She insists that her decision was not driven \"by the recent inquiries into the activities of my former presidential campaign or my former presidential staff\". She expressed confidence that if she ran again, she would win. Maybe, but of course we\'ll never know. And announcing victory in a fight you\'re running away from is hollow, even by Congressional standards.</p><p>But hollowness, alas, is Mrs Bachmann\'s legacy. Her brief seven-year tenure in Congress has been heat without light. She has <a href=\"http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/michele_bachmann/412216\">chaired</a> neither a committee nor a subcommittee. Of the <a href=\"http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=412216#_\">58 bills</a> she sponsored or co-sponsored, precisely one passed the full House: a repeal of the Affordable Care Act that has as much chance of becoming law as it does of becoming a kumquat. She has missed <a href=\"http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/michele_bachmann/412216\">more than 10%</a> of roll-call votes during her time in office: more than five times the congressional median. And the less said about her <a href=\"http://healthland.time.com/2011/09/13/vaccination-causes-mental-retardation-fact-checking-michele-bachmanns-claim/\">casual</a> <a href=\"http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/27/bachmanns-john-wayne-slip/\">relationship</a> <a href=\"http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57907.html\">with facts</a> the better. She was anger, indignation and a thousand-watt smile—nothing more, and her departure is good news for Republicans. Futile rage helps nobody. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are far better standard bearers for the tea-party movement than Mrs Bachmann and <a href=\"http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-10-king-obama_N.htm\">Steve King</a>. They are legislators who appear to have an interest in legislating, and who seem to understand that believing the government is generally inefficient and power-hungry is no excuse for doing the job of governing badly. That is far more than can be said for Mrs Bachmann.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:7;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:31:\"Beware the spectre of inflation\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:79:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/rand-pauls-truthiness\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578489\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-28T11:28:57+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-28T11:28:57+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:26:\"\n   As in, it\'s not real  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:17:\"R.A. | WASHINGTON\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:4453:\"\n    <p><div class=\"content-image-float\"><img src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2013/05/blogs/democracy-america/rand440.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"\"  width=\"276\" height=\"440\" /></div></p><p>IN THE current issue, <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21578384-can-libertarianism-break-major-league-rand-pauls-dream\">Lexington</a>&nbsp;takes a look at Rand Paul, Kentucky\'s junior senator and a probable contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. My colleague pointed out in passing a curiosity he had noted while researching the piece. Mr Paul knows that Republicans need to broaden their appeal beyond the world of well-off white voters to win in national elections. And so he has tried to make his economic pitch work for younger and lower-income Americans—while also sticking to the Paul family code that big government is bad and inflation the single biggest economic threat. Squaring those two goals has turned out to be more difficult than Mr Paul may have reckoned.</p><p>In his official <a href=\"http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/FY2014Budget.pdf\">budget plan</a>, published on his Senate web page, Mr Paul—aiming for wonkish seriousness—is forced to make some allowance for reality. He argues that high levels of public debt can lead to higher or even hyper- inflation (though in advanced economies they almost never do). But he acknowledges that \"we haven’t seen large scale inflation, with core Consumer Price Index (CPI) running at only about 2 percent\". Inflation looms as a&nbsp;<em>future</em> rather than a present threat.</p><p></p><p>In less formal situations, however, he makes no such distinction. Consider this comment, from a <a href=\"http://www.npr.org/2013/02/14/172034468/rand-paul-big-governments-not-a-friend-to-those-who-are-trying-to-get-ahead\">February interview</a> with National Public Radio:</p><blockquote><p>Our message is that he really is hurting the poor because when he borrows so much money he raises prices and he steals the savings of those on Social Security. Their check doesn\'t go as far, they don\'t get the cost of living raises and it\'s more difficult when you\'re an elderly citizen who relies on Social Security when prices rise. But they\'re rising because of big government debt.</p></blockquote><p>Mr Paul made similar comments at a recent <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/04/barack-obamas-budget\">fund-raiser</a> in New Hampshire. There are several things wrong with this. First, we have a general sense of the ways in which government borrowing might influence inflation. Big deficits could crowd out private investment, slowing trend growth. In that case, the Fed could choose to stabilise nominal growth, leading to higher (but moderate) inflation. Or markets could lose all appetite for holding government debt, forcing the Fed to monetise the borrowing to avoid a catastrophic rise in interest rates or a default. The extent to which such things are actual threats to modern advanced economies is subject to debate, but they very obviously do not apply to America circa now.</p><p>Secondly, inflation is really low and falling, as he says in his budget. The average annual change in <a href=\"http://www.bls.gov/cpi/\">CPI</a> under President Obama has been the lowest of any president—by a healthy margin—since President Kennedy. And right now inflation is&nbsp;<em>below</em> the average rate for Mr Obama\'s presidency.</p><p>Third, I\'m not sure what Mr Paul means when he says inflation steals from Social Security recipients. Social Security benefits are indexed to inflation; indeed, that\'s what the <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/04/barack-obamas-budget\">recent debate</a> over whether to change indexation from one measure of inflation to another was all about. Even so, retirees are now getting a real&nbsp;<em>increase</em> in their benefits because inflation (at 1.1% in April) is coming in below the 2013 cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA), which was set at 1.7%. Their cheque is going farther this year than it did last year. Ironically, the effort to adjust COLA to a different measure was under consideration as a means to rein in government borrowing. So you could say, I suppose, that the budget is a threat to retirees\' financial resources. Just not in the way Mr Paul would lead you to believe.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:8;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:21:\"Outsourcing education\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:80:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/online-college-courses\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578196\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-27T14:44:41+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-27T14:44:41+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:110:\"\n   Rising tuition is due to ballooning university bureaucracies, so why replace instructors with YouTube U?  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:14:\"W.W. | HOUSTON\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:6578:\"\n    <p><div class=\"content-image-full\"><img src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2013/05/blogs/democracy-america/class590.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"\"  width=\"595\" height=\"335\" /></div></p><p>LECTURE halls can seat only so many students, but it\'s easy enough to broadcast lectures online to tens of thousands. Ventures such as EdX, a non-profit consortium involving a dozen universities, and Coursera, a for-profit business, are now focused on making courses taught by outstanding instructors available to millions of students. Some universities are using these so-called MOOCs, short for \"massively open online courses\", to supplement their standard curriculum, and the possibility that these offerings may in time <em>replace</em> flesh and blood university professors has become a source of distress among academics.</p><p>The philosophy faculty of San Jose State University (SJSU) recently <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/education/san-jose-state-philosophy-dept-criticizes-online-courses.html\">broke with university administrators</a> by refusing to offer a \"blended\" course, which would combine outsourced online lectures with classroom discussion, based on Michael Sandel\'s famous Harvard lecture series on justice. In <a href=\"http://chronicle.com/article/The-Document-an-Open-Letter/138937/\">an open letter to Mr Sandel</a>, the philosophers of SJSU worry about the effectiveness of prepackaged, one-size-fits-all courses, the hazards of a homogenised curriculum dominated by a handful of superstar professors, and air a number of other sensible concerns. When they get right down to it, though, they admit they\'re protecting their turf.&nbsp;</p><p>Arguing that the university\'s move toward online and blended courses is \"financially driven and involves a compromise of quality\", the SJSU philosophy department cited a comment from Gavin Newsom, the lieutenant governor of California, at the announcement of the state\'s deal with EdX. \"The old education financing model, frankly, is no longer sustainable\", Mr Newsom said. \"This is the crux of the problem\", the philosophers submit. \"With prepackaged MOOCs and blended courses, faculty are ultimately not needed\".</p><p></p><p>They are not wrong to see trouble on the horizon. California legislators are <a href=\"http://www.thenation.com/blog/174048/california-cuny-and-moocs#\">considering a new law</a> that would require state universities to offer college credit for approved online courses. However, the threat is rather more general. John Hechinger and Michael McDonald of <em>Bloomberg</em> <a href=\"http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/harvard-for-free-meets-resistance-as-u-s-professors-see-threat.html\">report</a>:</p><blockquote><p>Faculty are rightly concerned because the Internet is likely to reduce the number of professors and colleges over time, said Michael Horn, executive director of education for the Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation, a San Mateo, California-based nonprofit research organization.</p><p>Christensen, a Harvard business school professor, has predicted that in 15 years, half of all universities will be out of business because higher education, with its skyrocketing costs, is ripe for technological upheaval.</p></blockquote><p>Scary stuff for the professoriate! However, before we rush, for thrift\'s sake,&nbsp;to technologically upheave, it\'s worth asking <em>why&nbsp;</em>costs are \"skyrocketing\". It\'s <em>not </em>because classrooms and professors have become so much more expensive. Rather, it\'s the metastatic growth of university administration. As the <a href=\"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323316804578161490716042814.html\"><em>Wall Street Journal</em></a> reported in December:</p><blockquote><p>Across U.S. higher education, nonclassroom costs have ballooned, administrative payrolls being a prime example. The number of employees hired by colleges and universities to manage or administer people, programs and regulations increased 50% faster than the number of instructors between 2001 and 2011, the U.S. Department of Education says. It\'s part of the reason that tuition, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, has risen even faster than health-care costs.</p></blockquote><p>That is to say, students have faced rapidly rising tuition costs not due to large increases in the cost of instruction, but mostly due to the dramatic, rapid growth of the university bureaucratic class, which offers nothing of obvious worth to the education of their universities\' increasingly cash-strapped and indebted students.&nbsp;</p><p>According to <a href=\"http://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/administrative-bloat-american-universities-real-reason-high-costs-higher-education\">a 2010 study on administrative bloat</a> from the libertarian Goldwater Institute,&nbsp;tuition <em>tripled</em> from 1993 to 2007 at my own school, the University of Houston. Over that period, instructional spending per student changed not at all, while administrative spending per pupil nearly doubled. This is fairly representative of the national pattern. This seems to me to suggest that state university systems might first seek savings in <em>leaner management</em> before outsourcing instruction to glorified versions of YouTube. Public-university systems might take a page from Sweden, a paradisaical Scandinavian social democracy, which outsources to private companies the management of some of its public hospitals,&nbsp;<a href=\"http://www.economist.com/news/business/21578020-sweden-leading-world-allowing-private-companies-run-public-institutions-hospital?fsrc=rss%7Cbus\">as Schumpeter discusses</a>, and recommends. In any case, it\'s outrageous that students should be made to pay ever more to support assistants to assistant deans, in exchange for the right to earn a degree filling in worksheets and ignoring videotapes from home.&nbsp;</p><p>Of course, it\'s hard to imagine fat and happy university bureaucracies falling on their swords. It will be up to others to start carving the cruft out of university administration. Why not the soon-to-be \"disrupted\" professoriate? Because, I\'m afraid, the instructional class just loves big government too much, and is therefore disinclined to see unnecessary and/or overpaid public employees as a real problem, even when it\'s about to get them replaced by a screen. That\'s why the philosophy department at San Jose State is bitching to Michael Sandel when it ought to be baying for the blood of California deans.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:9;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:40:\"The most important thing to leave behind\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:75:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/memo-barack-obama\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578549\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-25T05:50:52+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-25T05:50:52+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:179:\"\n   If Barack Obama doesn\'t want to leave American children with \"debt they cannot pay\" he will have to reform entitlements. Our correspondents recommend how this should be done  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"Economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:1191:\"\n    <p>IF BARACK OBAMA doesn\'t want to leave American children with \"debt they cannot pay\" he will have to reform entitlements. Our correspondents recommend how this should be done<object id=\"myExperience_2407675612001\" class=\"BrightcoveExperience\"><param name=\"bgcolor\" value=\"#FFFFFF\" /><param name=\"isUI\" value=\"true\" /><param name=\"isVid\" value=\"true\" /><param name=\"dynamicStreaming\" value=\"true\" /><param name=\"includeAPI\" value=\"true\" /><param name=\"autoStart\" value=\"true\" /><param name=\"wmode\" value=\"opaque\" /><param name=\"templateLoadHandler\" value=\"onTemplateLoaded\" /><param name=\"templateReadyHandler\" value=\"onTemplateReady\" /><param name=\"linkBaseURL\" value=\"http://www.economist.com/node/21003976/atom.xml\" /><param name=\"iid\" value=\"36382\" /><param name=\"vid\" value=\"2407675612001\" /><param name=\"pid\" value=\"1425961410001\" /><param name=\"key\" value=\"AQ~~,AAABDH-R__E~,dB4S9tmhdOo20g03jDsDgNBGDcclfHEU\" /><param name=\"width\" value=\"595\" /><param name=\"height\" value=\"400\" /><param name=\"playerID\" value=\"1425961410001\" /><param name=\"playerKey\" value=\"AQ~~,AAABDH-R__E~,dB4S9tmhdOo20g03jDsDgNBGDcclfHEU\" /><param name=\"@videoPlayer\" value=\"2407675612001\" /></object></p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:10;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:18:\"No scarlet letters\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:83:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/crime-punishment-and-food\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578527\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-24T16:17:36+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-24T16:17:36+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:95:\"\n   David Vitter wants to keep convicted murderers, rapists and pedophiles off of food stamps  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:14:\"J.F. | ATLANTA\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:4622:\"\n    <p><div class=\"content-image-float\"><img src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2013/05/blogs/democracy-america/vitter590.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"\"  width=\"590\" height=\"331\" /></div></p><p>ON WEDNESDAY David Vitter (pictured), a Republican senator from Louisiana, proposed—and the Senate agriculture committee accepted—an amendment to the farm bill that would, in Mr Vitter\'s <a href=\"http://www.vitter.senate.gov/newsroom/press/vitter-passes-amendment-to-farm-bill-to-eliminate-food-stamps-for-murderers-sex-offenders\">words</a>, \"prohibit convicted murderers, rapists and pedophiles from receiving food stamps.\" It\'s not hard to see why this amendment passed. All Mr Vitter needed to do was propose it (which you can see him do <a href=\"http://www.vitter.senate.gov/newsroom/video-and-audio/view/vitter-introduces-welfare-reform-amendments-to-farm-bill\">here</a>, starting at around the 7.10 mark). Then the tacit question arises: Does anyone in this chamber want to stand up and say that taxpayers should feed murderers, rapists and pedophiles? No? Of course not. Leave aside the irony of someone who \"received forgiveness from God and [his] wife\" for his \"<a href=\"http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/07/sen_vitters_madam_problem_1.html\">very serious sin</a>\" arguing that the state should perpetually punish others for their sins. Like an unfortunately large share of American criminal justice, Mr Vitter\'s amendment has a visceral appeal: it lets the good guys punish the bad guys. But it is in fact a terrible idea: poorly considered, vindictive and unjust.</p><p>Bob Greenstein from the left-leaning Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities <a href=\"http://www.offthechartsblog.org/senator-vitter-offersand-senate-democrats-accept-stunning-amendment-with-racially-tinged-impacts/\">points out</a> that the amendment \"will likely have strongly racially discriminatory effects.\" \"Imbalanced\" or \"unequal\" might be better words than \"discriminatory\" here, but I take his point. Mr Vitter\'s amendment would affect a greater share of blacks and Hispanics than whites because black and Hispanic incarceration rates <a href=\"http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Race_and_Prison#Data\">exceed</a> those of whites. And as Mr Greenstein points out, Mr Vitter\'s amendment would kick \"poor elderly African Americans convicted of a single crime decades ago by segregated Southern juries\" off the food-stamp rolls.</p><p></p><p>A similar food-stamp ban exists for people convicted of certain drug offences, unless individual states opt out of that ban. Most have—for good reason. People will go to great lengths to feed their families. Recidivism rates are <a href=\"http://newamericamedia.org/2011/04/states-food-stamp-welfare-bans-for-drug-felons-counterproductive.php\">higher</a> in states that ban drug offenders from receiving food stamps. The ban appears to <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/unfair-punishments-of-ex-offenders.html?_r=0\">increase</a> risky sexual behaviour. Mr Vitter\'s amendment would remove that opt-out option and enforce a blanket federal ban—this from a Republican, purportedly the party that respects small government and local authority. Mr Vitter would presume to have the federal government tell states how to treat people convicted of violating state law.</p><p>And he would do this because...well, because murder and rape and pedophilia are bad. Of course they are. But America\'s justice system already has ways of punishing people who have committed acts vile enough that they forfeit their place in society: we can sentence them to spend their lives in prison, where they would not receive food stamps (instead they would eat and sleep at taxpayer expense forever—a subject for another post). Ex-convicts who apply for food stamps have served their time. They will likely be <a href=\"http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ex-offenders-2010-11.pdf\">unemployed</a>, and given the nature of the crime for which they were convicted, older and perhaps unemployable. Food-stamp benefits are not generous; they will simply help such people—who, again, have served their sentence and been deemed fit for release—not starve, and not commit other crimes. Mr Vitter seems to believe that those whom his amendment would ban are bad guys. No doubt some are. But the law does not exist to keep good people separate from bad, or to eternally punish \"bad people\" (remember \"Hate the sin, love the sinner\"?). It punishes actions, and those punishments ought to be time-limited, not eternal.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:11;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:10:\"Droning on\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:69:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/war-and-law\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578497\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-24T09:17:52+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-24T09:17:52+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:178:\"\n   Barack Obama\'s speech on May 23rd outlining the evolution of America’s approach to counter-terrorism was thoughtful, largely sensible and, for many, a bit late in the day  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:6:\"M.J.S.\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:4843:\"\n    <p><div class=\"content-image-full\"><img src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2013/05/blogs/democracy-america/obama590a.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"\"  width=\"595\" height=\"335\" /></div></p><p>BARACK OBAMA\'S speech on May 23rd outlining the evolution of America’s approach to counter-terrorism was thoughtful, largely sensible and, for many, a bit late in the day. His wider message was that the ill-named “war on terror” could neither be perpetual or fought without restraint as if it was an existential struggle against a conventional enemy. To that end, he declared that it was time for the Authorisation for Use of Military Force resolution passed by Congress in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th 2001 attacks to go: “Unless we discipline our thinking and our actions”, he said, “we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight or continue to grant presidents unbound powers more suited to traditional conflicts between nation states.” Counter-terrorism, he argued, should largely be the preserve of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Its main targets would be a greatly weakened al-Qaeda and its affiliates, threats to American diplomats and businesses abroad, and, with a nod towards the Boston Marathon bombers, home-grown extremists.</p><p>More specifically, the president outlined new legal curbs on the use of armed drones against terrorist suspects, signalled a renewed attempt to close the Guantánamo&nbsp;Bay detention centre and said the administration would resume the transfer of prisoners held there to Yemen. He promised to strike a better balance between preserving the civil liberties “that make us who we are” and the need for security. Perhaps inevitably, the part of the long speech made at the National Defence University in Washington that attracted most attention was Mr Obama’s attempt to meet some of the concerns that have grown over the use of drones for the assassination of America’s enemies in far-way places, a campaign he inherited from George Bush but ruthlessly expanded, to the horror of many liberals.</p><p></p><p>He is likely only partially to have succeeded, though much of what he said did bring greater transparency and accountability to the deployment of drones. In the first place, he was unrepentant about their use. Drones, with their precision and ability to discriminate between targets were greatly preferable to the use of special forces or conventional air power. They had been instrumental in bringing “core” al-Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas to its knees, but he implicitly acknowledged that there had been too high a cost in terms of civilian deaths that had become a damaging symbol of overweening American power. From now on, the CIA and Pentagon would only fire missiles at people in other countries who could be shown to pose “a continuing, imminent threat to Americans” and when there was a “near-certainty” of avoiding civilian casualties. That means that the so-called “signature strikes” carried out, particularly by the CIA, against groups of people based only on suspicion of their being terrorists, would cease.</p><p>Mr Obama also said he would engage Congress in an effort to establish new oversight procedures that would be independent of the executive branch and he conceded that no American citizen (a reference to the killing of Anwar al Awlaki and the unintentional deaths of three other Americans) should be killed “without due process”.</p><p>Disappointingly, while suggesting that it would be preferable for the majority of drone strikes to be carried out by the armed forces with their clear chain of command and consequent accountability, he did not announce the ending of the CIA’s role in the drone campaign. It would be better for the agency and its traditional role in gathering and analysing intelligence, if it were to wean itself of the predilection for paramilitary action that developed during the Bush administration.</p><p>Although Mr Obama will not have gone nearly far enough to satisfy his critics on the left, the speech was attracting criticism from congressional Republicans almost before he had sat down. As ever with this cautious, reflective president, he was striving for balance. For the most part he succeeded: the drone campaign, already less intensive, should start to operate within a clearer legal context. Another effort will be made to scrub the stain of Guantánamo, although for that he will need more congressional help than he is likely to get. Finally, the commitment to strengthening civil liberties that have been eroded—including a promise to “pass a media law” to shield journalists from over-zealous government investigations into leaks—was welcome, if a little late.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:12;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:36:\"Let’s not call the whole thing off\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:71:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/irs-scandal-0\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578245\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-23T17:21:09+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-23T17:21:09+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:76:\"\n   The recent scandal should bring IRS reform, not the agency\'s abolition  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:15:\"S.M. | NEW YORK\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:8468:\"\n    <p dir=\"ltr\"><div class=\"content-image-full\"><img src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2013/05/blogs/democracy-america/20130518_usp501.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"\"  width=\"595\" height=\"335\" /></div></p><p dir=\"ltr\">AS THE story of the politicisation of the Internal Revenue Service continues to unfold, discourse in some circles has shifted from critiques of 501(c)(4) exemptions to condemnation of the IRS itself. Ron Paul has been <a href=\"http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-15/end-the-income-tax-abolish-the-irs/\">beating this drum</a> for years, and now Ted Cruz, the senator from Texas, is turning to Twitter to advance the cause. Mr Cruz’s <a href=\"https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz\">tweet</a> on May 15th—“We need to abolish <a href=\"https://twitter.com/search/%23IRS\">#IRS</a> &amp; make the tax code fairer and flatter. Taxes should fit on a postcard. RT if you agree!”—has been retweeted more than 7,000 times. At the <em>Washington Times,</em> Judson Phillips <a href=\"http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/16/an-opportunity-to-abolish-the-irs/?page=1\">made his case</a> for closing the IRS last week, and at <em>Reason,</em> Sheldon Richman <a href=\"http://reason.com/archives/2013/05/19/abolish-the-irs-and-the-income-tax-with\">declared</a> that the “arbitrary” power of the IRS “ill suits a society that sees itself as free”.</p><p dir=\"ltr\"><span>Mr Richman laments the wide latitude IRS officials have not only in distinguishing charities from political groups (the issue my colleague </span><a href=\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/irs-scandal\"><span>treated</span></a><span> on Monday) but in defining “‘income’, ‘taxable income’, subsidiary terms, and the rules of exemption”. With these wide-ranging powers, Mr Richman writes, the IRS affords American taxpayers “no escape from arbitrariness and caprice”.</span></p><p></p><p dir=\"ltr\"><span>Even before this month’s revelation that conservative political groups applying for 501(c)(4) status were being singled out for special scrutiny, there were many questions about </span><a href=\"http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42673.pdf\"><span>how to identify these groups</span></a><span> and whether IRS investigations into their activities were too intrusive.&nbsp;</span><span>What the Cincinnati IRS employees did was clearly wrong, but as Paul Waldman </span><a href=\"http://prospect.org/article/irs-controversy-and-tax-exempt-charade\">notes</a><span>, it may have been motivated not by animus toward conservative groups but by a desire for greater efficiency in reviewing applications for tax-exempt status since “so many...were from Tea Party groups that looked a lot like their sole purpose was to elect Republicans”. Whatever led the Cincinnati bureau to this inadvisable move, those responsible should be fired and the IRS should implement clear, strict rules on application reviews with better oversight.</span></p><p dir=\"ltr\">But the argument that we should scrap the IRS because of the actions of some boneheads in Ohio is—and I write this with all due reserve—preposterous. If the IRS must be closed for having arbitrary powers—which is to say, powers that rely on judgment calls—so must nearly all public institutions.&nbsp;<span>The </span><a href=\"http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/fcc-cbs-janet-jackson-wardrobe-malfunction-overturned-256687\">Federal Communications Commission</a><span>, </span><a href=\"http://www.shawe.com/publications/246-court-finds-nlrb-acted-arbitrarily-without-substantial-evidence-finding-that\">National Labor Relations Board</a> and <a href=\"http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Regulation/Attorney-FTC-Commissioners-ruling-on-POM-Wonderful-is-truly-astonishing-abusive-and-unlawful\">Federal Trade Commission</a><span>, to name just a few, have all acted in an arbitrary manner. As have the institutions of&nbsp;</span><span>America\'s security establishment—just ask <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar\">Maher Arar</a>, <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri\">Khalid El-Masri</a>&nbsp;or the families of civilians killed by American drone strikes.&nbsp;</span><span>But these government agencies, like the IRS, perform vital roles; it would be rash to abolish any of them because of occasional errors in judgment. That’s why we have congressional oversight and judicial review.</span></p><p dir=\"ltr\"><span>Turning to the substance of the argument against the IRS and the income tax, we find several permutations. Some want to abolish the IRS but replace the income tax with a flat tax or a national sales tax, both of which are </span><span><a href=\"http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&amp;id=3901\">regressive</a> <a href=\"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/17/second-group-of-deficit-h_n_784907.html\"><span>taxes</span></a><span> that would exacerbate </span><a href=\"http://www.economist.com/node/21564418\"><span>inequality in America</span></a><span>. Others prefer to get rid of national taxation altogether on the grounds that asking Americans to contribute to the national treasury is tantamount to confiscation. Mr Richman makes this point:</span></span></p><blockquote><p dir=\"ltr\"><span>There’s a better way to go that’s demanded by liberty and justice. Since taxation is nothing less than the confiscation, under threat of force, of what belongs to productive individuals, it has no place in a free society. In other words, </span><em>everyone</em><span> should be exempt from income and other taxation. (Americans lived without income taxation for more than 125 years — except for ten years beginning during the Civil War.) If something can’t be accomplished through consent, contract, and cooperation — without aggressive force — we should ask whether it is worth doing.</span></p></blockquote><p dir=\"ltr\"><span>On top of ignoring free-rider problems, this appeal to liberty and justice is faulty. Though John Locke tends to be the patron saint of those who push against taxation and for sharply limited government</span><span>, his \"</span>Second Treatise\"<span> makes clear that governments are powerless without revenue and that majoritarian institutions </span><a href=\"http://www.justiceharvard.org/resources/john-locke-second-treatise-of-government-1690/\"><span>can require the people to pay taxes</span></a><span>:</span></p><blockquote><p dir=\"ltr\"><span>It is true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them: for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people, by his own authority, and without such consent of the people, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property, and subverts the end of government: for what property have I in that, which another may by right take, when he pleases, to himself?</span></p></blockquote><p dir=\"ltr\">With the 16th amendment, which <a href=\"http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-31/opinion/ct-oped-0201-amendment-20130125_1_income-tax-tax-exempt-status-16th-amendment\"><span>celebrates</span></a> its 100th anniversary this year, the representatives of the people serving in Congress and <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution\"><span>all but six of the 48 states</span></a> on the map in 1913 duly ratified an income tax for America. This is the due process providing for the legislative power of taxation that Locke envisioned, notwithstanding tax protesters’ <a href=\"http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/TPM.asp?xpicked=4&amp;item=21\"><span>frivolous arguments</span></a> to the contrary. Over the past century, the electorate has given tacit consent to the general tax scheme countless times, voting candidates into office who support policies that require the federal government to raise money and, most recently, re-electing a president who promised to raise tax rates on high earners. In other words, America has a tax system, <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21578387-irs-has-behaved-badly-real-villain-congress-who-will-tame-taxman\">imperfect as it may be</a>, that is a result of the consent and cooperation of its people.</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:13;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:11:\"Cell phones\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:78:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/crime-and-punishment\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578362\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-23T12:31:04+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-23T12:31:04+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:82:\"\n   Why does it cost so much for prisoners to keep in touch with their families?  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:23:\"The Economist | ATLANTA\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:3374:\"\n    <p><div class=\"content-image-full\"><img src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2013/05/blogs/democracy-america/20130525_usp002.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"\"  width=\"595\" height=\"335\" /></div></p><p>MOST of the roughly 2.2m incarcerated Americans will eventually be freed. Those who remain in contact with loved ones on the outside are less likely, studies show, to return to a life of crime after serving their time. Much as voters hate criminals, they also have an interest in not being mugged. So why do prisons make it so hard for inmates to phone their families?</p><p>Prisoners’ families tend to be poor. Calling a brother, son or father behind bars can incur an upfront fee as high as $4.99; per-minute charges may reach $0.89. Americans at liberty, even if they don’t have Skype, can easily get unlimited domestic calls for $9.99 a month. That would buy one six-minute call from a state prison in Georgia to a neighbouring state.</p><p></p><p>Outside prison, phone companies compete fiercely for customers. Inside, they don’t have to. Each state typically grants a single company a monopoly over telephones in any given prison. The result is high prices and a booming trade among inmates in contraband mobile phones. To be fair, phones in prisons require special security features, such as the ability to record, monitor and block calls. Global Tel*Link, one of America’s biggest providers of phone services in prisons, insists that these “sophisticated communications features...often [require] numerous on-site personnel, instruction and training”, which make them far costlier to install and maintain than traditional telephones.</p><p>But some see a darker reason for the high costs. In all but a few states the phone-service providers return a large share (sometimes more than half) of revenue collected from each phone to the facility in “commissions”. These commissions provide a ready source of discretionary money for cash-strapped prison systems to cope with a rising inmate population. But they do so by taking money from those whom Foster Campbell, one of Louisiana\'s five public-service commissioners, calls “the least of these...poor people in bad situations [with] no voice...and no political clout.” No politician wants to be seen as soft on criminals, but exorbitant charges also hurt the 2.7m children who have a parent behind bars. Many of those parents are imprisoned in different states.</p><p>Mr Campbell thinks service providers are simply greedy. But Eleanor Holmes Norton, a congresswoman from Washington, DC, and the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus’s Prison Telecom Reform Working Group, blames loose regulation, which has allowed companies to “extort excessive telephone rates from the people in society least able to pay them”.</p><p>That may soon change. More than a decade after a federal court ruled that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may regulate prison phone calls, including “the reasonableness of rates”, the agency has taken notice. Late last year it released a “notice of proposed rule-making”. It is now reviewing public comments. Mignon Clyburn, who became the FCC’s acting chair on May 20th, believes that charges should be “just and reasonable”. A small reform, perhaps, but lower rates might help prisoners go straight.</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:14;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:20:\"The path to the path\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:78:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/immigration-reform-0\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578372\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-22T20:09:32+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-22T20:09:32+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:79:\"\n   Immigration reform overcomes a hurdle in the Senate, but obstacles remain  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:21:\"E.M. | WASHINGTON, DC\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:2513:\"\n    <p><div class=\"content-image-full\"><img src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/2013/05/blogs/democracy-america/immigration590.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"\"  width=\"595\" height=\"335\" /></div></p><p>THIRTEEN to five. That was the lopsided vote by which the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the immigration-reform bill it has been working on for the past few weeks. All ten of the committee’s Democrats voted for the bill, along with three Republicans, in spite of much greater scepticism in their party on the subject. If that sort of margin were repeated on the Senate floor, the bill would waft through the chamber with about 70 votes in favour.</p><p>Whatever the margin, the Senate’s approval looks a safe bet. Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, promised not to oppose a floor debate, currently slated for next month. There were no serious ruptures among the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” who drafted the bill as the committee worked its way through over 100 amendments, many of which were designed to sow dissent. That bodes well for their efforts to shepherd the bill through the Senate as a whole. The Democratic majority on the committee, meanwhile, resisted the temptation to make the bill so liberal as to put off wavering Republicans: Patrick Leahy, the chairman, withdrew a potential deal-breaker in the form of an amendment to allow gay Americans to sponsor their partners for visas.</p><p></p><p>So is immigration reform all but admitted, so to speak? Alas, not at all. Its prospects in the House look much dicier. Last year it ignored several bills on much less controversial subjects that the Senate passed with big, bipartisan majorities. A Gang of Eight-like group is haggling over a bill in the House, too, and claims to have reached an agreement in principle. But they have not unveiled a bill, apparently because disputes remain over a scheme to admit low-skilled workers and over a ban on immigrants receiving government benefits. In general, the House, with its Republican majority, is much more hostile to any clemency for America’s 11m-odd illegal immigrants, including the 13-year-long “path to citizenship” for most of them included in the Senate bill. And there is always the nagging fear that Democrats would not mind that much if obstreperous Republican objections were seen to sink reforms just a year before mid-term elections. There are plenty of twists left on the path to the path, as it were.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:15;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:48:\"Is Silicon Valley getting too big for its boots?\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:81:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/technology-and-politics\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578246\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-22T14:20:48+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-22T14:20:48+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:33:\"\n   Against geeky anti-politics  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:18:\"T.N. | LOS ANGELES\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:6297:\"\n    <p>\"IF YOU\'RE an engineer in Silicon Valley, you have no incentive to read <em>The Economist</em>,\" an unnamed tech entrepreneur tells George Packer in this week\'s issue of the <a href=\"http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/05/27/130527fa_fact_packer\" target=\"_blank\"><em>New Yorker</em></a>. \"It\'s not brought up at parties, your friends aren\'t going to talk about it, your employers don\'t care.\"</p><p>Whatever. Their parties sound <a href=\"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/david-sacks-yammer-ceo-birthday-party_n_1609252.html\">lame</a> anyway. Mr Packer might agree; his lengthy piece portrays, with much scepticism, a Silicon Valley that has constructed for itself a glassy political vision far removed from the messy but necessary scraps of city halls, state houses and Congress. It is a place where bland libertarian fantasies about technology replacing (or \"disrupting\") politics are welcomed, and discussions of marginal income-tax rates left to losers who spend their spare time reading text-heavy weeklies. The public services that are the normal business of government can seem distant to the new plutocrats, too: Mr Packer describes a public school catering to wealthy Valley locals where extravagant fund-raisers compensate for declines in state funding. If there is little room for politics as traditionally conceived in either your worldview or your personal life, then why bother knowing anything about it?</p><p></p><p>I haven\'t spent enough time in Silicon Valley to know how close this caricature comes to truth, but Mr Packer is certainly not the only one chucking it about. A new book (reviewed by my colleague <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21577039-three-new-books-look-power-digital-age-feel-force/\">here</a>) by Evgeny Morozov, a professional tech-sceptic (and one of Mr Packer\'s interviewees), derides the \"solutionism\" of the technology world, which turns insoluble difficulties into discrete problems that may be resolved by the accumulation of enough information and the application of appropriately chosen algorithms. When this \"big data\" approach starts to crowd out subtler, wiser ways of thinking in fields to which it may not be suited (such as politics), reasons Mr Morozov, we risk forcing ourselves into \"digital straitjackets\" and undermining the assumptions that make liberal democracy work.</p><p><div class=\"content-image-float-290\"><img src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/2013/05/blogs/democracy-america/zuck380.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"\"  width=\"290\" height=\"370\" /></div></p><p>A third attack came from Joel Kotkin, a Los Angeles-based demographer best known for defending medium-sized towns in unfashionable parts of America. Writing last week in the <em>Daily Beast</em>, Mr Kotkin <a href=\"http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/14/america-s-new-oligarchs-fwd-us-and-silicon-valley-s-shady-1-percenters.html\" target=\"_blank\">ripped into \"America\'s new oligarchs\"</a>, lambasting the \"shady 1-percenters\" for concentrating huge amounts of wealth in their own hands while failing to provide jobs to Americans outside their own cosseted creative circles. And now, to pile audacity on to audacity, Mark Zuckerberg and his billionaire pals are doing real politics: lavishly funding a new group, <a href=\"http://www.fwd.us/\">FWD.us</a>, that seeks to further the tech sector\'s interests by lobbying for an immigration-reform package that will allow it to recruit cheaper software engineers from abroad.</p><p>FWD.us took some <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/technology/fwdus-raises-uproar-with-advocacy-tactics.html?pagewanted=all\">heat</a> a couple of weeks ago for funding TV ads supporting conservative pro-immigration politicians whose views on matters like the Keystone XL pipeline were not to the taste of the group\'s liberal backers. (Some of them <a href=\"http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/mark-zuckerberg-fwdus-losing-members-91208.html\">quit</a> in disgust.) Meanwhile, a good old-fashioned lobbying effort continues in Washington; the <em>New York Times</em> <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/technology/tech-industry-pushes-to-amend-immigration-bill.html?hpw\">reports</a> a push to ease regulatory oversight of the hiring of foreigners and the firing of Americans. Interestingly, Mr Packer takes all this to be a sign that the tech industry may be showing signs of maturity. Rather than airily rise above the fray, or, worse, try to produce a technological fix to a political problem, it, or at least those elements represented by FWD.us and the grizzly political hacks it has hired, has chosen to dive deep into the political mud.</p><p>Consumer-facing technology firms do seem to enjoy a peculiarly exalted status among both citizens and politicians (though Apple took a <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/business/apple-avoided-billions-in-taxes-congressional-panel-says.html?pagewanted=all\">beating</a> over its tax affairs in Congress this week). The action plan for FWD.us written by its president, Joe Green, an old pal of Mr Zuckerberg\'s, says, \"Our voice carries a lot of weight because we are broadly popular with Americans.\" Many tech executives have become celebrities in their own right, as we saw with the extraordinary public reaction to the death of Steve Jobs. It\'s difficult to imagine Barack Obama holding a \"<a href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnPI7B7ZS9M\">town hall</a>\" with the CEO of an oil or car company. And so it is reasonable to be wary of an industry of rich and powerful men eliding its own interests with that of the country at large, or of claims that techniques appropriate to fix problems in one field can be applied <em>mutatis mutandis</em> in another.</p><p>Yet are there really many signs of that happening at national level? Among the biggest political debates this year—gun control, immigration reform, deficit reduction—I see few signs of solutionism at play. That FWD.us has had to sully itself with politics-as-usual suggests, for better or worse, that outside the gilded worlds of Palo Alto and Cupertino, politics is operating pretty much as usual. That seems an odd thing to celebrate. But it might be some consolation to the Valley-bashers.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:16;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"Fox News and Julian Assange\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:71:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/press-freedom\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578235\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-21T16:18:32+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-21T16:18:32+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:100:\"\n   Why the TV network, and other members of the media, should have defended the sharer of secrets  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:4:\"M.S.\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:7742:\"\n    <p>THE first outraged tweet I saw about it came from <a href=\"https://twitter.com/ron_fournier/status/336441170152542208\">the Associated Press\'s Ron Fournier</a>: the Department of Justice (DOJ) had \"<span>tracked Fox News reporter via key card and seized personal emails. #Chilling @AP</span>\". That turned out to be a little off-point. The DOJ had <a href=\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-rare-peek-into-a-justice-department-leak-probe/2013/05/19/0bc473de-be5e-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story_1.html\">checked the visit log of Fox News reporter James Rosen</a> as he was entering and leaving the State Department one day in 2009, and that of State Department officer Stephen Kim, to back up the suspicion that Mr Kim had leaked information from a top-secret intelligence report on North Korea which had just been distributed that day, and which led to Mr Rosen\'s article a few hours later. This seems unsurprising, and no more or less upsetting than checking an old-fashioned sign-in book would have been. Further, the DOJ had gotten a search warrant from a judge to read two days\' worth of Mr Rosen\'s e-mails. This goes significantly further, but in a sense it\'s not terribly surprising either: in an age when the FBI can issue secret National Security Letters to get the authority to read anyone\'s non-encrypted electronic communications for virtually whatever reason they want, it seems rather quaint to be outraged that the DOJ is using the old-fashioned, relatively transparent route that requires it to show probable cause and get a warrant first.</p><p>But the question remains, why did the judge grant the government a warrant to search a reporter\'s e-mails? And that\'s where the troubling part comes in. To convince the judge there was probable cause, the government said it believed Mr Rosen had been a \"co-conspirator\" with Mr Kim, because he had actively solicited the leak. It is not a crime in America to publish classified information, but it\'s a crime to leak it, and in this case, the Obama administration was saying Mr Rosen was culpable for <em>encouraging</em> an official to leak. That sort of charge does have a chilling effect on the press: it\'s supposed to be a reporter\'s job to press sources to leak as much information as possible. When reporters worry they might land in jail for pushing their questions too hard, that\'s basically the definition of \"chilling effect\".</p><p></p><p>Here\'s the thing, though: although the DOJ <a href=\"https://knightcenter.utexas.edu/blog/00-13889-obama-administration-has-aggressively-prosecuted-leaks-and-whistleblowers-who-are-they\">charged Mr Kim in 2010 under the Espionage Act</a>, it did not actually charge James Rosen as a co-conspirator in the case. Prosecutors presented the theory that he was a co-conspirator to the judge when they wanted access to e-mails they needed as evidence to charge Mr Kim with leaking, but having obtained the e-mails and charged Mr Kim, they then left Mr Rosen alone. If they were seeking to intimidate the press, burying this accusation in a search-warrant request and then declining to follow up on it is an odd way to do so. Indeed, the government kept the search warrant secret for a year, and it\'s taken three years for a newspaper to finally notice it happened.</p><p><span><div class=\"content-image-float\"><img src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2013/05/blogs/democracy-america/assange330.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"\"  width=\"330\" height=\"245\" /></div></span></p><p><span>There is, however, another prominent figure whom the US government has aggressively and publicly sought to prosecute as a co-conspirator for encouraging a US government official to leak classified documents. That would be Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, and currently an international fugitive holed up in the Ecuadoran embassy in London. Let\'s go to Glenn Greenwald:</span></p><blockquote><p><span>That same \"solicitation\" theory, as&nbsp;</span><a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/world/16wiki.html?hp\">the New York Times reported back in 2011</a><span>, is the one the Obama DOJ has been using to justify its ongoing criminal investigation of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange: that because Assange solicited or encouraged [US Army Corporal Bradley] Manning to leak classified information, the US government can \"charge [Assange] as a conspirator in the leak, not just as a passive recipient of the documents who then published them.\" When that theory was first disclosed, I wrote that it would&nbsp;</span><a href=\"http://www.salon.com/2010/12/16/wikileaks_21/\">enable the criminalization of investigative journalism generally</a>...<span><br></span></p><p><span>That\'s what always made the&nbsp;</span><a href=\"http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/09/106445/in-wikileaks-fight-us-journalists.html\">establishment media\'s silence</a><span>&nbsp;(or even support) in the face of the criminal investigation of WikiLeaks so remarkable: it was so obvious from the start that the theories used there could easily be exploited to criminalize the acts of mainstream journalists. That\'s why James Goodale, the New York Times\' general counsel during the paper\'s historic press freedom fights with the Nixon administration, <a href=\"http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/19/goodale-obama-press-freedoms-secrecy-nixon\">has been warning</a> that \"the biggest challenge to the press today is the threatened prosecution of WikiLeaks, and it\'s absolutely frightening.\"</span></p></blockquote><p>The mainstream press, regardless of ideological colouration, has reacted with uniform anger to the revelation of the buried years-old co-conspiracy theory the government used to get its search warrant on Mr Rosen. The <em>New Yorker</em>\'s Ryan Lizza has been tweeting furiously about it. There was no such solidarity in reaction to the government\'s open, public accusations against Mr Assange. Indeed, Fox News commentators were <a href=\"http://video.foxnews.com/v/927020843001/\">dismissive of Mr Assange\'s free-speech claims</a>; further on the right, the <em>Washington Times</em><span>*&nbsp;</span>ran an op-ed piece <a href=\"http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/2/assassinate-assange/\">advocating that Mr Assange be <em>assassinated</em></a>, and <em>National Review Online</em>\'s <a href=\"http://www.salon.com/2010/10/29/jonah_goldberg_kill_julian_assange/\">Jonah Goldberg</a> wondered puckishly why he wasn\'t dead already. Yet Mr Assange\'s actions were formally exactly the same as those of Fox News\'s Mr Rosen: he encouraged an American official to leak top-secret information, and then he published it.</p><p>What we are seeing here is basically class solidarity on the part of the mainstream press. When the offender was just a weird foreign hacker running a blog staffed with encryption-happy radical volunteers, people who thought of themselves as regular journalists were often disdainful of the effort and ambivalent about how the government treated him. Yes, he felt the full force of the US government come down on his strange white-blonde head, had his money flows interdicted, and ended up as an international pariah, but you know, what he did was pretty shady, right? But now that it seems the US government has leveled the same charges, for the same behaviour, against someone working in the classic model of mainstream American journalism, a regular old reporter like <em>us</em>—well, that\'s another story.</p><p><span>*<strong>Correction:</strong> We initially identified the <em>Washington Examiner</em> as the newspaper/website that ran the assassination op-ed. It was the <em>Washington Times</em>. Apologies to the <em>Examiner</em>.</span></p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:17;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:20:\"A destructive streak\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:76:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/tornadoes-oklahoma\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578255\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-21T12:29:34+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-21T12:29:34+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:71:\"\n   The tornado that hit the Oklahoma City area yesterday was immense  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:14:\"J.F. | ATLANTA\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:9261:\"\n    <p><div class=\"ec-gallery-gallery\">    <div class=\"ec-gallery\">  <ul>          <li>        <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_gallery_image\" width=\"595\" height=\"370\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/oklahoma_1.jpg?1369141551\" />          <div class=\"ec-gallery-info\">            <div class=\"ec-gallery-caption\">                            A large tornado roared through the suburbs of Oklahoma City on Monday, flattening neighbourhoods with winds up to 200 miles per hour.            </div>                          <span class=\"ec-gallery-credit\"><span class=\"source\">Source: </span>AP</span>                                  </div>      </li>            <li>        <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_gallery_image\" width=\"595\" height=\"370\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/oklahoma_3.jpg?1369141830\" />          <div class=\"ec-gallery-info\">            <div class=\"ec-gallery-caption\">                            The tornado was at least two miles wide and remained on the ground for around 40 minutes.            </div>                          <span class=\"ec-gallery-credit\"><span class=\"source\">Source: </span>AP</span>                                  </div>      </li>            <li>        <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_gallery_image\" width=\"595\" height=\"370\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/oklahoma_4.jpg?1369141867\" />          <div class=\"ec-gallery-info\">            <div class=\"ec-gallery-caption\">                            Plaza Towers (pictured) and Briarwood elementary schools both suffered direct hits.            </div>                          <span class=\"ec-gallery-credit\"><span class=\"source\">Source: </span>AP</span>                                  </div>      </li>            <li>        <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_gallery_image\" width=\"595\" height=\"370\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/oklahoma_5.jpg?1369141912\" />          <div class=\"ec-gallery-info\">            <div class=\"ec-gallery-caption\">                            Teachers carry children away from Briarwood elementary school.            </div>                          <span class=\"ec-gallery-credit\"><span class=\"source\">Source: </span>AP</span>                                  </div>      </li>            <li>        <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_gallery_image\" width=\"595\" height=\"370\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/oklahoma_5a.jpg?1369141948\" />          <div class=\"ec-gallery-info\">            <div class=\"ec-gallery-caption\">                            A boy is pulled from beneath a collapsed wall at the Plaza Towers elementary school.            </div>                          <span class=\"ec-gallery-credit\"><span class=\"source\">Source: </span>AP</span>                                  </div>      </li>            <li>        <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_gallery_image\" width=\"595\" height=\"370\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/oklahoma_6.jpg?1369141983\" />          <div class=\"ec-gallery-info\">            <div class=\"ec-gallery-caption\">                            A rescuer searches the wreckage of a car. As of Tuesday morning, 24 people were confirmed dead. A further 200 people were injured.            </div>                          <span class=\"ec-gallery-credit\"><span class=\"source\">Source: </span>Reuters</span>                                  </div>      </li>            <li>        <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_gallery_image\" width=\"595\" height=\"370\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/oklahoma_7.jpg?1369142026\" />          <div class=\"ec-gallery-info\">            <div class=\"ec-gallery-caption\">                            A woman walks near a destroyed home. Barack Obama signed a disaster declaration for Oklahoma City on Monday night.            </div>                          <span class=\"ec-gallery-credit\"><span class=\"source\">Source: </span>AP</span>                                  </div>      </li>            <li>        <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_gallery_image\" width=\"595\" height=\"370\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/oklahoma_9.jpg?1369142112\" />          <div class=\"ec-gallery-info\">            <div class=\"ec-gallery-caption\">                            Gene Tripp sits in his rocking chair where his home once stood.            </div>                          <span class=\"ec-gallery-credit\"><span class=\"source\">Source: </span>AP</span>                                  </div>      </li>            <li>        <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_gallery_image\" width=\"595\" height=\"370\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/oklahoma_8.jpg?1369142062\" />          <div class=\"ec-gallery-info\">            <div class=\"ec-gallery-caption\">                            A Category 5 tornado that struck this area in 1999 caused around $1 billion worth of damage, making it one of the costliest tornadoes on record. The full extent of damage caused by this tornado remains unclear.            </div>                          <span class=\"ec-gallery-credit\"><span class=\"source\">Source: </span>AP</span>                                  </div>      </li>            <li>        <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_gallery_image\" width=\"595\" height=\"370\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/oklahoma_12.jpg?1369142226\" />          <div class=\"ec-gallery-info\">            <div class=\"ec-gallery-caption\">                            The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has already deployed personnel, and the Red Cross has opened shelters around the region. Around 38,000 people remain without power.            </div>                          <span class=\"ec-gallery-credit\"><span class=\"source\">Source: </span>EPA</span>                                  </div>      </li>        </ul>    <div class=\"ec-gallery-controls\">    <div class=\"page\"></div>    <div class=\"arrows-nav\">      <span class=\"ec-gallery-prev\"></span>      <span class=\"ec-gallery-next\"></span>    </div>  </div>    </div></div></p><p>OVER the course of three days in April 2011, around 300 <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/node/18651354\">tornadoes</a> touched down around the south, centred in Alabama. At least one of them was large, but many were not, and it was shocking to see the amount of devastation even a small tornado could rain on a targeted area. I drove down streets thick with workday traffic, then peered around corners and saw now-empty lots strewn with giant-sized toothpicks—the remnants of houses, foundations still protruding uselessly from the churned earth—and overturned cars.</p><p>The tornado that hit the Oklahoma City area yesterday was, alas, immense. At least two miles wide, it touched down at 2.56pm, then cut a <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/05/20/us/oklahoma-tornado-map.html?ref=us\">destructive north-eastern path</a> through Newcastle and Moore, both Oklahoma City suburbs. It remained on the ground for around 40 minutes. Preliminary reports from the National Weather Service say it was a Category 4 tornado on the <a href=\"http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/ef-scale.html\">Enhanced Fujita Scale</a>; winds may have reached 200 miles per hour. Yesterday morning the National Weather Service <a href=\"http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/the-national-weather-services-last-pre-tornado-briefing-warned-about-school-safety-in-oklahoma-city-region/276067/\">warned</a> of severe storms in precisely that area. A forecaster warned of tornadoes and \"giant, damaging hail\" and fast-developing storms, and he noted that \"we do have schools in session...and that is a big, big concern for us as we expect severe weather potential to peak in that 3-6pm timeframe today.\" That, alas, was prescient: Plaza Towers and Briarwood elementary schools both suffered direct hits. As of Tuesday morning, 24 people were confirmed dead. A further 200 people were injured.</p><p></p><p>Now begins the rebuilding and clean-up process. Barack Obama signed a disaster declaration for Oklahoma City on Monday night, making federal <a href=\"http://www.fema.gov/news-release/2013/05/21/federal-aid-programs-state-oklahoma-disaster-recovery\">disaster-relief programmes</a> available. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has already deployed personnel, and the Red Cross has opened <a href=\"http://www.redcross.org/find-help/shelter\">shelters</a> around the region. Around 38,000 people remain without power. A Category 5 tornado that struck Moore in 1999 caused around $1 billion worth of damage, making it one of the costliest tornadoes on record. The full extent of damage caused by this tornado remains unclear. Meanwhile, the tornado threat heads to Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas, while the Oklahoma City area remains at risk of severe thunderstorms today, which could hamper relief efforts.</p><p><strong>Update:</strong> The medical examiner\'s office initially overstated the number of people killed by the tornado: apparently some corpses had been counted twice. This post has been updated to reflect that.</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:18;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:50:\"How can you tell a charity from a political front?\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:69:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/irs-scandal\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578210\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-20T13:58:27+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-20T13:58:27+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:48:\"\n   It\'s time to do away with 501(c)(4) status  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:4:\"M.S.\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:6617:\"\n    <p>THE <em>New York Times</em> had <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/15/does-the-irs-scandal-prove-that-501c4s-should-be-eliminated/dont-eliminate-501c4-exemption\">a nice discussion group</a> the other day between legal experts on how to solve the problem of 501(c)(4)s. Basically, this category of non-profits is supposed to cover groups like the Sierra Club, the NRA, and the AARP, which have clear public-benefit programmes (environmental defence and research, gun-use education, and support and social organisation for seniors) but also naturally want to engage in lobbying and some political activity in pursuit of their causes. However, after the <em>Citizens\' United</em> ruling in January 2010, the IRS saw&nbsp;<a href=\"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323398204578487440629190004.html\">an explosion in applications for 501(c)(4) status</a>; as the tea-party movement gathered strength, applications went from&nbsp;<span>1,751 in 2009 to 3,357 in 2012</span>.</p><p>Some of those applications, such as that of Karl Rove\'s Crossroads GPS, set off alarm bells at the IRS, because they clearly seemed aimed at allowing purely political groups to benefit from the perks of 501(c)(4) status, especially freedom from having to disclose who your donors are. To figure out which 501(c)(4)s were actually political front groups, the IRS started singling out for extra scrutiny conservative names like \"tea party\" and \"patriot\", without also looking for corresponding liberal names like \"progressive\" or \"rainbow\". That created effective political discrimination against conservatives—not that a pseudo-ideologically-balanced checklist of names would have been much better. But if the IRS isn\'t allowed to use organisational names that suggest a primarily political purpose as a guide, how is it supposed to figure out which groups deserve more scrutiny?</p><p></p><p>It can\'t, argues John Colombo, a law professor at the University of Illinois. He thinks we should scrap 501(c)(4)s entirely.</p><blockquote><p><span>[T]he Internal Revenue Service will never be able to satisfactorily police the line at which political activity becomes “primary.\" Since “issue advocacy” (for example, lobbying) is permitted in any amount, the problem isn’t just one of identifying when political campaign activity becomes primary; it is also identifying the line between permissible issue advocacy and political campaign activity.</span></p><p><span>...<span>Further, the (c)(4) designation has no real purpose. The best explanation, in my view, for tax exemption for charities is that it is a sort of partial government subsidy for organizations that offer services that the private market will not offer, and that government either will not or cannot offer directly. I find it hard to believe that lobbying suffers from such a serious market failure that we need to subsidize organizations whose primary activity is to lobby. In fact, it seems almost perverse that the government would subsidize organizations whose primary purpose is to lobby the government.</span></span></p></blockquote><p><span>Rosemary Fei, a lawyer at the firm Adler &amp; Colvin, disagrees. She thinks some organisations aren\'t selflessly aiding the downtrodden enough to be granted 501(c)(3) charity status, but still have public-benefit orientations that ought to let them operate tax-free. Meanwhile, some charities, like the Sierra Club, AARP and NRA examples above, \"</span>are too politically engaged to be charities, yet they work toward what each believes will be a better world.\"</p><blockquote><p>Charities who find Section 501(c)(3)’s restrictions hamper their advocacy, often create a (c)(4) affiliate to pursue their lobbying agenda. Health maintenance organizations, low-income housing providers and homeowner or neighborhood associations are all examples of groups that may confer too much private benefit on their members, tenants and residents to qualify for (c)(3) status, yet their contributions to the social welfare are undeniable and warrant their continued exemption from federal income taxes.</p></blockquote><p>I don\'t really have a decided take on this question. But I would put an asterisk next to Mr Colombo\'s pessimism that it\'s possible to distinguish whether an organisation\'s primary purpose is politics or social welfare. I think it\'s pretty easy to draw that distinction, in a society that decides it\'s interested in drawing the distinction. Societies that want to create a line between two fields of public activity are capable of doing so; we already do this in many ways. For example, the distinction between politics and the law is drawn very clearly in the US, because so many powerful social actors have a strong interest in policing those boundaries. Go to Russia or Vietnam, and you see how fuzzy and fluid those boundaries quickly become in societies where most social actors are interested not in separating politics and the law, but in blending them. (Not even an outsider can pretend to delineate a clear line: in a country where everyone violates tax law because it is impossible to comply with tax law, is it \"justice\" or \"politics\" when one person is prosecuted for it, or when they\'re not?)</p><p>The problem in America at the moment is that we have a vital, relentlessly competitive political sphere that is gradually colonising the domain of social welfare. Where there are still apolitical social-welfare causes, political groups see their interest in dividing and polarising those causes with one political tint or the other. We\'ve seen this process play out over decades with Planned Parenthood, the Boy Scouts, the environmental movement, and most recently with the scientific establishment. A different kind of society might strongly stigmatise people who set up organisations that pretend to be social-welfare outfits when they are in fact almost entirely devoted to helping one party or the other win an election. This particular issue does not arise in many other advanced democracies, though they have democratic problems of their own. In any case, we\'re not interested in enforcing these kinds of distinctions right now; we throw up our hands and say \"one man\'s politics is another man\'s social welfare\".</p><p>Given that situation, I think Mr Colombo is probably right that we should just do away with the category. Of course that\'s not going to happen either, because the very same rampant politicisation has also paralysed our government and made it impossible to pass problem-solving legislation of this sort, or indeed any sort at all.</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:19;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:7:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:23:\"Uncontrolled demolition\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:63:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/syria\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578193\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-17T21:50:39+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-17T21:50:39+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:4:\"M.S.\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:4735:\"\n    <p>SYRIA has been in a state of civil war long enough that it\'s now beginning to disintegrate, <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/world/middleeast/pressure-of-war-is-causing-syria-to-break-apart.html?partner=rss&amp;emc=rss\">reports Ben Hubbard of the <em>New York Times</em></a>. His lead paragraph reads like a dispatch from the Wars of the Roses, or a trailer for a new season of&nbsp;<em>Game of Thrones</em>.</p><blockquote><p>The black flag of jihad flies over much of northern Syria. In the center of the country, pro-government militias and Hezbollah fighters battle those who threaten their communities. In the northeast, the Kurds have effectively carved out an autonomous zone.</p><p>...Increasingly, it appears Syria is so badly shattered that no single authority is likely to be able to pull it back together any time soon.</p><p>Instead, three Syrias are emerging: one loyal to the government, to Iran and to Hezbollah; one dominated by Kurds with links to Kurdish separatists in Turkey and Iraq; and one with a Sunni majority that is heavily influenced by Islamists and jihadis.</p><p>“It is not that Syria is melting down — it has melted down,” said Andrew J. Tabler, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and author of “In the Lion’s Den: An Eyewitness Account of Washington’s Battle with Syria.”</p></blockquote><p>Very well then. What if Syria did fall apart? We know there\'s no political will for an American military intervention to help the rebels drive out the Assad regime. That\'s partly due to America\'s exhaustion after more than a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. It\'s partly due to the difficulty of any intervention; with Russia <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/world/middleeast/russia-provides-syria-with-advanced-missiles.html?partner=rss&amp;emc=rss\">supplying the Syrian government with advanced antiship cruise missiles</a> and so forth, this war would not resemble the relatively easy campaign in Libya. And it\'s partly because the rebels are unlikely to form a successful government, and that even if they do, it\'s unlikely to be friendly to America, or to be a net improvement for liberty and human welfare over the Assad regime.</p><p>But what about trying to just end the bloodshed and freeze the current situation? Given that the country\'s population has effectively split into irreconcilable warring camps, wouldn\'t it be best for all concerned if those camps were each acknowledged as legitimate in their areas of control? If those areas of control are more homogenous than the overall Syrian state, couldn\'t that form a more stable basis for governance? Should America aim for a resolution along those lines in the talks it\'s convening with Russia?</p><p>Maybe. Then again, maybe not. The problem with formally acknowledging armed secessionist groups as soon as they gain control over a patch of territory is that it encourages new armed groups to secede, provoking yet more civil wars. (See under: Yugoslavia.) And in the middle east, hopes that such splinter groups will grow into non-belligerent stakeholders once they\'ve become responsible for controlling populations and territory are often disappointed. (See under: Hamas; Gaza.)&nbsp;</p><p>The tableaus of death and suffering that are being broadcast from this civil war are horrifying. This generates a certain amount of political will for the United States to intervene and do something. It\'s hard to countenance a version of international morality in which the world\'s most powerful country sits back in the face of the slaughter of tens of thousands of civilians and simply does nothing. Listening to <a href=\"http://www.npr.org/2013/04/30/179855633/c-j-chivers-on-the-ground-in-syria\">C.J. Chivers\'s interview a few weeks back on Fresh Air</a>, you could feel the desperation of the Syrian rebels he\'s traveled with, and their families and other civilians—people&nbsp;who decided to revolt against a dictatorial regime, or who simply found themselves on the wrong side of the territorial, confessional or ethnic lines, and are being slaughtered for it, with no help arriving from the so-called civilised west. And yet even if the American public had the political will to intervene, there seems little reason to believe it would lead to any greater stability, any less slaughter, any less misery.</p><p>Back in the early 1990s, it seemed plausible to believe that with the Cold War divisions having evaporated, the strong liberal democracies could use their military power to ensure, at a minimum, that governments not be permitted to massacre their own populations. In some places, they can. But Syria looks to be one of those cases where they can\'t.</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:20;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:33:\"Pointless, punitive and permitted\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:71:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/voting-rights\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578126\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-17T15:00:19+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-17T15:00:19+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:63:\"\n   It\'s difficult to make a case for disenfranchising felons  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:31:\"J.F. | FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:7516:\"\n    <p><div class=\"content-image-float\"><img src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2013/05/blogs/democracy-america/vote590.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"\"  width=\"590\" height=\"333\" /></div></p><p>A <a href=\"http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-568.pdf\">REPORT</a> released earlier this month by the Census Bureau found that in 2012, for the first time, voting rates of black Americans exceeded that of whites: 66.2% of eligible black voters cast ballots in the last presidential election, compared with 64.1% of whites (in 2008, the numbers were 64.7% of blacks and 66.1% of whites). Beneath those top-line numbers, however, lie significant gender-based disparities in voting. More than 70% of black women voted, while just 61.4% of black men did. Black women voted at higher rates than white men and women; black men\'s voting rates appear to be lower. I say \"appear\" because the Census Bureau\'s numbers do not take felony disenfranchisement into account. When you do that—when you subtract from each of the four race/gender-based categories those members who cannot vote because they have been convicted of a felony, leaving you with a pool of truly eligible voters—the share of black male voters rises to <a href=\"http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/black-male-turnout-higher-than-official-data-suggest/\">68%</a>. That is still lower, but only just, than black women, and higher than the share of white voters of either gender.</p><p>Around one in every 40 American adults is <a href=\"http://felonvoting.procon.org/sourcefiles/2010_State_Level_Estimates_of_Felon_Disenfranchisement.pdf\">ineligible to vote</a> due to a felony conviction. While most states forbid felons in prison from voting (Maine and Vermont are the only exceptions), 19 others also forbid those on parole or probation from voting and 11 states disenfranchise felons even after they have served their time, accounting for nearly half of the 5.85m disenfranchised. That number is <a href=\"http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000287\">five times higher</a> than it was in 1976. It includes one in every 13 black adults, and in three states (Florida, Virginia and Kentucky), more than one in every five.</p><p></p><p>And to what end? Sound arguments in favour of disenfranchising felons are hard to come by; advocates instead seem to prefer arguing against those who oppose felon disenfranchisement. Roger Clegg, for instance, barely makes \"<a href=\"http://www.stthomas.edu/media/schooloflaw/pdf/jlpp/volume2no1/Clegg-Conway-Lee-Fin.pdf\">The Case Against Felon Voting</a>\", as his article title promises; instead, he merely argues that the practice has a long history, going back not just to the country\'s founding but to British and Roman law too; that such laws are not unconstitutional and were enacted with \"a race-neutral purpose\"; and that federal courts are <a href=\"http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/key-issues-hayden-v-pataki\">split</a> on the question of whether the Voting Rights Act (VRA) can be used to strike down felon-disenfranchisement laws on the grounds that they disproportionately affect minorities. Making the case that neither the constitution nor the VRA invalidate such laws is a far cry from making the case for such laws.</p><p>But in the last two pages of his article he finally gets around to arguing for rather than just against. He cites Henry Friendly, a federal judge, who wrote that \"it can scarcely be deemed unreasonable for a state to decide that perpetrators of serious crimes shall not take part in electing the legislators who make the laws\". But of course this leaves open the question of what constitutes \"serious crimes\". Someone convicted of sedition? Sure: if you are found guilty of trying to overthrow the country, have your vote stripped. But someone convicted of possessing a couple of ounces of marijuana? Of getting in a bar fight? Someone from a poor neighbourhood who sold drugs? What is the rationale, aside from pure punishment, of taking away their right to vote? Someday those people—like most felons—will one day get out of prison, and all of us have an interest in doing everything possible to make sure they don\'t go back: to make sure that they become taxpayers rather than wards of the state. Voting reminds people that they are part of a polity. Mr Friendly\'s quotes also leaves open the question of how long felons should be denied the right to vote. There is an immense difference between a state refusing to set up voting stations in prisons and stripping anyone convicted of any felony of their voting rights forever. </p><p><a href=\"http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_2_felons.html\">Edward Feser</a> rallies to the cause by pointing out that conviction often entails multiple punishments. Drunk drivers, for instance, often lose their licenses and pay fines. Similarly, advocates of disenfranchisement believe that \"a punishment of incarceration without disenfranchisement...would be too lenient.\" But of course drunk drivers put others at immediate risk of injury or death by driving the car that their license entitles them to drive. Removing it bears some logical relation to their conviction. The same cannot be said for removing all felons\' right to vote. It serves no deterrent purpose, and exists solely as an additional punishment not logically connected to the crime committed. Mr Feser\'s fondness for \"incarceration and\" could just as easily be applied to forbidding felons from using telephones, or wearing shoes, or eating onions. When you decide the primary goal of incarceration is punishment, not rehabilitation, then anything becomes permissible.</p><p>Both he and Mr Clegg are far too glib, too, on the subject of race. Yes, laws disenfranchising felons may have been race-neutral in intent and in theory. However race-neutral such laws may be in theory, in practice they are anything but, as the chart cited above shows. Simply saying that the laws apply to white felons as well as black and Latino felons is like saying that the law forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges. It does American democracy no favours to keep from the ballot box nearly one in ten members of a group of people who, by virtue of the amount of melanin in their skin, were denied that very fundamental right for most of America\'s history.</p><p>Ultimately, Mr Clegg admits \"room for reasonable compromise\" on felon voting, which makes sense. One could reasonably argue that people sentenced to life without the possibility of parole are permanently segregated from the world outside prison, and so should not have the right to influence it. But there exists no such reasonable argument for permanently disenfranchising anyone ever convicted of any felony at all.&nbsp; And Mr Feser does his argument no favours when his essay descends into spittle-flecked shin-kicking at the end, fulminating that allowing felons to vote \"devalue[s] the franchise by throwing it away on murderers and other criminals, whose fellow citizens\' blood is still fresh on their hands.\" Most disenfranchised felons are not murderers. Most felons will eventually rejoin society, and a conviction should not be a permanent scarlet letter. Ultimately, the best argument he and Mr Clegg can produce is that laws permanently disenfranchising felons are not unconstitutional. But that only makes them (arguably) permissible, and not all things permitted are desirable, just or sensible.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:21;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:9:\"Plot hole\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:66:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/benghazi\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578139\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-16T21:13:10+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-16T21:13:10+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:138:\"\n   Washington\'s obsession with the Benghazi affair is yet another sign that America\'s capital is turning into a self-obsessed viper pit  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:4:\"M.S.\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:5640:\"\n    <p>THE inquiry into the Benghazi affair is lending increasing substance to opponents\' charges that the Obama administration massaged its talking points on the attacks, playing down the possible involvement of al-Qaeda-linked extremists and playing up linkages to an anti-Muslim video, in order to [EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS WOULD MAKE SENSE TK].</p><p>Let us return to the basics here, because what\'s going on in Washington right now is devoid of reason.</p><p></p><p>Yesterday the White House released <a href=\"http://www.scribd.com/doc/141734044/White-House-Benghazi-Emails\">a large dump of emails</a> detailing the process of talking-point revision that took place in the run-up to Susan Rice\'s talk-show appearances in September. Those emails show a long series of contested revisions between staffers in the State Department, the CIA, and the White House over whether or not to include mention of al-Qaeda, whether or not to note CIA warnings of possible attacks, and various other topics. The CIA wanted to fend off possible accusations that they were at fault for failing to protect the Benghazi location. The State Department wanted to protect itself from what it felt was a CIA effort to blame it for insufficient security, particularly since, as is now known from testimony (though not mentioned in the emails, and obviously not in the talking points themselves) the Benghazi outpost was primarily a CIA operation. The White House intervened, in its own words, to protect the \"equities\" of the different agencies. Conservatives charge, however, that White House intervention was biased towards the State Department.</p><p>At this point the key question is becoming clear. That question is, as it has been from the beginning: <em>who cares?</em></p><p>The accusation made at the start of the Benghazi affair was that the administration had mischaracterised the attacks and misled the American people in order to protect itself in the presidential campaign. This accusation never made any sense, because there was no electoral advantage to be gained by implying that the attacks at Benghazi were pre-planned rather than spontaneous, or that al-Qaeda was or was not involved. In the current round of shark-feeding, the accusation seems to be that the administration intervened in order to shield the State Department from the CIA. This appears not to be true; the <a href=\"http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/\">initial ABC report</a> last Friday on which it was based turned out, once the full emails were revealed, to be <a href=\"http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/cnn-exclusive-white-house-email-contradicts-benghazi-leaks/\">false and based on altered quotes</a>. But if it were true, so what? Or perhaps the accusation is that the administration intervened in order to minimise the impression that State or the CIA had made serious errors by failing to adequately protect the Benghazi mission. But the subsequent independent inquiry quickly did come to that conclusion. If the administration happened not to make that statement in its immediate response three days after the attacks, and instead left it for an independent inquiry that came out a month later, what difference does that make?</p><p>There have been more serious accusations during the course of the hearings. The most serious was that the administration or senior military officials intervened to deliberately order units that could have come to the aid of the besieged mission to \"stand down\". These accusations have the disadvantage of being both untrue and completely crazy, not to mention slanderous towards the US military, and have been <a href=\"http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57584087/gates-some-benghazi-critics-have-cartoonish-view-of-military-capability/\">thoroughly debunked</a>.</p><p>So what are we talking about here?</p><p>What we\'re talking about, at this point, is one thing. In November, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, told the press that the talking points Ms Rice received had only been altered once, to change a minor terminology issue, and that this had come at the behest of the intelligence services. That was false. Why did Mr Carney say it? It\'s hard to figure out. It certainly would have helped end the controversy more quickly if it had been true, but given that it wasn\'t true, it clearly helped prolong the controversy. And the press that reported Mr Carney\'s lie is <a href=\"http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/benghazi-cia-talking-point-edits-white-house.html\">naturally furious</a>. That\'s reasonable. I\'ve been lied to by government spokespeople on subjects that were far more serious than this one, and it sure is infuriating. Spokespeople should not feel that they can get away with telling little white lies to the press. If they think they can, they may lie on matters of consequence.</p><p>This, however, is not a matter of consequence. How extensive the edits were on the talking points that Susan Rice used for TV appearances on one Sunday in September, and whether they came only from CIA or from CIA, the State Department, and the White House—this makes no difference to anyone outside the DC political and press community. Washington is obsessed by this affair. People around the world should recognise that Washington\'s obsession with this affair is yet another sign that America\'s capital is turning into a self-obsessed viper pit of scheming courtiers who care only about winning favour and office, and not about governing the country they\'re supposed to be running.</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:22;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:21:\"Spanner in the works?\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:75:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/obamacare-and-irs\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578023\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-16T14:03:23+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-16T14:03:23+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:126:\"\n   Congressional Republicans have already impeded the implementation of Obamacare; the IRS scandal strengthens their hand    \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:14:\"W.W. | HOUSTON\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:6097:\"\n    <p>THE <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/republicans-and-taxes\">scandal over the Internal Revenue Service</a> targeting conservative non-profit organisations for extra scrutiny comes at an inauspicious time for the Obama administration. When Obamacare goes in to full effect in January, the IRS will be vested with an array of new powers. Americans will be required to prove to the agency that they have a \"qualifying\" health plan, or pay a penalty. The IRS is also charged with passing confidential tax info to the Department of Health and Human Services, which will determine eligibility for new health-care subsidies. Americans will be required to report changes to their lives that might affect their eligibility for subsidies. A new job, a raise, a move to a new state, a change in marital status, a change in hours worked can all trigger a requirement to update the IRS. The put all this information together, the government is building a vast new database. The <a href=\"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324715704578481461934680982.html\"><em>Wall Street Journal</em></a> reports:</p><blockquote><p>To monitor compliance with these rules, the IRS and HHS are now building the largest personal information database the government has ever attempted. Known as the Federal Data Services Hub, the project is taking the IRS\'s own records (for income and employment status) and centralizing them with information from Social Security (identity), Homeland Security (citizenship), Justice (criminal history), HHS (enrollment in entitlement programs and certain medical claims data) and state governments (residency).</p></blockquote><p></p><p>If the IRS debacle has dented your trust in the bureaucracy\'s willingness to set aside partisan politics when administering its programmes, the prospect of the Federal Data Services Hub may be troubling. \"Centralizing so much personal information in one place is another invitation for the IRS wigglers in some regional office—or maybe higher up—to make political decisions about enforcement\", the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> editorial board opines. Citing <a href=\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/10/budget-request-denied-sebelius-turns-to-health-executives-to-finance-obamacare/\">yet another new scandal</a>, the <em>Journal</em> goes on to describe how new IRS powers might be used in a partisan shakedown racket:</p><blockquote><p>[T]ake the recent HHS disclosure that Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has been beseeching the industries she regulates like insurers, hospitals and drug makers for \"independent\" donations. Ms. Sebelius will then take this money and give it to third-party groups—many affiliated with the Obama Administration—that will encourage people to sign up for ObamaCare.</p><p>The distinction between soliciting and demanding is especially vague when the IRS is the bad cop, with millions of dollars on corporate balance sheets potentially at risk. For instance, the IRS is supposed to apportion the annual $8 billion tax on health insurers according to market share—but that depends on how the IRS defines market share. Giving in advance to Ms. Sebelius can quickly begin to look like protection money to avoid corporate tax retribution.</p></blockquote><p>For those sympathetic to Democrats, and inclined to diminish the significance of this week\'s bumper crop of scandal, it will be useful to remember that, sooner or later, these powers will be in the hands of a Republican administration.</p><p>Sara Kliff of the <em>Washington Post</em> <a href=\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/15/irs-scandal-probably-wont-hurt-obamacare/\">maintains</a> that the shenanigans in the Cincinnatti office of the IRS won\'t much affect the implementation of Obamacare, but only because congressional Republicans have already done all they can to interfere with the implementation of the new system. \"At most\", she writes,</p><blockquote><p>the IRS is probably in for an increased amount of oversight as it moves forward on implementation of the Affordable Care Act, more questions about the data it will collect and how it will be used. Aside from that, there’s not much Congress can do to stand in the agency’s way that they have not done before.</p></blockquote><p>Ms Kliff may well be right, but I fear she underestimates the imagination and cunning of the newly emboldened GOP caucus. We\'ll see. At the very least, the IRS scandal offers Republicans a club with which to hammer away at already <a href=\"http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/slide4.png\">weak support</a> of Obamacare, and to resist the consolidating surge in popularity the programme\'s advocates hope implementation will finally bring. But to what end?</p><p>Panning way out, the invasive administrative complexity of Obamacare highlights the possibility that America\'s health-care system has arrived, through decades of mutual partisan sabotage, at something approximating the worst of all feasible health-care systems. I would prefer a truly free market in health care, together with generous subsidies for the uninsurable and poor. Barring that, I\'d prefer a sort of Medicare-for-all socialised system. Most of us, I think, would prefer one or the other of these over what we\'ve got. What we\'ve got is a convoluted, hyperregulated, nightmarishly bureaucratic crony-capitalist system that lacks the virtues of either market efficiency or socialist universality. To build something like universality on top of the rotten, entrenched status quo, Americans are about to be required to report every little development in work and family life to an agency now known to abuse the trust of the citizens it is supposed to serve. A \"repeal\" of Obamacare might forestall the development of an overly Big-Brotherish IRS, but would leave us with yet another half-aborted layer of bureaucratic accretion, the grotesque stuff of which America\'s exceptionally cumbersome and unjust health-care system is made. Look upon your works, Americans, and despair.</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:23;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"Now and later\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:74:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/austerity-debate\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21577956\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-15T19:25:18+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-15T19:25:18+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:116:\"\n   Thinking of the children does not spare one from considering the present needs of the hungry, sick and elderly  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:15:\"S.M. | NEW YORK\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:8946:\"\n    <p><div class=\"content-image-float\"><img src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2013/05/blogs/democracy-america/child450.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"\"  width=\"288\" height=\"450\" /></div></p><p>THE unwavering Republican line on fiscal policy is that it is unconscionable to saddle our children and grandchildren with a mountain of debt. John Boehner, the speaker of the House, <a href=\"http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/speaker-boehner-response-president-obama-s-press-conference\">repeated that mantra in January</a> when making demands over the debt ceiling. \"Without meaningful action,\" he said, \"the debt will continue to act as an anchor on our economy, costing American jobs and endangering our children\'s future.\" America needs to keep cutting government spending, Republicans insist, to ease the \"<a href=\"http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/12/1119215/-Ryan-s-Follies-A-Crushing-Burden-of-Public-Debt\">crushing burden of debt</a><span>\" we are bequeathing to coming generations.</span></p><p dir=\"ltr\">Despite the <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21576362-seminal-analysis-relationship-between-debt-and-growth-comes-under\"><span>now-dubious connection</span></a> Mr Boehner sees between sovereign debt and rates of growth, and the surprisingly sunny <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/business/cbo-cuts-2013-deficit-estimate-by-24-percent.html?ref=us&amp;_r=0\">news</a> we\'re getting this week about the deficit, the argument has rhetorical strength. Only a gutsy, enlightened steward has the wisdom to thwart a future threat to the nation’s well-being by biting the bullet and calling for short-term pain to promote long-term gain. Only a statesman is equipped to make the tough decisions to set the country on a better course. (This argument sounds all the more appealing when taken with Republican scepticism of stimulus measures.)</p><p></p><p dir=\"ltr\"><span>But there are philosophical and empirical complexities at play in the <em>\"protect future generations!\"</em> line of reasoning. If we could avoid bigger trouble in the long run by assuming short-term hardships now, should we? Well, the answer depends on how dire things look in the long run, how much hardship is necessary to avert disaster, and how certain we are that the strategy will in fact work out in the nation’s favour. It would be irrational to opt for certain, indefinite-term pain now to purchase an unspecified amount of theoretical gain later. In any case, the moral calculation is quite a bit more involved than Mr Boehner or fellow Republicans let on. Government owes a duty to future generations, but it has a duty toward individuals living today as well: it would be perverse to aim to quell the indebtedness of Americans coming of age in 2050 by cutting food stamps for hungry children today.</span></p><p dir=\"ltr\"><span>In the budget authored by Paul Ryan that </span><a href=\"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/21/paul-ryan-budget-passed_n_2924126.html\"><span>passed</span></a><span> the House of Representatives in March, the word “austerity” appears only four times, and not in a positive light. Mr Ryan </span><a href=\"http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf\"><span>warned</span></a><span> that unless America takes care of business today, it will be in for “immediate and painful fiscal adjustments” a few years down the road. He added parenthetically that the “harsh austerity” on the horizon would be reminiscent of measures that “provoked riots and a deepening recession in Greece”.</span></p><p dir=\"ltr\"><span>The key to preventing this turmoil, Republican leaders insist, is reining in deficits and averting a projected </span><a href=\"http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/07/used-and-abused-how-baby-boomers-are-ruining-their-childrens-lives/\"><span>burgeoning</span></a><span> of the national debt as baby boomers retire and gobble up Medicare and Social Security checks in coming decades. Mr Ryan’s sights are set squarely toward tomorrow in the final lines of his budget:</span></p><blockquote><p dir=\"ltr\"><span>In the end, the debate about rising U.S. debt is not just about dollars and cents, but also about America’s status as a world power and its freedom to act in its own best interests. If the nation stays on its current path, the United States will be unable to a?ord its role as an economic and military superpower... Today’s children will grow up in a world de?ned by di?erent values, and their futures will be de?ned by fewer opportunities than their parents had.</span></p><p dir=\"ltr\"><span>Last year in Foreign A?airs magazine, ?nancial historian Niall Ferguson surveyed some of the great empire declines throughout history and observed that “most imperial falls are associated with ?scal crises. All the… cases were marked by sharp imbalances between revenues and expenditures, as well as di?culties with ?nancing public debt. Alarm bells should be ringing loudly… [for] the United States.”</span></p><p dir=\"ltr\"><span>America must not abandon its leadership role in the world. For this and many other reasons, Congress must act now to change the nation’s ?scal course. The Republican House majority was sent here by the American people to get spending under control and confront these great challenges today to allow this generation to pass an even greater nation along to the next generation.</span></p></blockquote><p dir=\"ltr\"><span>As the </span><em>Wall Street Journal</em><span> reports, the tide is </span><a href=\"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324059704578473200079623668.html\"><span>beginning to turn</span></a><span> a bit from prospects of a debt-fueled apocalypse. Economists of many stripes are observing that deficit hysteria in Washington </span><a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/us/deficit-reduction-is-seen-by-economists-as-impeding-recovery.html?ref=todayspaper&amp;pagewanted=all\"><span>may have short-circuited the recovery</span></a><span> and on Monday, in a </span><em>New York Times </em><span>op-ed</span><span>,</span><span> David Stuckler and Sanjay Basu pointed out the </span><a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/opinion/how-austerity-kills.html?pagewanted=all\"><span>human price of budget cutting</span></a><span> in the here and now. If the House Republicans had their way, federal spending would be </span><a href=\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ryan-budget-plan-combines-old-cuts-new-tax-revenue/2013/03/12/d5ab0358-8b09-11e2-b63f-f53fb9f2fcb4_story.html\"><span>cut by $4.6 trillion</span></a><span> over the next decade, with $2.7 trillion of that sum coming from cuts to health care, including the repeal of Obamacare. Mr Ryan wants to eschew \"austerity\" as a label for his plan—he reserves that term as a warning for what would happen if we don’t tighten our belts today—but it is unclear what would count as \"austere\" if trillions of dollars worth of cuts do not.</span></p><p dir=\"ltr\"><span>Messrs Stuckler and Basu describe the \"deadly side effects\" of austerity and <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/opinion/how-austerity-kills.html?pagewanted=all\"><span>note</span></a><span> ominous signs of worsening health trends in America even without the slashes to health spending proposed by House Republicans:</span></span></p><blockquote><p>Prescriptions for antidepressants have soared. Three-quarters of a million people (particularly out-of-work young men) have turned to binge drinking. Over five million Americans lost access to health care in the recession because they lost their jobs (and either could not afford to extend their insurance under the Cobra law or exhausted their eligibility). Preventive medical visits dropped as people delayed medical care and ended up in emergency rooms. (President Obama’s <a href=\"http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier\">health care law</a> expands coverage, but only gradually.)</p></blockquote><p>The GOP budget never had much of a chance of becoming law, given Democratic control of the Senate and the White House. Nevertheless, the vision of massive cuts now, for redemption later, is receiving a diagnosis of hyperopia. Everyone agrees that some degree of fiscal tightening is necessary, and certainly entitlement reform is needed. But building an America unburdened by debt years down the line is not a costless endeavour. The pursuit of solvency must proceed with a clear understanding of the trade-offs between current and future generations. Thinking of the children does not spare one from considering the present needs of the hungry, sick and elderly.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP. The young child was demonstrating with her parents against cuts to education funding in California.)</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}i:24;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:27:\"\n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n  \n  \n\n  \n\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:8:{s:5:\"title\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:18:\"Look who\'s talking\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:4:\"link\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:1:{s:0:\"\";a:3:{s:3:\"rel\";s:9:\"alternate\";s:4:\"type\";s:9:\"text/html\";s:4:\"href\";s:81:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/05/spying-associated-press\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:2:\"id\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"tag:www.economist.com,21578006\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:9:\"published\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-15T16:41:59+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"updated\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:25:\"2013-05-15T16:41:59+00:00\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:7:\"summary\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:63:\"\n   The Justice Department obtains journalists\' phone records  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:6:\"author\";a:1:{i:0;a:6:{s:4:\"data\";s:13:\"\n    \n    \n  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"child\";a:1:{s:27:\"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:30:\"The Economist | WASHINGTON, DC\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}s:3:\"uri\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:24:\"http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"attribs\";a:0:{}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:0;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:0:\"\";}}}}}}s:7:\"content\";a:1:{i:0;a:5:{s:4:\"data\";s:3983:\"\n    <p><div class=\"content-image-float\"><img src=\"http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2013/05/blogs/democracy-america/doj290.jpg\" alt=\"\" title=\"\"  width=\"290\" height=\"289\" /></div></p><p>WHEN the authorities want to obtain journalists’ phone records as part of an investigation into a crime, the Department of Justice’s guidelines state that their request should be “as narrowly drawn as possible”. What is more, they should try to persuade the journalists concerned to hand over the records voluntarily before getting a judge’s approval to seize them, unless doing so was likely to undermine the investigation. So it came as some surprise to the Associated Press (AP), a news agency, to discover that the Justice Department had quietly obtained records of more than 20 phone lines used by its reporters and editors in New York, Washington and Hartford, Connecticut.</p><p>AP, along with many politicians and pressure groups, condemned the seizure as unjustifiably sweeping, and thus an affront to the freedom of the press. All manner of people who might have wanted to keep their contact with AP secret will have been caught in this dragnet, the argument runs; as a result, others might now hesitate to speak to reporters, for fear that the authorities would learn of it in similar fashion. That fear is not far-fetched: under Barack Obama’s watch, the government has indicted six officials for leaking secrets under a law called the Espionage Act, which had only previously been invoked three times against government officials since its enactment in 1917.</p><p></p><p>Although the Justice Department did not explain the reason for its scrutiny of AP, it seems to relate to an article the agency published last year detailing the foiling of a plot to blow up a passenger jet en route to America. The FBI had already said it was investigating the leak of details of that operation, and another one, intended to sabotage Iran’s nuclear programme. Moreover, the telephone records at issue included the work, home and mobile numbers of journalists who had worked on the article.</p><p>Eric Holder, the attorney general, would normally have had to sign off on the subpoena of the phone records. But he did not, citing a conflict on interest, as the FBI had questioned him about the leaks as well. Instead, the task fell to his deputy, James Cole, who insists the proper procedures were followed and due consideration given to any possible impingement on press freedom. But neither he nor anyone else has given any inkling of why such a broad and secretive approach was necessary.</p><p>The administration, critics point out, is hypocritically inconsistent in its disclosure of information about national security. The president, for example, has spoken about America’s drone strikes against suspected terrorists, but in court, the administration refuses even to acknowledge the programme’s existence. By the same token, Mr Holder said the matter being investigated at AP “put the American people at risk”. Yet John Brennan, now the director of the CIA and at the time the president’s chief adviser on terrorism, told the Senate “there was never any danger to the American people” associated with the plot revealed by the AP. The Justice Department’s sudden fascination with journalists\' phone records, of course, will make such inconsistencies much harder to probe.</p><p><strong>Update:</strong> The president has <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/us/politics/under-fire-white-house-pushes-to-revive-media-shield-bill.html\">asked Chuck Schumer</a> to reintroduce a&nbsp;media shield law in the Senate that would offer certain protections to journalists and their sources. Mr Obama supported such a law as a senator, but has more recently&nbsp;<a href=\"http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Obama-s-shield-law-reversal-disappointing-844066.php\">expressed reservations about a similar bill</a>.</p>  \";s:7:\"attribs\";a:2:{s:0:\"\";a:1:{s:4:\"type\";s:4:\"html\";}s:36:\"http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace\";a:2:{s:4:\"lang\";s:2:\"en\";s:4:\"base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";}}s:8:\"xml_base\";s:49:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica\";s:17:\"xml_base_explicit\";b:1;s:8:\"xml_lang\";s:2:\"en\";}}}}}}}}}}}}s:4:\"type\";i:512;s:7:\"headers\";a:18:{s:13:\"last-modified\";s:31:\"Fri, 31 May 2013 20:39:21 +0000\";s:4:\"vary\";s:23:\"Cookie, Accept-Encoding\";s:27:\"access-control-allow-origin\";s:1:\"*\";s:16:\"x-backend-server\";s:9:\"D=2427327\";s:4:\"x-ws\";s:3:\"101\";s:12:\"content-type\";s:24:\"text/html; charset=utf-8\";s:6:\"server\";s:20:\"Economist Web Server\";s:13:\"cache-control\";s:13:\"max-age = 600\";s:14:\"content-length\";s:5:\"74333\";s:13:\"accept-ranges\";s:5:\"bytes\";s:4:\"date\";s:29:\"Fri, 31 May 2013 20:40:40 GMT\";s:9:\"x-varnish\";s:19:\"350948024 350942306\";s:3:\"via\";s:11:\"1.1 varnish\";s:10:\"connection\";s:10:\"Keep-Alive\";s:3:\"age\";s:1:\"0\";s:15:\"x-varnish-cache\";s:3:\"HIT\";s:12:\"x-cache-hits\";s:1:\"4\";s:16:\"content-encoding\";s:7:\"deflate\";}s:5:\"build\";s:14:\"20090627192103\";}','no'),(26535,0,'_site_transient_timeout_browser_bc89934ae688cfdb4d1d3a23d375f98d','1317432473','yes'),(26536,0,'_site_transient_browser_bc89934ae688cfdb4d1d3a23d375f98d','a:9:{s:8:\"platform\";s:7:\"Windows\";s:4:\"name\";s:7:\"Firefox\";s:7:\"version\";s:5:\"6.0.2\";s:10:\"update_url\";s:23:\"http://www.firefox.com/\";s:7:\"img_src\";s:50:\"http://s.wordpress.org/images/browsers/firefox.png\";s:11:\"img_src_ssl\";s:49:\"https://wordpress.org/images/browsers/firefox.png\";s:15:\"current_version\";s:1:\"6\";s:7:\"upgrade\";b:0;s:8:\"insecure\";b:0;}','yes'),(26740,0,'_site_transient_timeout_browser_c7a35499c44fc0fdc2a072e52b6e9e5b','1317953515','yes'),(26741,0,'_site_transient_browser_c7a35499c44fc0fdc2a072e52b6e9e5b','a:9:{s:8:\"platform\";s:7:\"Windows\";s:4:\"name\";s:7:\"Firefox\";s:7:\"version\";s:3:\"7.0\";s:10:\"update_url\";s:23:\"http://www.firefox.com/\";s:7:\"img_src\";s:50:\"http://s.wordpress.org/images/browsers/firefox.png\";s:11:\"img_src_ssl\";s:49:\"https://wordpress.org/images/browsers/firefox.png\";s:15:\"current_version\";s:1:\"6\";s:7:\"upgrade\";b:0;s:8:\"insecure\";b:0;}','yes'),(25882,0,'can_compress_scripts','1','yes'),(787,0,'sociable_awesmapikey','','yes'),(4995,0,'_transient_timeout_rss_e96f1599ba1bcbbb8d508799c5ff4da6','1266279459','no'),(4996,0,'_transient_rss_e96f1599ba1bcbbb8d508799c5ff4da6','O:9:\"MagpieRSS\":17:{s:6:\"parser\";i:0;s:12:\"current_item\";a:0:{}s:5:\"items\";a:25:{i:0;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:16:\"Bill of the week\";s:4:\"link\";s:67:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/bill_week\";s:11:\"description\";s:1647:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Bill of the week        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    J.F. | ATLANTA        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Chips chip away at chip encroachment        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p>THE best part of the <a href=\"http://www.gpb.org/news/2010/02/04/ga-senate-passes-bill-opposing-involuntary-microchips\">bill</a> recently passed by the Georgia state senate banning involuntary implantation of microchips into humans is not that it addressed a problem that by the bill\'s sponsor\'s admission does not exist (unlike budget shortfalls, MARTA funding and water rights). It is not that it follows a similar one passed in <a href=\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/09/AR2010020903796.html\">Virginia</a>, sponsored by an official who fretted over microchips being \"the mark of the beast\". The best part of SB235 is that it was cosponsored by Senators Rogers and Pearson, both of whom have the first name Chip.</p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:76:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/bill_week#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:31:24 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004835 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:1647:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Bill of the week        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    J.F. | ATLANTA        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Chips chip away at chip encroachment        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p>THE best part of the <a href=\"http://www.gpb.org/news/2010/02/04/ga-senate-passes-bill-opposing-involuntary-microchips\">bill</a> recently passed by the Georgia state senate banning involuntary implantation of microchips into humans is not that it addressed a problem that by the bill\'s sponsor\'s admission does not exist (unlike budget shortfalls, MARTA funding and water rights). It is not that it follows a similar one passed in <a href=\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/09/AR2010020903796.html\">Virginia</a>, sponsored by an official who fretted over microchips being \"the mark of the beast\". The best part of SB235 is that it was cosponsored by Senators Rogers and Pearson, both of whom have the first name Chip.</p>\";}i:1;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:39:\"Ehud Barak breaks the apartheid barrier\";s:4:\"link\";s:98:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/israel_demography_democracy_or_apartheid\";s:11:\"description\";s:7219:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Israel, demography, democracy or apartheid        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    America wakes up to Israel&#039;s demography/democracy crisis, 23 years late        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"220\" height=\"334\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w07/barak220.jpg?1266253279\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w07/barak220.jpg\" alt=\"\" align=\"right\" width=\"220\" height=\"334\">WE\'VE been <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2010/02/judging_israel\">talking</a> a lot lately about Israel and American Jews, so here goes another post on the topic. On Friday Daniel Levy <a href=\"http://progressiverealist.org/blogpost/retractionist-retentionist-discourse-israel\">wrote</a> a trenchant response to what Ehud Barak, Israel\'s former prime minister and current defence minister, said at the Herzliya Conference the week before. To wit:</p><blockquote><p>If, and as long as between the Jordan and the sea, there is only one political entity, named Israel, it will end up being either non-Jewish or non-democratic... If the Palestinians vote in elections, it is a binational state, and if they don\'t, it is an apartheid state.</p></blockquote><p>Mr Levy writes that Mr Barak\'s views reflect the basic realist center-left diagnosis of Israel\'s situation, but that there is a terrible \"disconnect\" between this diagnosis—a Palestinian state, or apartheid—and the weak, hopeless half-measures most on the Israeli (and American Jewish) left advocate in response. Continuing negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, which the Israeli right can continue to sabotage at every launch of a Hamas missile, will go nowhere; they have gone nowhere for nine years. This road leads to apartheid. Mr Levy says the real contest for Israel\'s future is between the \"hard retractionists\", those who support drastic measures to end Israel\'s occupation of the West Bank, and the \"hard retentionists\", who want to keep the West Bank.</p><blockquote><p>Hard retentionists know they will have to rewrite the rules of democracy, and plead a special exemption clause for \"Jewish democracy\" and for the elevation of Jewish-only rights. Palestinians are to be dehumanized, human and civil rights groups and international humanitarian law excoriated and a vocabulary created for laundering and justifying an apartheid reality.</p></blockquote><p>Hard retractionists, Mr Levy says, must \"stand up for (long-ridiculed) Jewish values, ethics and morality...and ultimately support international campaigns that distinguish between Israel proper and the occupied territories.\" (Even this, the observer notes, sounds like a bit of a euphemism.) But when Israeli leftists take such positions, Mr Levy says, they are excoriated as traitors.&nbsp;<a href=\"http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/matthewyglesias/%7E3/rVdZPt8fflc/means-and-ends.php\">Matthew Yglesias</a>&nbsp;agrees, and adds that American Jews have been similarly unwilling to advocate moves commensurate with their analysis of the situation.</p><p>I agree with Mr Levy that it is refreshing that Mr Barak is willing to pose the Israeli-Palestinian problem in these terms. It would have been even more interesting if Mr Barak, and other mainstream Israeli politicians, had considered the issue in this light a bit earlier. To my knowledge, the first major figure to pose the problem of how Israel could cope with a Palestinian claim to citizenship in a state stretching from the Jordan to the sea was the Palestinian intellectual and activist Sari Nusseibeh, who, in 1987, <a href=\"http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/palestinian_biographies/sari-nusseibeh-biography.html\">proposed</a> that Israel annex the occupied territories and give Palestinians the vote. As Mr Nusseibeh knew, Israel could not possibly absorb the Palestinian populations of the West Bank and Gaza, and the only alternative was a two-state solution.</p><p>Mr Nusseibeh <a href=\"http://www.israeli-occupation.org/2010-01-20/sari-nusseibeh-a-palestinian-state-has-become-impossible/\">now believes</a> the two-state solution has become virtually impossible. There are too many Israeli settlers in the West Bank, and the Israeli political system is incapable of making the concessions that would be necessary even to halt further settlements, let alone to withdraw them and allow the creation of a Palestinian state. Mr Nusseibeh is a keen political thinker, a non-violent man who opposed the 2001 \"second intifada\" and has many close Israeli friends. His history of negotiations with Israeli authorities began with his secret talks with the right-wing government of Yitzhak Shamir in the 1980s. His assessment fits with the history of Israeli-Palestinian dialogue over the past 60-odd years: each side has rejected every plausible deal at every available opportunity, only to look back a decade or two later with bitter regret.</p><p>If American Jews want a pointer as to how to approach this problem, here is a rule of thumb: think of the most impossible concession you can imagine, the bitter point of contention you absolutely refuse to give way on. In 1970, it was the existence of a Palestinian (not Arab) people; in 1980, it was accepting that Israeli forces had expelled the Palestinian refugees in 1948 and thus bore responsibility for their plight; in 1990, it was accepting Yasser Arafat and the PLO as the representatives of the Palestinian people; in 2000, it was the idea that Israel might legitimately be compared to an apartheid state. Then understand that within ten years, you will have given way on that point. What on earth is the point of this resistance? Do you want, once again, to give way on the point when it is too late, and the deal is no longer available? Mr Nusseibeh says his next move will be to demand that Israel annex the West Bank and grant Palestinians at least \"third-class citizenship\": economic and residential rights, without political ones. On what grounds will you defend Israel\'s inevitable refusal of such a demand? How long before Mr Barak\'s words are not taken as dire prophecy, but simple description?</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:107:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/israel_demography_democracy_or_apartheid#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:14:22 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004833 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:7219:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Israel, demography, democracy or apartheid        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    America wakes up to Israel&#039;s demography/democracy crisis, 23 years late        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"220\" height=\"334\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w07/barak220.jpg?1266253279\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w07/barak220.jpg\" alt=\"\" align=\"right\" width=\"220\" height=\"334\">WE\'VE been <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2010/02/judging_israel\">talking</a> a lot lately about Israel and American Jews, so here goes another post on the topic. On Friday Daniel Levy <a href=\"http://progressiverealist.org/blogpost/retractionist-retentionist-discourse-israel\">wrote</a> a trenchant response to what Ehud Barak, Israel\'s former prime minister and current defence minister, said at the Herzliya Conference the week before. To wit:</p><blockquote><p>If, and as long as between the Jordan and the sea, there is only one political entity, named Israel, it will end up being either non-Jewish or non-democratic... If the Palestinians vote in elections, it is a binational state, and if they don\'t, it is an apartheid state.</p></blockquote><p>Mr Levy writes that Mr Barak\'s views reflect the basic realist center-left diagnosis of Israel\'s situation, but that there is a terrible \"disconnect\" between this diagnosis—a Palestinian state, or apartheid—and the weak, hopeless half-measures most on the Israeli (and American Jewish) left advocate in response. Continuing negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, which the Israeli right can continue to sabotage at every launch of a Hamas missile, will go nowhere; they have gone nowhere for nine years. This road leads to apartheid. Mr Levy says the real contest for Israel\'s future is between the \"hard retractionists\", those who support drastic measures to end Israel\'s occupation of the West Bank, and the \"hard retentionists\", who want to keep the West Bank.</p><blockquote><p>Hard retentionists know they will have to rewrite the rules of democracy, and plead a special exemption clause for \"Jewish democracy\" and for the elevation of Jewish-only rights. Palestinians are to be dehumanized, human and civil rights groups and international humanitarian law excoriated and a vocabulary created for laundering and justifying an apartheid reality.</p></blockquote><p>Hard retractionists, Mr Levy says, must \"stand up for (long-ridiculed) Jewish values, ethics and morality...and ultimately support international campaigns that distinguish between Israel proper and the occupied territories.\" (Even this, the observer notes, sounds like a bit of a euphemism.) But when Israeli leftists take such positions, Mr Levy says, they are excoriated as traitors.&nbsp;<a href=\"http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/matthewyglesias/%7E3/rVdZPt8fflc/means-and-ends.php\">Matthew Yglesias</a>&nbsp;agrees, and adds that American Jews have been similarly unwilling to advocate moves commensurate with their analysis of the situation.</p><p>I agree with Mr Levy that it is refreshing that Mr Barak is willing to pose the Israeli-Palestinian problem in these terms. It would have been even more interesting if Mr Barak, and other mainstream Israeli politicians, had considered the issue in this light a bit earlier. To my knowledge, the first major figure to pose the problem of how Israel could cope with a Palestinian claim to citizenship in a state stretching from the Jordan to the sea was the Palestinian intellectual and activist Sari Nusseibeh, who, in 1987, <a href=\"http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/palestinian_biographies/sari-nusseibeh-biography.html\">proposed</a> that Israel annex the occupied territories and give Palestinians the vote. As Mr Nusseibeh knew, Israel could not possibly absorb the Palestinian populations of the West Bank and Gaza, and the only alternative was a two-state solution.</p><p>Mr Nusseibeh <a href=\"http://www.israeli-occupation.org/2010-01-20/sari-nusseibeh-a-palestinian-state-has-become-impossible/\">now believes</a> the two-state solution has become virtually impossible. There are too many Israeli settlers in the West Bank, and the Israeli political system is incapable of making the concessions that would be necessary even to halt further settlements, let alone to withdraw them and allow the creation of a Palestinian state. Mr Nusseibeh is a keen political thinker, a non-violent man who opposed the 2001 \"second intifada\" and has many close Israeli friends. His history of negotiations with Israeli authorities began with his secret talks with the right-wing government of Yitzhak Shamir in the 1980s. His assessment fits with the history of Israeli-Palestinian dialogue over the past 60-odd years: each side has rejected every plausible deal at every available opportunity, only to look back a decade or two later with bitter regret.</p><p>If American Jews want a pointer as to how to approach this problem, here is a rule of thumb: think of the most impossible concession you can imagine, the bitter point of contention you absolutely refuse to give way on. In 1970, it was the existence of a Palestinian (not Arab) people; in 1980, it was accepting that Israeli forces had expelled the Palestinian refugees in 1948 and thus bore responsibility for their plight; in 1990, it was accepting Yasser Arafat and the PLO as the representatives of the Palestinian people; in 2000, it was the idea that Israel might legitimately be compared to an apartheid state. Then understand that within ten years, you will have given way on that point. What on earth is the point of this resistance? Do you want, once again, to give way on the point when it is too late, and the deal is no longer available? Mr Nusseibeh says his next move will be to demand that Israel annex the West Bank and grant Palestinians at least \"third-class citizenship\": economic and residential rights, without political ones. On what grounds will you defend Israel\'s inevitable refusal of such a demand? How long before Mr Barak\'s words are not taken as dire prophecy, but simple description?</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>\";}i:2;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:32:\"Anti-American internet rhetoric?\";s:4:\"link\";s:80:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/china_bans_more_google\";s:11:\"description\";s:3129:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Authoritarianism and the internet        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    How authoritarian regimes justify their curbs on the internet        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p>THE point Nancy Scola is making <a href=\"http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&amp;year=2010&amp;base_name=internet_antiamericanism\">here</a> seems logical enough at first.</p><blockquote><p>We saw it with China, when they responded to a possible Google pullout by complaining that the World Wide Web is hopelessly flooded with American content, and we see it again and again in Cuba, where the Castro regime argues that the content on the Web is so skewed toward American interests that they just don\'t want it for their people. From the perspective of Beijing or Havana, it\'s as if you turned on a TV in New York City and 470 of 500 channels were running Latin American telenovelas. More local, non-English content would be good for everyone involved.</p></blockquote><p><a href=\"http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/american-internet\">Kevin Drum</a> notes that in fact, obviously, authoritarian regimes are using concerns over cultural autonomy as a smokescreen for asserting political control. But even this doesn\'t quite express how off-point Ms Scola is. In fact, regimes like China and Iran (and Vietnam, and others) are not unduly worried about English-language content produced in America flooding their countries, because few of their citizens can read English. (It\'s not even the same alphabet. Cuba, admittedly, may be different.) What really worries such countries is politically independent material produced in local languages. Such countries often allow the English-language websites of, say, the BBC or Voice of America to be viewed unimpeded inside the country. It is the Mandarin-, Farsi-, and Vietnamese-language sites of such news organisations that are blocked.</p><p>True, much of the politically sensitive material produced in these languages comes from diaspora communities in America and Europe. But that is precisely because these regimes crack down so hard on locally-produced political content. It\'s convenient for China and others to claim that cultural anti-imperialism is the reason for their curbs on internet content. If that\'s true, they can prove it by allowing their own citizens to post whatever they want. Don\'t hold your breath.</p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:89:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/china_bans_more_google#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:13:08 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004820 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:3129:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Authoritarianism and the internet        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    How authoritarian regimes justify their curbs on the internet        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p>THE point Nancy Scola is making <a href=\"http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&amp;year=2010&amp;base_name=internet_antiamericanism\">here</a> seems logical enough at first.</p><blockquote><p>We saw it with China, when they responded to a possible Google pullout by complaining that the World Wide Web is hopelessly flooded with American content, and we see it again and again in Cuba, where the Castro regime argues that the content on the Web is so skewed toward American interests that they just don\'t want it for their people. From the perspective of Beijing or Havana, it\'s as if you turned on a TV in New York City and 470 of 500 channels were running Latin American telenovelas. More local, non-English content would be good for everyone involved.</p></blockquote><p><a href=\"http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/american-internet\">Kevin Drum</a> notes that in fact, obviously, authoritarian regimes are using concerns over cultural autonomy as a smokescreen for asserting political control. But even this doesn\'t quite express how off-point Ms Scola is. In fact, regimes like China and Iran (and Vietnam, and others) are not unduly worried about English-language content produced in America flooding their countries, because few of their citizens can read English. (It\'s not even the same alphabet. Cuba, admittedly, may be different.) What really worries such countries is politically independent material produced in local languages. Such countries often allow the English-language websites of, say, the BBC or Voice of America to be viewed unimpeded inside the country. It is the Mandarin-, Farsi-, and Vietnamese-language sites of such news organisations that are blocked.</p><p>True, much of the politically sensitive material produced in these languages comes from diaspora communities in America and Europe. But that is precisely because these regimes crack down so hard on locally-produced political content. It\'s convenient for China and others to claim that cultural anti-imperialism is the reason for their curbs on internet content. If that\'s true, they can prove it by allowing their own citizens to post whatever they want. Don\'t hold your breath.</p>\";}i:3;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:18:\"The unique country\";s:4:\"link\";s:64:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2010/02/judging_israel\";s:11:\"description\";s:6062:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Israel and America&#039;s punditocracy        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    R.L.G. | NEW YORK        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Why &quot;double standards&quot; don&#039;t apply to Israel: it&#039;s a country like no other        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/IsraelFamily300.jpg?1265997162\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p>IT\'S a little late to wade into <a href=\"http://www.tnr.com/article/something-much-darker\">Wieseltier</a>&nbsp;v&nbsp;<a href=\"http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/the-latest-from-leon.html\">Sullivan</a>—my colleague <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/leon_wieseltier_accuses_andrew_sullivan_anti-semitic_tendencies\">already has</a>, and I really don\'t care about their feud beyond idle curiosity. (What, someone has to tell me one day, happened between those two? The gossip hasn\'t reached me.)</p><p>But Mr Wieseltier makes an accusation worth addressing because it is so often repeated against others: Mr Sullivan, goes the charge, treats Israel more harshly than other countries. Words like \"hypocrisy\" and \"double standards\" bounce around, intended as proof that anyone who gets especially exercised about Israel must have some passion all out of proportion about Jews, and case closed.</p><p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/IsraelFamily300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" align=\"right\">But there\'s an obvious alternative: Israel really isn\'t like any other country, and the Israeli-Arab conflict is like no other too. It\'s a simple case to make. Not all the points are unfavorable to Israel, which is why it has such passionate supporters. The Jewish roots in Palestine are thousands of years old. Israel was founded just three years after the biggest crime in human history wiped out a huge proportion of the world\'s Jews. Since its founding, its neighbours have repeatedly tried to wipe it off the face of the planet. It is still bordered by two states that don\'t recognise it, and two states with which it has only a hostile peace. The region more broadly is utterly antagonistic, and one nearby adversary is boastfully adding nuclear capacity at speed. Israel has suffered repeated terrorism directed against its civilians like no other country has. And yet it remains the lone democracy in a darkly autocratic region. No other country has all these reasons for sympathy and support.</p><p>But Israel is also the only country governed by a mostly white, mostly European-descended majority smack in the middle of a non-European region. (Whites dominated America, Canada, Australia and others so long ago, and so thoroughly, that the crimes committed there are distant to most. More recent examples, white colonies like Angola, South Africa and Algeria, were dismantled in ignominy.) Israel is the only state in the world that offers citizenship automatically to coreligionists wherever they come from; it is a religious-nationalist project in an era in which such projects are far from favour. More, Israel displaced most of its territory\'s autochthonous population in living memory. Their descendants still live miserably just outside the borders, under the world\'s eyes. Finally, when it fights, as it does frequently, it is filled with and surrounded by journalists that send images of the blood of its enemies, and of the inevitable civilians alongside, around the world.</p><p>Israel is basically a Western country. Its founders were European-born or their parents were. It joins the Western Europe and Others group at the UN, it plays in Europe\'s international football forums and even enters the Eurovision song contest. But it is in the Middle East, and it remains embroiled in a century-old conflict that has embittered both sides to commit atrocities. Being judged by Western standards in a never-ending Middle Eastern war is no easy thing, especially when the enemy today consists of terrorists who dress like, and hide among, civilians. For that alone Israel deserves sympathy. But it also deserves special scrutiny in the West, because Israel\'s failure to find peace is the world\'s worry, and especially America\'s. Getting excitable about Israel in a way you can get excitable about no other country is no proof of anti-Semitism. Its supporters are excitable too. Israel is no other country, which is exactly why we talk about it so much.</p><p><strong>Addendum: </strong>Before comments go too far on a tangent, I\'m aware of Israel\'s Sephardim, Yemeni Jews, Ethiopian Jews and other non-Ashkenazi groups. That\'s why I said \"governed by a <em>mostly </em>white, <em>mostly </em>European-descended majority\": Ashkenazim still dominate the elite, and Israel has never had a Sephardic prime minister. Later I said \"Its <em>founders </em>were European-born or their parents were,\" for the same reason. Israel isn\'t exactly European, but it isn\'t exactly not-European either, which was my point.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:73:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2010/02/judging_israel#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Fri, 12 Feb 2010 17:55:54 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004805 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:6062:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Israel and America&#039;s punditocracy        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    R.L.G. | NEW YORK        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Why &quot;double standards&quot; don&#039;t apply to Israel: it&#039;s a country like no other        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/IsraelFamily300.jpg?1265997162\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p>IT\'S a little late to wade into <a href=\"http://www.tnr.com/article/something-much-darker\">Wieseltier</a>&nbsp;v&nbsp;<a href=\"http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/the-latest-from-leon.html\">Sullivan</a>—my colleague <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/leon_wieseltier_accuses_andrew_sullivan_anti-semitic_tendencies\">already has</a>, and I really don\'t care about their feud beyond idle curiosity. (What, someone has to tell me one day, happened between those two? The gossip hasn\'t reached me.)</p><p>But Mr Wieseltier makes an accusation worth addressing because it is so often repeated against others: Mr Sullivan, goes the charge, treats Israel more harshly than other countries. Words like \"hypocrisy\" and \"double standards\" bounce around, intended as proof that anyone who gets especially exercised about Israel must have some passion all out of proportion about Jews, and case closed.</p><p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/IsraelFamily300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" align=\"right\">But there\'s an obvious alternative: Israel really isn\'t like any other country, and the Israeli-Arab conflict is like no other too. It\'s a simple case to make. Not all the points are unfavorable to Israel, which is why it has such passionate supporters. The Jewish roots in Palestine are thousands of years old. Israel was founded just three years after the biggest crime in human history wiped out a huge proportion of the world\'s Jews. Since its founding, its neighbours have repeatedly tried to wipe it off the face of the planet. It is still bordered by two states that don\'t recognise it, and two states with which it has only a hostile peace. The region more broadly is utterly antagonistic, and one nearby adversary is boastfully adding nuclear capacity at speed. Israel has suffered repeated terrorism directed against its civilians like no other country has. And yet it remains the lone democracy in a darkly autocratic region. No other country has all these reasons for sympathy and support.</p><p>But Israel is also the only country governed by a mostly white, mostly European-descended majority smack in the middle of a non-European region. (Whites dominated America, Canada, Australia and others so long ago, and so thoroughly, that the crimes committed there are distant to most. More recent examples, white colonies like Angola, South Africa and Algeria, were dismantled in ignominy.) Israel is the only state in the world that offers citizenship automatically to coreligionists wherever they come from; it is a religious-nationalist project in an era in which such projects are far from favour. More, Israel displaced most of its territory\'s autochthonous population in living memory. Their descendants still live miserably just outside the borders, under the world\'s eyes. Finally, when it fights, as it does frequently, it is filled with and surrounded by journalists that send images of the blood of its enemies, and of the inevitable civilians alongside, around the world.</p><p>Israel is basically a Western country. Its founders were European-born or their parents were. It joins the Western Europe and Others group at the UN, it plays in Europe\'s international football forums and even enters the Eurovision song contest. But it is in the Middle East, and it remains embroiled in a century-old conflict that has embittered both sides to commit atrocities. Being judged by Western standards in a never-ending Middle Eastern war is no easy thing, especially when the enemy today consists of terrorists who dress like, and hide among, civilians. For that alone Israel deserves sympathy. But it also deserves special scrutiny in the West, because Israel\'s failure to find peace is the world\'s worry, and especially America\'s. Getting excitable about Israel in a way you can get excitable about no other country is no proof of anti-Semitism. Its supporters are excitable too. Israel is no other country, which is exactly why we talk about it so much.</p><p><strong>Addendum: </strong>Before comments go too far on a tangent, I\'m aware of Israel\'s Sephardim, Yemeni Jews, Ethiopian Jews and other non-Ashkenazi groups. That\'s why I said \"governed by a <em>mostly </em>white, <em>mostly </em>European-descended majority\": Ashkenazim still dominate the elite, and Israel has never had a Sephardic prime minister. Later I said \"Its <em>founders </em>were European-born or their parents were,\" for the same reason. Israel isn\'t exactly European, but it isn\'t exactly not-European either, which was my point.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>\";}i:4;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:25:\"The complicated jobs bill\";s:4:\"link\";s:83:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/tax_breaks_hiring_workers\";s:11:\"description\";s:6661:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Tax breaks for hiring workers        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Are tax loopholes the best way to encourage hiring?        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"275\" height=\"350\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/Employment350.jpg?1265990386\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/Employment350.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"275\" height=\"350\">UNEMPLOYMENT is running at almost 10%&nbsp;in America, but not everyone is feeling the pain. Take, for example, those&nbsp;workers with a family income over $100,000 a year. For them the unemployment rate is lower than 4%,&nbsp;according to&nbsp;<a href=\"http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/02/10/rich-people-still-have-jobs-poor-people-dont/\">a recent Northeastern University study</a>. So the recession hasn\'t felt like much of a recession for many&nbsp;college-educated white-collared folks. It is blue-collar and unskilled workers&nbsp;who are experiencing the most hardship. For the bottom 30% of households unemployment was between 19% and 30% at the end of 2009, and underemployment an additional 12-21%.</p><p>Democrats and Republicans both want to do something about this. And because Republicans are unlikely to agree to any new government spending (apart from defence and, obviously, pretty much any project in their own districts), <a href=\"http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/baucus-grassley-propose-new-jobs-bill/?hp\">the jobs bill they unveiled</a>&nbsp;yesterday concentrated on tax cuts.</p><blockquote><p>Senators Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Finance Committee, and Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the panel’s senior Republican, released a draft $85 billion plan that would give employers a payroll tax exemption for hiring those who have been unemployed for at least 60 days. The bill would also provide a $1,000 income tax credit for new workers retained for 52 weeks. (A <a href=\"http://www.finance.senate.gov/sitepages/legislation.htm\">draft of the bill is available here.</a>)...</p><p>The costs of the bill would be offset by closing tax loopholes and shifting some money to be made available for future improvements in the Medicare program.</p></blockquote><p>In short, they planned to open a new tax loophole, and pay for it by closing some others. This doesn\'t seem to me, instinctively, to be the way a government ought to make economic policy. Then again, it might not be the worst thing in the world to have the tax code favour hiring unemployed workers. Inequality has been rising inexorably over the past few decades, and it\'s pretty clear the burdens of globalisation\'s creative destruction fall most heavily on low-skilled workers. <a href=\"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059424289353714.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection\">Megan Carpentier</a> yesterday noted a <a href=\"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059424289353714.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection\"><em>Wall Street Journal</em> survey</a> of economists who expected the economy to add just 133,000 jobs a month through 2010, barely more than it needs to incorporate new entrants to the labour force. They expect unemployment to still be at 9.4% at year\'s end. So it might not hurt to use tax loopholes for the next few decades to tilt the playing field towards employing some of those less-productive workers.</p><p>But by the end of the day yesterday, <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/us/politics/12cong.html?partner=rss&amp;emc=rss\">Harry Reid had announced</a> the jobs bill would be stripped down to four basic initiatives, losing some of the things Republicans had wanted, like disaster-relief money for Arkansas and Mississippi and&nbsp;the extension of some corporate tax breaks (which seems reasonable if the idea is to <em>close</em>&nbsp;loopholes). Mr Reid also apparently took out some extra benefits for the unemployed. Cutting unemployment benefits seems like a bizarre priority for a Democrat, particularly since <a href=\"http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/bipartisan_jobs_bill_receives_bipartisan_boos.php\">Marc Ambinder reports</a> that the only thing the CBO believes would do more to create new jobs than a tax credit aimed at hiring would be raising unemployment benefits. The unemployed spend new funds so quickly, raising demand in the economy so much, that increasing unemployment benefits is, counterintuitively, the single best way to create jobs.</p><p>Here\'s my concern: this business with the opening and closing of tax loopholes is so hard to follow, and it\'s so difficult to say anything meaningful about its effect on jobs, that it makes it essentially impossible to write a decent blog post. Fortunately, the jobs bill also appears to contain some actual spending on useful long-term projects that would involve, you know, creating some jobs. The worry during last year\'s stimulus-bill discussions was that non-\"shovel-ready\" projects would only start hiring workers after the recession had passed and everyone already had jobs, thus driving up inflation. That worry seems less salient now that economists are finding that the end of the recession, rather than cutting unemployment by, say, 5%, just means those of us who already have jobs will have to produce, say, <a href=\"http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.nr0.htm\">6.2% more</a>. For example, if Congress\'s political initiatives remain as incomprehensible as what went down yesterday, I may have to increase my blog output by at least a post a day.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:92:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/tax_breaks_hiring_workers#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:44:57 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004808 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:6661:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Tax breaks for hiring workers        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Are tax loopholes the best way to encourage hiring?        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"275\" height=\"350\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/Employment350.jpg?1265990386\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/Employment350.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"275\" height=\"350\">UNEMPLOYMENT is running at almost 10%&nbsp;in America, but not everyone is feeling the pain. Take, for example, those&nbsp;workers with a family income over $100,000 a year. For them the unemployment rate is lower than 4%,&nbsp;according to&nbsp;<a href=\"http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/02/10/rich-people-still-have-jobs-poor-people-dont/\">a recent Northeastern University study</a>. So the recession hasn\'t felt like much of a recession for many&nbsp;college-educated white-collared folks. It is blue-collar and unskilled workers&nbsp;who are experiencing the most hardship. For the bottom 30% of households unemployment was between 19% and 30% at the end of 2009, and underemployment an additional 12-21%.</p><p>Democrats and Republicans both want to do something about this. And because Republicans are unlikely to agree to any new government spending (apart from defence and, obviously, pretty much any project in their own districts), <a href=\"http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/baucus-grassley-propose-new-jobs-bill/?hp\">the jobs bill they unveiled</a>&nbsp;yesterday concentrated on tax cuts.</p><blockquote><p>Senators Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Finance Committee, and Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the panel’s senior Republican, released a draft $85 billion plan that would give employers a payroll tax exemption for hiring those who have been unemployed for at least 60 days. The bill would also provide a $1,000 income tax credit for new workers retained for 52 weeks. (A <a href=\"http://www.finance.senate.gov/sitepages/legislation.htm\">draft of the bill is available here.</a>)...</p><p>The costs of the bill would be offset by closing tax loopholes and shifting some money to be made available for future improvements in the Medicare program.</p></blockquote><p>In short, they planned to open a new tax loophole, and pay for it by closing some others. This doesn\'t seem to me, instinctively, to be the way a government ought to make economic policy. Then again, it might not be the worst thing in the world to have the tax code favour hiring unemployed workers. Inequality has been rising inexorably over the past few decades, and it\'s pretty clear the burdens of globalisation\'s creative destruction fall most heavily on low-skilled workers. <a href=\"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059424289353714.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection\">Megan Carpentier</a> yesterday noted a <a href=\"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059424289353714.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection\"><em>Wall Street Journal</em> survey</a> of economists who expected the economy to add just 133,000 jobs a month through 2010, barely more than it needs to incorporate new entrants to the labour force. They expect unemployment to still be at 9.4% at year\'s end. So it might not hurt to use tax loopholes for the next few decades to tilt the playing field towards employing some of those less-productive workers.</p><p>But by the end of the day yesterday, <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/us/politics/12cong.html?partner=rss&amp;emc=rss\">Harry Reid had announced</a> the jobs bill would be stripped down to four basic initiatives, losing some of the things Republicans had wanted, like disaster-relief money for Arkansas and Mississippi and&nbsp;the extension of some corporate tax breaks (which seems reasonable if the idea is to <em>close</em>&nbsp;loopholes). Mr Reid also apparently took out some extra benefits for the unemployed. Cutting unemployment benefits seems like a bizarre priority for a Democrat, particularly since <a href=\"http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/bipartisan_jobs_bill_receives_bipartisan_boos.php\">Marc Ambinder reports</a> that the only thing the CBO believes would do more to create new jobs than a tax credit aimed at hiring would be raising unemployment benefits. The unemployed spend new funds so quickly, raising demand in the economy so much, that increasing unemployment benefits is, counterintuitively, the single best way to create jobs.</p><p>Here\'s my concern: this business with the opening and closing of tax loopholes is so hard to follow, and it\'s so difficult to say anything meaningful about its effect on jobs, that it makes it essentially impossible to write a decent blog post. Fortunately, the jobs bill also appears to contain some actual spending on useful long-term projects that would involve, you know, creating some jobs. The worry during last year\'s stimulus-bill discussions was that non-\"shovel-ready\" projects would only start hiring workers after the recession had passed and everyone already had jobs, thus driving up inflation. That worry seems less salient now that economists are finding that the end of the recession, rather than cutting unemployment by, say, 5%, just means those of us who already have jobs will have to produce, say, <a href=\"http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.nr0.htm\">6.2% more</a>. For example, if Congress\'s political initiatives remain as incomprehensible as what went down yesterday, I may have to increase my blog output by at least a post a day.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>\";}i:5;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:33:\"This week\'s Economist/YouGov poll\";s:4:\"link\";s:78:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/economistyougov_poll\";s:11:\"description\";s:3158:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Economist/YouGov poll        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    R.M. | NEW YORK        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Who&#039;s making more of an effort at bipartisanship, Republicans or the president?        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p>SOME highlights from this week\'s <em>Economist</em>/YouGov poll:</p> <p>• Who\'s making more of an effort at bipartisanship, Republicans or the president? Answer: 48% of the public believe Barack Obama is trying to work with Republicans in Congress at least \"a fair amount\", while only 27% think the Republicans are trying to work with Mr Obama.</p><p>• Yet two out of three say Mr Obama has made little or no progress in changing the partisan tone in Washington. Even a majority of Democrats see little movement there. And of those who think Congress accomplished less than usual last year, 41% blame the Democrats while 23% blame the Republicans. (Of course, many more Republicans think Congress accomplished little.)</p><p>• But does the public really understand how difficult it is to pass legislation on the Hill? Not really—59% of the public cannot correctly answer the question: \"Do you know how many votes are required to end a filibuster in the US Senate?\"</p><p>•&nbsp;Forty-two percent of the public are \"angry\" about the way things are going in Washington, while 40% trust the government to do what is right \"almost never\". <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15498280\">Tea anyone?</a> (Only 11% think they can trust the government most of the time.)</p><p>• Many of those distrustful people are also supporters of Sarah Palin. And yet here\'s the big problem for the Palin 2012 campaign: 39% of the public have a (\"somewhat\" or \"very\") favourable opinion of Mrs Palin, but nearly as many (38%) have a \"<em>very</em> unfavourable\" opinion of her (while another 16% view her \"somewhat\" unfavourably).</p><p>• Finally, one percent of the public say Barack Obama is \"very conservative\", once again proving that you can get 1% of Americans to say just about anything.</p><p><strong>Data links:</strong> Our top-line numbers can be found <a href=\"http://media.economist.com/images/pdf/Toplines20100211.pdf\">here</a>. Our tracking graphs can be found <a href=\"http://media.economist.com/images/pdf/TrackingGraphs20100211.pdf\">here</a>. All of the data can be found <a href=\"http://media.economist.com/images/pdf/Tabs20100211.pdf\">here</a>.</p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:87:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/economistyougov_poll#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:48:10 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004807 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:3158:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Economist/YouGov poll        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    R.M. | NEW YORK        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Who&#039;s making more of an effort at bipartisanship, Republicans or the president?        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p>SOME highlights from this week\'s <em>Economist</em>/YouGov poll:</p> <p>• Who\'s making more of an effort at bipartisanship, Republicans or the president? Answer: 48% of the public believe Barack Obama is trying to work with Republicans in Congress at least \"a fair amount\", while only 27% think the Republicans are trying to work with Mr Obama.</p><p>• Yet two out of three say Mr Obama has made little or no progress in changing the partisan tone in Washington. Even a majority of Democrats see little movement there. And of those who think Congress accomplished less than usual last year, 41% blame the Democrats while 23% blame the Republicans. (Of course, many more Republicans think Congress accomplished little.)</p><p>• But does the public really understand how difficult it is to pass legislation on the Hill? Not really—59% of the public cannot correctly answer the question: \"Do you know how many votes are required to end a filibuster in the US Senate?\"</p><p>•&nbsp;Forty-two percent of the public are \"angry\" about the way things are going in Washington, while 40% trust the government to do what is right \"almost never\". <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15498280\">Tea anyone?</a> (Only 11% think they can trust the government most of the time.)</p><p>• Many of those distrustful people are also supporters of Sarah Palin. And yet here\'s the big problem for the Palin 2012 campaign: 39% of the public have a (\"somewhat\" or \"very\") favourable opinion of Mrs Palin, but nearly as many (38%) have a \"<em>very</em> unfavourable\" opinion of her (while another 16% view her \"somewhat\" unfavourably).</p><p>• Finally, one percent of the public say Barack Obama is \"very conservative\", once again proving that you can get 1% of Americans to say just about anything.</p><p><strong>Data links:</strong> Our top-line numbers can be found <a href=\"http://media.economist.com/images/pdf/Toplines20100211.pdf\">here</a>. Our tracking graphs can be found <a href=\"http://media.economist.com/images/pdf/TrackingGraphs20100211.pdf\">here</a>. All of the data can be found <a href=\"http://media.economist.com/images/pdf/Tabs20100211.pdf\">here</a>.</p>\";}i:6;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:12:\"Pick a fight\";s:4:\"link\";s:80:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/president_and_congress\";s:11:\"description\";s:4579:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    The president and Congress        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    R.L.G. | NEW YORK        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Why Barack Obama should take on congressional Democrats        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"595\" height=\"320\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/201007MCC897.jpg?1265923822\" />        </div>\n              <div class=\"field-item even\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"580\" height=\"318\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/laneschart580.jpg?1265926179\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p>THE <em>Washington Post </em><a href=\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/10/AR2010021000010.html\">reported</a> accurately enough on Tuesday that Barack Obama\'s numbers are down, and that most voters don\'t trust him as much as they used to on the economy and health care. (Though there\'s little joy, except for <em>schadenfreude</em>, for Republicans, who are <a href=\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_021010.html?sid=ST2010021000020\">still rated less positively</a> than the Democrats in most head-to-head questions in the polls.)</p><p>But the number that caught me was the approval rating of Congress—not the Democratic majority, but the institution generally (though it\'s safe to assume that most people associate, good or bad, the feelings about Congress with the majority on a given day). Congress\'s approval rating? 26%. This should put Mr Obama\'s 51% in quite some perspective. Congress virtually never breaches 50%, mostly hanging around the middle 30s or low 40s.</p><table border=\"0\"><tbody><tr><td><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/laneschart580.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"580\" height=\"318\"></td></tr></tbody></table><p>This is for a host of reasons well known to political scientists: to the average voter, exactly 532 Congressmen are working for their selfish interests; the other three (one\'s own representative and two senators) are rated, on average, far more highly. Congress is perceived, often correctly, as combining the worst of partisanship, selfishness and disorder.</p><p>Which leads me to wonder, again, why Mr Obama has let himself be tied so closely to congressional Democrats in the past year. As a policy matter, it has made the legislative sausage-making more unhealthy than usual. He could have put his impressive stump-skills on display to fight harder for his core goals, and against indefensible giveaways, weakenings and so on.</p><p>But worse, not keeping a greater distance from Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi has been terrible politics. Simply put, the two are loathed, and every time a Republican manages to say \"Obama-Pelosi-Reid\", it drags the president\'s reputation towards two disliked leaders of an always disliked body.</p><p>Mr Obama hinted that he would begin taking on his own congressional party in the state-of-the-union address. He told his party-mates not to \"run for the hills\" on health care or other issues just because of the result in Massachusetts. If I were his political advisor, I\'d tell him to turn the heat up on his own party even more, creating some distance politically and hopefully wounding their pride enough that they get it together. Sure, that latter bit is very wishful thinking, but the former isn\'t. Come on, Mr Obama. Tell your party-mates at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue that they don\'t deserve their majority if they can\'t get the job done. It has the virtue of being true.</p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:89:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/president_and_congress#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:44:04 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004803 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:4579:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    The president and Congress        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    R.L.G. | NEW YORK        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Why Barack Obama should take on congressional Democrats        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"595\" height=\"320\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/201007MCC897.jpg?1265923822\" />        </div>\n              <div class=\"field-item even\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"580\" height=\"318\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/laneschart580.jpg?1265926179\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p>THE <em>Washington Post </em><a href=\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/10/AR2010021000010.html\">reported</a> accurately enough on Tuesday that Barack Obama\'s numbers are down, and that most voters don\'t trust him as much as they used to on the economy and health care. (Though there\'s little joy, except for <em>schadenfreude</em>, for Republicans, who are <a href=\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_021010.html?sid=ST2010021000020\">still rated less positively</a> than the Democrats in most head-to-head questions in the polls.)</p><p>But the number that caught me was the approval rating of Congress—not the Democratic majority, but the institution generally (though it\'s safe to assume that most people associate, good or bad, the feelings about Congress with the majority on a given day). Congress\'s approval rating? 26%. This should put Mr Obama\'s 51% in quite some perspective. Congress virtually never breaches 50%, mostly hanging around the middle 30s or low 40s.</p><table border=\"0\"><tbody><tr><td><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/laneschart580.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"580\" height=\"318\"></td></tr></tbody></table><p>This is for a host of reasons well known to political scientists: to the average voter, exactly 532 Congressmen are working for their selfish interests; the other three (one\'s own representative and two senators) are rated, on average, far more highly. Congress is perceived, often correctly, as combining the worst of partisanship, selfishness and disorder.</p><p>Which leads me to wonder, again, why Mr Obama has let himself be tied so closely to congressional Democrats in the past year. As a policy matter, it has made the legislative sausage-making more unhealthy than usual. He could have put his impressive stump-skills on display to fight harder for his core goals, and against indefensible giveaways, weakenings and so on.</p><p>But worse, not keeping a greater distance from Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi has been terrible politics. Simply put, the two are loathed, and every time a Republican manages to say \"Obama-Pelosi-Reid\", it drags the president\'s reputation towards two disliked leaders of an always disliked body.</p><p>Mr Obama hinted that he would begin taking on his own congressional party in the state-of-the-union address. He told his party-mates not to \"run for the hills\" on health care or other issues just because of the result in Massachusetts. If I were his political advisor, I\'d tell him to turn the heat up on his own party even more, creating some distance politically and hopefully wounding their pride enough that they get it together. Sure, that latter bit is very wishful thinking, but the former isn\'t. Come on, Mr Obama. Tell your party-mates at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue that they don\'t deserve their majority if they can\'t get the job done. It has the virtue of being true.</p>\";}i:7;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:46:\"Why are Democrats so bad at collective action?\";s:4:\"link\";s:95:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/republicans_democrats_and_game_theory\";s:11:\"description\";s:5225:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Republicans, Democrats and game theory        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    And why are &quot;individualist&quot; Republicans so good at it?        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"287\" height=\"400\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/donkeyelephants400.jpg?1265918411\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/donkeyelephants400.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"287\" height=\"400\" align=\"right\" >CHRISTOPHER BEAM had a&nbsp;<a href=\"http://www.slate.com/id/2244161/\">suggestive piece</a> in <em>Slate</em> the other day on legislative tactics and game theory. The piece got me thinking about&nbsp;one of the oldest saws in American politics, the Republican \"11th Commandment\": Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican. In the last couple of years, this norm has taken a bit of a beating, what with the disowning of George Bush by many conservatives late in his term, the Tea Party activists\' insurgencies against \"Republicans in Name Only\", and the bitter post-campaign bickering between Sarah Palin and John McCain\'s staffers. But it\'s hard to argue that Republicans are worse on this front than Democrats, even at this low ebb. Up until about 2006 GOP solidarity remained extraordinary. No Democratic president since FDR has enjoyed the kind of uniform, murmurless support from his own party commanded by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.</p><p>It generally goes unremarked that this norm of Republican solidarity is completely bizarre. Certainly, refraining from speaking ill of your political allies is a highly effective strategy for collective action—whoops! What was that phrase? Collective action. That\'s what it is. The temptation to criticise one\'s political allies exists because criticism can help individuals derive personal advantage, either within the group or by forming temporary alliances outside the group. Refraining from criticising your allies is a strategy of deferring or sacrificing individual benefits for the good of the group.</p><p>But Republicans are supposed to be individualists! Democrats are supposed to believe in collective action for the good of the group. And yet Democrats are perfectly awful at collective action. Democrats are constantly undercutting their presidents; liberals have been lukewarm and quick to turn on Carter, Clinton and Obama, and no Republican president has ever faced the kind of fury from his base that the left directed at LBJ. Meanwhile, in Congress, Democrats defect or hold out in exchange for goodies constantly when they are in the majority (think Ben Nelson or Bart Stupak on health care). When they are in the minority, on the other hand, they...defect or hold out in exchange for goodies! (Think of all the Democrats who voted for George Bush\'s tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and No Child Left Behind.)</p><p>I think this points out the importance of culture and organisational norms in determining the bounds of rational individual behaviour. It\'s not actually irrational for individual Republicans, like Olympia Snowe, to turn down Democratic offers of compromises and incentives in the interest of maintaining group discipline and voting \"no\" on health-care reform. It\'s rational for her to do that, because she knows that the rest of the senators in her party are, well, Republicans: they\'ll enforce discipline too, and the party will make political gains as a result that filter back to her. For Democrats, on the other hand, it would be crazy to pass up the opportunity for short-term gain from playing an outside game against the party, because they know the rest of the people in their party are Democrats. There\'s little point playing along with party discipline, because nobody else will. This is a multiple-iteration Prisoner\'s Dilemma game, and both parties know how their fellow prisoners generally behave. The Republicans may not be enforcing \"Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican\" so well anymore, but they\'re doing a pretty good job on \"Thou shalt not vote with a Democrat\". The Democrats, meanwhile...they aren\'t so enthusiastic about this whole \"commandments\" thing.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:104:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/republicans_democrats_and_game_theory#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:44:52 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004797 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:5225:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Republicans, Democrats and game theory        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    And why are &quot;individualist&quot; Republicans so good at it?        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"287\" height=\"400\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/donkeyelephants400.jpg?1265918411\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/donkeyelephants400.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"287\" height=\"400\" align=\"right\" >CHRISTOPHER BEAM had a&nbsp;<a href=\"http://www.slate.com/id/2244161/\">suggestive piece</a> in <em>Slate</em> the other day on legislative tactics and game theory. The piece got me thinking about&nbsp;one of the oldest saws in American politics, the Republican \"11th Commandment\": Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican. In the last couple of years, this norm has taken a bit of a beating, what with the disowning of George Bush by many conservatives late in his term, the Tea Party activists\' insurgencies against \"Republicans in Name Only\", and the bitter post-campaign bickering between Sarah Palin and John McCain\'s staffers. But it\'s hard to argue that Republicans are worse on this front than Democrats, even at this low ebb. Up until about 2006 GOP solidarity remained extraordinary. No Democratic president since FDR has enjoyed the kind of uniform, murmurless support from his own party commanded by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.</p><p>It generally goes unremarked that this norm of Republican solidarity is completely bizarre. Certainly, refraining from speaking ill of your political allies is a highly effective strategy for collective action—whoops! What was that phrase? Collective action. That\'s what it is. The temptation to criticise one\'s political allies exists because criticism can help individuals derive personal advantage, either within the group or by forming temporary alliances outside the group. Refraining from criticising your allies is a strategy of deferring or sacrificing individual benefits for the good of the group.</p><p>But Republicans are supposed to be individualists! Democrats are supposed to believe in collective action for the good of the group. And yet Democrats are perfectly awful at collective action. Democrats are constantly undercutting their presidents; liberals have been lukewarm and quick to turn on Carter, Clinton and Obama, and no Republican president has ever faced the kind of fury from his base that the left directed at LBJ. Meanwhile, in Congress, Democrats defect or hold out in exchange for goodies constantly when they are in the majority (think Ben Nelson or Bart Stupak on health care). When they are in the minority, on the other hand, they...defect or hold out in exchange for goodies! (Think of all the Democrats who voted for George Bush\'s tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and No Child Left Behind.)</p><p>I think this points out the importance of culture and organisational norms in determining the bounds of rational individual behaviour. It\'s not actually irrational for individual Republicans, like Olympia Snowe, to turn down Democratic offers of compromises and incentives in the interest of maintaining group discipline and voting \"no\" on health-care reform. It\'s rational for her to do that, because she knows that the rest of the senators in her party are, well, Republicans: they\'ll enforce discipline too, and the party will make political gains as a result that filter back to her. For Democrats, on the other hand, it would be crazy to pass up the opportunity for short-term gain from playing an outside game against the party, because they know the rest of the people in their party are Democrats. There\'s little point playing along with party discipline, because nobody else will. This is a multiple-iteration Prisoner\'s Dilemma game, and both parties know how their fellow prisoners generally behave. The Republicans may not be enforcing \"Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican\" so well anymore, but they\'re doing a pretty good job on \"Thou shalt not vote with a Democrat\". The Democrats, meanwhile...they aren\'t so enthusiastic about this whole \"commandments\" thing.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>\";}i:8;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:12:\"J\'insinuate!\";s:4:\"link\";s:121:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/leon_wieseltier_accuses_andrew_sullivan_anti-semitic_tendencies\";s:11:\"description\";s:3610:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    The Wieseltier-Sullivan fued        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Turning the charge of anti-semitism into an easy, tired cliche        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p>LAST MONTH I read Leon Wieseltier\'s <a href=\"http://www.tnr.com/book/review/the-explored-recesses\">excellent review</a> of Philip Roth\'s much-criticised recent novel \"The Humbling\". One phrase stuck in my head, a criticism of Mr Roth\'s habit, in that book, of allowing his characters to rattle off trivial lists and technical-background descriptions: \"This is mere information, it adds nothing, it is the pseudo-polymathy of a Googling age.\" It was the kind of warning shot that changes your writing habits. I have since tried to avoid coming across as a Googling pseudo-polymath, and have been more alert to the tendency in others. This is how a good literary critic shapes culture.</p><p>This week, Mr Wieseltier wrote a <a href=\"http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/02/wieseltier-vs-sullivan.php?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+matthewyglesias+%28Matthew+Yglesias%29&amp;utm_content=Google+Reader\">much</a>-<a href=\"http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/02/about-frank-foer-editor-of-the-new-republic-is-he-a-spineless-cowardly-slug-or-is-he-a-human-being.html\">criticised</a>&nbsp;piece <a href=\"http://www.tnr.com/article/something-much-darker\">accusing Andrew Sullivan of trending towards anti-semitism</a>. He began by attacking Mr Sullivan for <a href=\"http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=dd9af18cdee0d5809b50f8c192568058\">writing last month</a> that \"most American Jews\" are tolerant and compassionate, but that \"the Goldfarb-Krauthammer wing is something else. Something much darker.\" Mr Wieseltier responds:</p><blockquote><p>I was not aware that they comprise a “wing” of American Jewry, or that American Jewry has “wings.” What sets them apart from their more enlightened brethren is the unacceptability of their politics to Sullivan. That is his criterion for dividing the American Jewish community into good Jews and bad Jews—a practice with a sordid history.</p></blockquote><p>This is silly. Mr Sullivan\'s phrasing was bad form, but the reader knows perfectly well what he meant by \"the Goldfarb-Krauthammer wing\": he meant right-wing American Jews who supported the invasion of Iraq, use terms like \"Islamofascism\", and support the use of torture in interrogation of suspected terrorists and combatants. It\'s absurd to claim that there is no such political bloc, or to imply that criticising it in harsh terms is anti-semitic. Mr Sullivan is identifying \"good Jews and bad Jews\" only in the sense that someone who criticises Catholic homophobes is identifying \"good Catholics and bad Catholics\", or that someone who criticises racialist black nationalists is identifying \"good blacks and bad blacks\".</p><p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:130:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/leon_wieseltier_accuses_andrew_sullivan_anti-semitic_tendencies#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:41:43 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004788 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:3610:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    The Wieseltier-Sullivan fued        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Turning the charge of anti-semitism into an easy, tired cliche        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p>LAST MONTH I read Leon Wieseltier\'s <a href=\"http://www.tnr.com/book/review/the-explored-recesses\">excellent review</a> of Philip Roth\'s much-criticised recent novel \"The Humbling\". One phrase stuck in my head, a criticism of Mr Roth\'s habit, in that book, of allowing his characters to rattle off trivial lists and technical-background descriptions: \"This is mere information, it adds nothing, it is the pseudo-polymathy of a Googling age.\" It was the kind of warning shot that changes your writing habits. I have since tried to avoid coming across as a Googling pseudo-polymath, and have been more alert to the tendency in others. This is how a good literary critic shapes culture.</p><p>This week, Mr Wieseltier wrote a <a href=\"http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/02/wieseltier-vs-sullivan.php?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+matthewyglesias+%28Matthew+Yglesias%29&amp;utm_content=Google+Reader\">much</a>-<a href=\"http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/02/about-frank-foer-editor-of-the-new-republic-is-he-a-spineless-cowardly-slug-or-is-he-a-human-being.html\">criticised</a>&nbsp;piece <a href=\"http://www.tnr.com/article/something-much-darker\">accusing Andrew Sullivan of trending towards anti-semitism</a>. He began by attacking Mr Sullivan for <a href=\"http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=dd9af18cdee0d5809b50f8c192568058\">writing last month</a> that \"most American Jews\" are tolerant and compassionate, but that \"the Goldfarb-Krauthammer wing is something else. Something much darker.\" Mr Wieseltier responds:</p><blockquote><p>I was not aware that they comprise a “wing” of American Jewry, or that American Jewry has “wings.” What sets them apart from their more enlightened brethren is the unacceptability of their politics to Sullivan. That is his criterion for dividing the American Jewish community into good Jews and bad Jews—a practice with a sordid history.</p></blockquote><p>This is silly. Mr Sullivan\'s phrasing was bad form, but the reader knows perfectly well what he meant by \"the Goldfarb-Krauthammer wing\": he meant right-wing American Jews who supported the invasion of Iraq, use terms like \"Islamofascism\", and support the use of torture in interrogation of suspected terrorists and combatants. It\'s absurd to claim that there is no such political bloc, or to imply that criticising it in harsh terms is anti-semitic. Mr Sullivan is identifying \"good Jews and bad Jews\" only in the sense that someone who criticises Catholic homophobes is identifying \"good Catholics and bad Catholics\", or that someone who criticises racialist black nationalists is identifying \"good blacks and bad blacks\".</p><p>\";}i:9;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:22:\"The Perry-Palin Ticket\";s:4:\"link\";s:76:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/perry-palin_ticket\";s:11:\"description\";s:4311:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    The Perry-Palin Ticket        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    E.G. | AUSTIN        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Who would top it?        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"300\" height=\"165\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/perrypalin300.jpg?1265837456\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/perrypalin300.jpg\" alt=\"Rick Perry, Sarah Palin\" align=\"right\" height=\"165\" width=\"300\">SO SARAH PALIN wants to run for president in 2012, and because she and Rick Perry have been buddy-buddy lately, some on the right have allowed themselves to dream about a joint ticket in 2012.</p><p>That doesn\'t even make much sense according to the traditional running-mate considerations, because they don\'t fill gaps for each other. But here\'s the fun thing to think about: who would be on the top of that ticket? The conventional wisdom is that it would be Mrs Palin, because a vice-presidential nominee traditionally runs for president on his or her next time out, and because, as I mentioned yesterday, Mr Perry is below the radar for now. But on its face, that seems backward. Mr Perry has far more experience than Mrs Palin (and he\'s about ten years older, although they both look young). Unlike Mrs Palin, his record gives him plenty of specific things to brag on with primary voters (and plenty to be criticised on, including the Willingham case, which I have written about before). And although he doesn\'t inspire the same kind of adulation that Mrs Palin does with her portion of the base, neither is he so polarising.</p><p>I posed the question to a Republican source, who made three points in favour of Palin-Perry. First, he said, Sarah Palin has already been the vice-presidential candidate; it would be a step back for her to run for the same job again. On the other hand, as the second point, for the governor of Texas, the vice-presidency would be a step up. Third, there is at this point a collegial relationship between Mrs Palin and Mr Perry that would preclude a primary dustup.</p><p>I agree with the first point, about Mrs Palin\'s aspirations, but not the second two. Let\'s take them in order. Is vice-president of the United States a better job than governor of Texas? Debatable. A governor has more autonomy than the vice-president, more daily power, and arguably (depending on the state and the governor) a better national platform. Also, there\'s no doubt that Mr Perry loves being governor—even Kay Bailey Hutchison agrees with that. (It\'s probably why he\'s always in such a good mood.)</p><p>As to the idea that Mr Perry and Mrs Palin are too good of friends to have a primary fight. I think we\'ve all seen that Mrs Palin isn\'t afraid to rogue out against former friends. And Mr Perry never hesitates to release his attack dogs, either. So I don\'t think either of them would hesitate to challenge the other should the situation warrant.<br><br>In fact, for the modal realists out there: if you subscribe to the belief that the Republican Party is in such high dudgeon that it creates an opportunity for a firebrand like Mrs Palin, then you should accept that there is a possible world in which Mr Perry is the person who blocks her from winning the Republican nomination.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:85:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/perry-palin_ticket#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:38:50 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004779 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:4311:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    The Perry-Palin Ticket        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    E.G. | AUSTIN        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Who would top it?        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"300\" height=\"165\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/perrypalin300.jpg?1265837456\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/perrypalin300.jpg\" alt=\"Rick Perry, Sarah Palin\" align=\"right\" height=\"165\" width=\"300\">SO SARAH PALIN wants to run for president in 2012, and because she and Rick Perry have been buddy-buddy lately, some on the right have allowed themselves to dream about a joint ticket in 2012.</p><p>That doesn\'t even make much sense according to the traditional running-mate considerations, because they don\'t fill gaps for each other. But here\'s the fun thing to think about: who would be on the top of that ticket? The conventional wisdom is that it would be Mrs Palin, because a vice-presidential nominee traditionally runs for president on his or her next time out, and because, as I mentioned yesterday, Mr Perry is below the radar for now. But on its face, that seems backward. Mr Perry has far more experience than Mrs Palin (and he\'s about ten years older, although they both look young). Unlike Mrs Palin, his record gives him plenty of specific things to brag on with primary voters (and plenty to be criticised on, including the Willingham case, which I have written about before). And although he doesn\'t inspire the same kind of adulation that Mrs Palin does with her portion of the base, neither is he so polarising.</p><p>I posed the question to a Republican source, who made three points in favour of Palin-Perry. First, he said, Sarah Palin has already been the vice-presidential candidate; it would be a step back for her to run for the same job again. On the other hand, as the second point, for the governor of Texas, the vice-presidency would be a step up. Third, there is at this point a collegial relationship between Mrs Palin and Mr Perry that would preclude a primary dustup.</p><p>I agree with the first point, about Mrs Palin\'s aspirations, but not the second two. Let\'s take them in order. Is vice-president of the United States a better job than governor of Texas? Debatable. A governor has more autonomy than the vice-president, more daily power, and arguably (depending on the state and the governor) a better national platform. Also, there\'s no doubt that Mr Perry loves being governor—even Kay Bailey Hutchison agrees with that. (It\'s probably why he\'s always in such a good mood.)</p><p>As to the idea that Mr Perry and Mrs Palin are too good of friends to have a primary fight. I think we\'ve all seen that Mrs Palin isn\'t afraid to rogue out against former friends. And Mr Perry never hesitates to release his attack dogs, either. So I don\'t think either of them would hesitate to challenge the other should the situation warrant.<br><br>In fact, for the modal realists out there: if you subscribe to the belief that the Republican Party is in such high dudgeon that it creates an opportunity for a firebrand like Mrs Palin, then you should accept that there is a possible world in which Mr Perry is the person who blocks her from winning the Republican nomination.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>\";}i:10;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:40:\"Comparing a budget plan to health reform\";s:4:\"link\";s:101:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/ross_douthat_objects_our_paul_ryan_analysis\";s:11:\"description\";s:3367:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Republicans, the budget and health reform        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    As Ross Douthat says, you can&#039;t quite compare the two        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"280\" height=\"223\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/paulryanbudget280.jpg?1265829475\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p>ROSS DOUTHAT <a href=\"http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/liberals-and-the-ryan-roadmap/\">objects</a> to the way I compared Paul Ryan\'s budget roadmap to Democratic health-care reform proposals. Mr Douthat writes:</p><blockquote><p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/paulryanbudget280.jpg\" alt=\"Paul Ryan, budget\" align=\"right\" height=\"223\" width=\"280\">(T)he difference between the cost-control proposals in the Democratic bill and the cost-control proposals in Ryan’s roadmap isn’t that the former are “complicated and really hard to understand” (read: smart) while the latter are simple, unimaginative and cruel. It’s that the Democratic bill wouldn’t come close to balancing the budget in the long run, and Ryan’s plan would.</p></blockquote><p>Mr Douthat is right that it can be misleading to compare Mr Ryan\'s plan to balance the budget to Democratic plans to reform health care. The Democrats did not set out to balance the entire federal budget by reforming the health-care sector. Their plan aims to do two different categories of things. First, it aims to make sure that almost everyone in the country has health insurance, and that perverse effects like losing your insurance when you are fired, or when you fall sick, end. Second, it aims to begin controlling costs, and as Mr Douthat notes, it contains some promising measures. The Democrats start from the principle that if you control costs without first achieving fairness and universal coverage, you will most likely end up balancing the budget by slashing aid to poor people, since poor people are the ones who need aid.</p><p>Mr Ryan\'s bill, on the other hand, does not aim to achieve universal coverage or solve problems relating to affordability and accessibility. It aims only to control costs. And, indeed, it ends up cutting the deficit in large measure by ending Medicare and ceasing to provide health insurance for those who cannot afford to pay for it.</p><p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:110:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/ross_douthat_objects_our_paul_ryan_analysis#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:15:24 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004771 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:3367:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Republicans, the budget and health reform        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    As Ross Douthat says, you can&#039;t quite compare the two        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"280\" height=\"223\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/paulryanbudget280.jpg?1265829475\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p>ROSS DOUTHAT <a href=\"http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/liberals-and-the-ryan-roadmap/\">objects</a> to the way I compared Paul Ryan\'s budget roadmap to Democratic health-care reform proposals. Mr Douthat writes:</p><blockquote><p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/paulryanbudget280.jpg\" alt=\"Paul Ryan, budget\" align=\"right\" height=\"223\" width=\"280\">(T)he difference between the cost-control proposals in the Democratic bill and the cost-control proposals in Ryan’s roadmap isn’t that the former are “complicated and really hard to understand” (read: smart) while the latter are simple, unimaginative and cruel. It’s that the Democratic bill wouldn’t come close to balancing the budget in the long run, and Ryan’s plan would.</p></blockquote><p>Mr Douthat is right that it can be misleading to compare Mr Ryan\'s plan to balance the budget to Democratic plans to reform health care. The Democrats did not set out to balance the entire federal budget by reforming the health-care sector. Their plan aims to do two different categories of things. First, it aims to make sure that almost everyone in the country has health insurance, and that perverse effects like losing your insurance when you are fired, or when you fall sick, end. Second, it aims to begin controlling costs, and as Mr Douthat notes, it contains some promising measures. The Democrats start from the principle that if you control costs without first achieving fairness and universal coverage, you will most likely end up balancing the budget by slashing aid to poor people, since poor people are the ones who need aid.</p><p>Mr Ryan\'s bill, on the other hand, does not aim to achieve universal coverage or solve problems relating to affordability and accessibility. It aims only to control costs. And, indeed, it ends up cutting the deficit in large measure by ending Medicare and ceasing to provide health insurance for those who cannot afford to pay for it.</p><p>\";}i:11;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:35:\"Do you really want us to know that?\";s:4:\"link\";s:97:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/wall_street_donates_gop_protect_bonuses\";s:11:\"description\";s:4469:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Wall Street&#039;s political donations        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Bankers shouldn&#039;t brag about their sway over the legislature        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"260\" height=\"294\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/wall street260.jpg?1265816822\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/wall%20street260.jpg\" alt=\"wall street\" align=\"right\" height=\"294\" width=\"260\">MEGAN CARPENTIER has <a href=\"http://washingtonindependent.com/76198/how-wall-street-spun-the-press-on-campaign-donations-to-dems\">an interesting piece</a> in the <em>Washington Independent</em>&nbsp;arguing that Wall Street isn\'t really shifting donations to Republicans in retaliation for Democratic moves to regulate the financial sector. Ms Carpentier says Republican politicians and some folks on Wall Street are just spinnning the press to create that impression, in order to scare Democrats away from any reforms. But the amazing part of the article isn\'t that some folks on Wall Street might be successful at convincing reporters that they will defund politicians who touch their institutions\' profits or their bonuses. The amazing part is that some folks on Wall Street might&nbsp;<em>think it would be a good idea</em>&nbsp;to convince reporters that they will defund politicians who touch&nbsp;their institutions\' profits or&nbsp;their bonuses. One would think that at a moment of intense public anger against the financial industry, politicians would find it risky to openly admit that they owe their jobs to campaign contributions from that industry, and would hence be unlikely to vote against financial reform in response to naked threats communicated <em>via the mainstream media</em>. And one would think that finance industry bigwigs would understand that.</p><p>It\'s one thing for banks or hedge funds to signal politicians, via back-door channels, that they will shift campaign contributions to the other party in defence of their profits and their officers\' financial interests. Such messages would normally be concealed from the press in order to preserve the fiction that members of Congress remain uninfluenced by such considerations. But it\'s something else entirely to <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/us/politics/08lobby.html?hp\">send these signals openly</a> in the pages of the <em>New York Times</em>, as Kelly King of BB&amp;T does. This suggests that the finance industry is so confident of its ownership of Congress that it couldn\'t care less whether average voters know about it. As for John Boehner\'s office apparently&nbsp;<a href=\"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703575004575043612216461790.html?mod=e2tw\">leaking</a>&nbsp;to the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> that Mr Boehner had been soliciting contributions from Democratic-leaning finance-industry <em>machers</em> by promising to be more protective of Wall Street\'s interests...well, it\'s hard to tell who these guys think they\'re supposed to be working for. Eric Cantor, describing the supposed Wall Street shift to Republicans, actually calls it \"buyer\'s remorse\". Don\'t you hate it when you buy yourself a legislature and, after a few months, it turns out not to work as advertised? I may be naive, but I like to think most American voters would still prefer that their government not be for sale.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:106:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/wall_street_donates_gop_protect_bonuses#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:06:14 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004772 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:4469:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Wall Street&#039;s political donations        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Bankers shouldn&#039;t brag about their sway over the legislature        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"260\" height=\"294\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/wall street260.jpg?1265816822\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/wall%20street260.jpg\" alt=\"wall street\" align=\"right\" height=\"294\" width=\"260\">MEGAN CARPENTIER has <a href=\"http://washingtonindependent.com/76198/how-wall-street-spun-the-press-on-campaign-donations-to-dems\">an interesting piece</a> in the <em>Washington Independent</em>&nbsp;arguing that Wall Street isn\'t really shifting donations to Republicans in retaliation for Democratic moves to regulate the financial sector. Ms Carpentier says Republican politicians and some folks on Wall Street are just spinnning the press to create that impression, in order to scare Democrats away from any reforms. But the amazing part of the article isn\'t that some folks on Wall Street might be successful at convincing reporters that they will defund politicians who touch their institutions\' profits or their bonuses. The amazing part is that some folks on Wall Street might&nbsp;<em>think it would be a good idea</em>&nbsp;to convince reporters that they will defund politicians who touch&nbsp;their institutions\' profits or&nbsp;their bonuses. One would think that at a moment of intense public anger against the financial industry, politicians would find it risky to openly admit that they owe their jobs to campaign contributions from that industry, and would hence be unlikely to vote against financial reform in response to naked threats communicated <em>via the mainstream media</em>. And one would think that finance industry bigwigs would understand that.</p><p>It\'s one thing for banks or hedge funds to signal politicians, via back-door channels, that they will shift campaign contributions to the other party in defence of their profits and their officers\' financial interests. Such messages would normally be concealed from the press in order to preserve the fiction that members of Congress remain uninfluenced by such considerations. But it\'s something else entirely to <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/us/politics/08lobby.html?hp\">send these signals openly</a> in the pages of the <em>New York Times</em>, as Kelly King of BB&amp;T does. This suggests that the finance industry is so confident of its ownership of Congress that it couldn\'t care less whether average voters know about it. As for John Boehner\'s office apparently&nbsp;<a href=\"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703575004575043612216461790.html?mod=e2tw\">leaking</a>&nbsp;to the <em>Wall Street Journal</em> that Mr Boehner had been soliciting contributions from Democratic-leaning finance-industry <em>machers</em> by promising to be more protective of Wall Street\'s interests...well, it\'s hard to tell who these guys think they\'re supposed to be working for. Eric Cantor, describing the supposed Wall Street shift to Republicans, actually calls it \"buyer\'s remorse\". Don\'t you hate it when you buy yourself a legislature and, after a few months, it turns out not to work as advertised? I may be naive, but I like to think most American voters would still prefer that their government not be for sale.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>\";}i:12;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:43:\"Who dat reading about Paul Laurence Dunbar?\";s:4:\"link\";s:77:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/six_degrees_who_dat\";s:11:\"description\";s:2435:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Six degrees of who dat        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Weird coincidences in dialect, politics and sports        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p>WEIRDLY, on Sunday night, while I was reading <a href=\"http://www.therestisnoise.com/\">Alex Ross</a> on Paul Laurence Dunbar and Will Marion Cook (and then <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/james_okeefe_acorn_and_racial_resentment\">posting</a> on the elliptical connection between them and James O\'Keefe), I had no idea that Messrs Dunbar and Cook were apparently the first to introduce the phrase \"Who dat?\" to mainstream American popular culture. The <em>New Yorker</em>\'s <a href=\"http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2010/02/the-strange-case-of-who-dat.html\">Amy Davidson</a> traces the connections nicely, by way of the Marx Brothers and (tangentially) the 1969 New York Mets. I seem to have been reading about Messrs Dunbar and Cook at the same time Saints fans were screaming their catchphrase in the stands at the Super Bowl, for completely unrelated reasons. Or is anything really unrelated these days? It reminds me of \"<a href=\"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108149/\">Six Degrees of Separation</a>\", in which Will Smith portrays a con artist <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees_of_Separation_%28film%29\">pretending to be related</a> to Sidney Poitier, who <a href=\"http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews28/paul_robeson_portraits_of_the_artist.htm\">narrated a documentary</a> about Paul Robeson, who <a href=\"http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-33654459_ITM\">commissioned and performed songs</a> based on the poems of Paul Laurence Dunbar.</p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:86:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/six_degrees_who_dat#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:06:08 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004773 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:2435:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Six degrees of who dat        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Weird coincidences in dialect, politics and sports        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p>WEIRDLY, on Sunday night, while I was reading <a href=\"http://www.therestisnoise.com/\">Alex Ross</a> on Paul Laurence Dunbar and Will Marion Cook (and then <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/james_okeefe_acorn_and_racial_resentment\">posting</a> on the elliptical connection between them and James O\'Keefe), I had no idea that Messrs Dunbar and Cook were apparently the first to introduce the phrase \"Who dat?\" to mainstream American popular culture. The <em>New Yorker</em>\'s <a href=\"http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2010/02/the-strange-case-of-who-dat.html\">Amy Davidson</a> traces the connections nicely, by way of the Marx Brothers and (tangentially) the 1969 New York Mets. I seem to have been reading about Messrs Dunbar and Cook at the same time Saints fans were screaming their catchphrase in the stands at the Super Bowl, for completely unrelated reasons. Or is anything really unrelated these days? It reminds me of \"<a href=\"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108149/\">Six Degrees of Separation</a>\", in which Will Smith portrays a con artist <a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees_of_Separation_%28film%29\">pretending to be related</a> to Sidney Poitier, who <a href=\"http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews28/paul_robeson_portraits_of_the_artist.htm\">narrated a documentary</a> about Paul Robeson, who <a href=\"http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-33654459_ITM\">commissioned and performed songs</a> based on the poems of Paul Laurence Dunbar.</p>\";}i:13;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:25:\"Stemming the Asian hordes\";s:4:\"link\";s:77:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/asian_carp_michigan\";s:11:\"description\";s:3961:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Asian carp in Michigan        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Detroit makes its last stand against the real Asian threat        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"290\" height=\"219\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/carp290.jpg?1265752155\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/carp290.jpg\" alt=\"carp\" width=\"290\" height=\"219\" align=\"right\">IT MAY be the final indignity. As though the Midwest had not suffered enough from Asian invaders over the past three decades—Toyota, Hyundai, and soon perhaps China\'s Chery—it now struggles to contain the most voracious intruder yet: carp. In an emergency summit yesterday at the White House, Jennifer Granholm, the governor of Michigan, <a href=\"http://www.freep.com/article/20100209/NEWS06/2090310/1322/Granholm-Carp-battle-is-urgent\">demanded</a> that the federal government close the locks on canals that might allow Asian carp to move up into Lake Michigan. The threat is urgent (we first <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15179536\">reported on it</a> back in December). The fish have already conquered much of the South. Bereft of natural predators in America\'s unsuspecting waters, they come to dominate the food chain, growing to spectacular size, in some kind of weird inversion of their teeny automotive cousins. DNA testing shows the lake may already be contaminated, though no one has yet found the fish themselves. (Could they be mutating into some kind of <em>virus?</em>&nbsp;It\'s too horrible to contemplate.)</p><p>The governors of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, patriotic Americans all, have joined the call to close the locks. But, as happens so often in these days of American political paralysis, commercial interests stand in the way. Barge owners have complained that closing the locks could cost them up to $190m in freight revenues. Ms Granholm has countered that Michigan\'s sport fishing industry is worth $7 billion. But paper-pushing Washington bureaucrats are holding things up too. Specifically, they\'ve argued that closing the locks will have little effect, since the fish can still get through the Calumet River and several other waterways. This claim comes from none other than Jo-Ellen Darcy, assistant secretary of the Army for civil works. I recognise that Ms Darcy outranks me, and, if ordered to, I will shut up and salute. But does she understand the gravity of the situation? If the US Army can\'t stop Asian carp from contaminating&nbsp;<span style=\"text-decoration: line-through;\">our precious </span><span style=\"text-decoration: line-through;\">bodily fluids</span>&nbsp;the great, pure freshwater lakes of America\'s heartland, we might as well give up. Will the last ice fisherman to haul a genuine American steelhead out of Lake Superior please take down the flag. It\'s over.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:86:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/asian_carp_michigan#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:55:13 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004762 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:3961:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Asian carp in Michigan        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Detroit makes its last stand against the real Asian threat        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"290\" height=\"219\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/carp290.jpg?1265752155\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/carp290.jpg\" alt=\"carp\" width=\"290\" height=\"219\" align=\"right\">IT MAY be the final indignity. As though the Midwest had not suffered enough from Asian invaders over the past three decades—Toyota, Hyundai, and soon perhaps China\'s Chery—it now struggles to contain the most voracious intruder yet: carp. In an emergency summit yesterday at the White House, Jennifer Granholm, the governor of Michigan, <a href=\"http://www.freep.com/article/20100209/NEWS06/2090310/1322/Granholm-Carp-battle-is-urgent\">demanded</a> that the federal government close the locks on canals that might allow Asian carp to move up into Lake Michigan. The threat is urgent (we first <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15179536\">reported on it</a> back in December). The fish have already conquered much of the South. Bereft of natural predators in America\'s unsuspecting waters, they come to dominate the food chain, growing to spectacular size, in some kind of weird inversion of their teeny automotive cousins. DNA testing shows the lake may already be contaminated, though no one has yet found the fish themselves. (Could they be mutating into some kind of <em>virus?</em>&nbsp;It\'s too horrible to contemplate.)</p><p>The governors of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, patriotic Americans all, have joined the call to close the locks. But, as happens so often in these days of American political paralysis, commercial interests stand in the way. Barge owners have complained that closing the locks could cost them up to $190m in freight revenues. Ms Granholm has countered that Michigan\'s sport fishing industry is worth $7 billion. But paper-pushing Washington bureaucrats are holding things up too. Specifically, they\'ve argued that closing the locks will have little effect, since the fish can still get through the Calumet River and several other waterways. This claim comes from none other than Jo-Ellen Darcy, assistant secretary of the Army for civil works. I recognise that Ms Darcy outranks me, and, if ordered to, I will shut up and salute. But does she understand the gravity of the situation? If the US Army can\'t stop Asian carp from contaminating&nbsp;<span style=\"text-decoration: line-through;\">our precious </span><span style=\"text-decoration: line-through;\">bodily fluids</span>&nbsp;the great, pure freshwater lakes of America\'s heartland, we might as well give up. Will the last ice fisherman to haul a genuine American steelhead out of Lake Superior please take down the flag. It\'s over.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>\";}i:14;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:14:\"Why not Perry?\";s:4:\"link\";s:71:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/why_not_perry\";s:11:\"description\";s:4185:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Rick Perry for president        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    E.G. | AUSTIN        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    The governor of Texas would make a good presidential candidate        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/RickPerryHats300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"203\" align=\"right\">THE occasion for Sarah Palin\'s visit to Texas, you probably know, is that she was stumping for Rick Perry, the state\'s governor. Mr Perry will face the state\'s senior senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and the conservative activist Debra Medina in the state\'s Republican gubernatorial primary on March 2nd. Mr Perry has a healthy lead in the polls (although the three-way split might necessitate a runoff) and he is a safe bet to be re-nominated.</p><p>So with little suspense in the primary we naturally look to the forthcoming elections. On paper, Mr Perry would seem to have the profile of a 2012 presidential prospect: going on ten years of experience governing an important state, an economic record in said state that compares favourably to most; no personal scandals (though some political scandals); and he\'s a very good campaigner. (This isn\'t my idea of the case for his candidacy, just a few ways in which he differs from the various other candidates.) Yet we hear more about Scott Brown for president than Rick Perry for president. What gives?</p><p>Paul Burka <a href=\"http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2010-02-01/feature\">takes up this question</a> in a cover story for the current <em>Texas Monthly</em> (subscription required):</p><blockquote><p>Most people who follow Texas politics know by now the conventional wisdom about Perry: that he is an accidental governor who inherited the job when George W. Bush became president; that he is \"Governor Goodhair\" or \"Governor 39 Percent\" or some similar appellation of mild disrespect accompanied by a twist of humor; that he doesn\'t really do anything well except win elections, which he has done with regularity. There is truth in the conventional wisdom, but there is also blindness. Perry has been so often viewed as a caricature that many Texans have failed to recognize his talent. The fact is that no Republican has so ably surfed the wave of populist anger that has swept through the party in the past year.</p></blockquote><p>This is right. I would add that on the politicking level Mr Perry has some talents beyond surfing the populist wave. One of his most valuable assets is that he typically exudes confidence and good humour, after the Reagan model, not the paranoiac style that is popular with some of our other politicians. (Typically—his smirky turn at the first gubernatorial debate hit an unusually sour note.) Sarah Palin, for example, was more buoyant at the Perry rally than she appears in her Facebook posts, but her speech was peppered with references to various adversaries. One gets the sense that she has a long enemies list. Mr Perry gives the impression he doesn\'t have enemies, only people he wants to make fun of at some point this afternoon before he goes for a long run and then wolfs a plate of brisket. Mr Burka\'s entire article is well worth reading, for those who have a subscription. An odd side note about perceptions of Mr Perry: This \"good hair\" thing has been following him since his lieutenant-governor days. Yet his hair is actually nondescript. We should pass that appelation on to Mrs Palin or Mitt Romney.</p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:80:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/why_not_perry#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:49:20 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004757 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:4185:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Rick Perry for president        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    E.G. | AUSTIN        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    The governor of Texas would make a good presidential candidate        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/RickPerryHats300.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"203\" align=\"right\">THE occasion for Sarah Palin\'s visit to Texas, you probably know, is that she was stumping for Rick Perry, the state\'s governor. Mr Perry will face the state\'s senior senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and the conservative activist Debra Medina in the state\'s Republican gubernatorial primary on March 2nd. Mr Perry has a healthy lead in the polls (although the three-way split might necessitate a runoff) and he is a safe bet to be re-nominated.</p><p>So with little suspense in the primary we naturally look to the forthcoming elections. On paper, Mr Perry would seem to have the profile of a 2012 presidential prospect: going on ten years of experience governing an important state, an economic record in said state that compares favourably to most; no personal scandals (though some political scandals); and he\'s a very good campaigner. (This isn\'t my idea of the case for his candidacy, just a few ways in which he differs from the various other candidates.) Yet we hear more about Scott Brown for president than Rick Perry for president. What gives?</p><p>Paul Burka <a href=\"http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2010-02-01/feature\">takes up this question</a> in a cover story for the current <em>Texas Monthly</em> (subscription required):</p><blockquote><p>Most people who follow Texas politics know by now the conventional wisdom about Perry: that he is an accidental governor who inherited the job when George W. Bush became president; that he is \"Governor Goodhair\" or \"Governor 39 Percent\" or some similar appellation of mild disrespect accompanied by a twist of humor; that he doesn\'t really do anything well except win elections, which he has done with regularity. There is truth in the conventional wisdom, but there is also blindness. Perry has been so often viewed as a caricature that many Texans have failed to recognize his talent. The fact is that no Republican has so ably surfed the wave of populist anger that has swept through the party in the past year.</p></blockquote><p>This is right. I would add that on the politicking level Mr Perry has some talents beyond surfing the populist wave. One of his most valuable assets is that he typically exudes confidence and good humour, after the Reagan model, not the paranoiac style that is popular with some of our other politicians. (Typically—his smirky turn at the first gubernatorial debate hit an unusually sour note.) Sarah Palin, for example, was more buoyant at the Perry rally than she appears in her Facebook posts, but her speech was peppered with references to various adversaries. One gets the sense that she has a long enemies list. Mr Perry gives the impression he doesn\'t have enemies, only people he wants to make fun of at some point this afternoon before he goes for a long run and then wolfs a plate of brisket. Mr Burka\'s entire article is well worth reading, for those who have a subscription. An odd side note about perceptions of Mr Perry: This \"good hair\" thing has been following him since his lieutenant-governor days. Yet his hair is actually nondescript. We should pass that appelation on to Mrs Palin or Mitt Romney.</p>\";}i:15;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:35:\"Malpractice and the social contract\";s:4:\"link\";s:96:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/limiting_medical_malpractice_liability\";s:11:\"description\";s:3446:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Medical malpractice liability        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    To limit malpractice liability, patients must get something in return        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"280\" height=\"187\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/doctors280.jpg?1265735826\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/doctors280.jpg\" alt=\"doctors, malpractice\" width=\"280\" height=\"187\" align=\"right\">I JUST wanted to add one thing about the idea of limiting medical malpractice liability. I\'m instinctively sympathetic to this idea in part because I come from a family of doctors and have heard complaints about crazy malpractice suits since I was 12, and in part because I\'ve lived in Europe, where people think American tort law is insane. But part of the reason why Europeans accept restrictions on their ability to sue doctors for malpractice is that they have guaranteed health insurance. It\'s part of the social contract: doctors accept limited salaries in exchange for limited liability; patients accept that they cannot sue doctors for millions of dollars in exchange for a guarantee of access to decent health care.</p><p>I have close European friends who\'ve been involved in medical dramas that would very likely have led to lawsuits in America. One friend essentially had the opposite of Tim Tebow\'s mother\'s experience, with misdiagnoses and unwanted interventions forcing her into a situation of nearly intolerable responsibilities. The doctors have admitted their errors. But while my friend can\'t sue them for a big reward, she also doesn\'t need to: the state pays. In America, she might have ended up either rich or bankrupt. In Europe, she gets by with a little help from social services. A lot of help, actually.</p><p>America isn\'t going to end up with the same kind of social contracts found in European countries. But it has to have some kind of social contract. People can be persuaded to give up their right to sue doctors for huge damages if they understand that those damages come out of everyone\'s pockets, because the system works for everyone and requires some sacrifices from everyone. But for that to be true, the system has to work for everyone. A system where doctors are rich, patients have no guarantees, and only patients have to make sacrifices is unacceptable.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:105:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/limiting_medical_malpractice_liability#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:22:31 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004758 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:3446:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Medical malpractice liability        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    To limit malpractice liability, patients must get something in return        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"280\" height=\"187\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/doctors280.jpg?1265735826\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/doctors280.jpg\" alt=\"doctors, malpractice\" width=\"280\" height=\"187\" align=\"right\">I JUST wanted to add one thing about the idea of limiting medical malpractice liability. I\'m instinctively sympathetic to this idea in part because I come from a family of doctors and have heard complaints about crazy malpractice suits since I was 12, and in part because I\'ve lived in Europe, where people think American tort law is insane. But part of the reason why Europeans accept restrictions on their ability to sue doctors for malpractice is that they have guaranteed health insurance. It\'s part of the social contract: doctors accept limited salaries in exchange for limited liability; patients accept that they cannot sue doctors for millions of dollars in exchange for a guarantee of access to decent health care.</p><p>I have close European friends who\'ve been involved in medical dramas that would very likely have led to lawsuits in America. One friend essentially had the opposite of Tim Tebow\'s mother\'s experience, with misdiagnoses and unwanted interventions forcing her into a situation of nearly intolerable responsibilities. The doctors have admitted their errors. But while my friend can\'t sue them for a big reward, she also doesn\'t need to: the state pays. In America, she might have ended up either rich or bankrupt. In Europe, she gets by with a little help from social services. A lot of help, actually.</p><p>America isn\'t going to end up with the same kind of social contracts found in European countries. But it has to have some kind of social contract. People can be persuaded to give up their right to sue doctors for huge damages if they understand that those damages come out of everyone\'s pockets, because the system works for everyone and requires some sacrifices from everyone. But for that to be true, the system has to work for everyone. A system where doctors are rich, patients have no guarantees, and only patients have to make sacrifices is unacceptable.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>\";}i:16;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:21:\"A tale of two iPhones\";s:4:\"link\";s:89:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/china_and_intellectual_property\";s:11:\"description\";s:4228:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    China, America and intellectual property        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    What the iPhone tells us about America&#039;s relations with China        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"450\" height=\"398\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/Two Iphones450.jpg?1265730975\" />        </div>\n              <div class=\"field-item even\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"550\" height=\"293\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/Iphone closeup550.jpg?1265731003\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p>CHINA\'S patent applications grew by 210% from 2005 to 2009, surpassing France but still well behind America, as <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15487738&amp;fsrc=rss\">we report</a>&nbsp;this week. Does China\'s growing intellectual-property sector mean the country now has a stake in respecting international intellectual-property law? Well, maybe. Let\'s put it this way: I took this picture yesterday. Both of these phones were assembled in China. One of them cost me $800 three weeks ago, including local VAT. The other cost my assistant $110 last weekend. Which is which?</p><table border=\"0\"><tbody><tr><td><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/Two%20Iphones450.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"450\" height=\"398\"></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Having trouble guessing? Need a hint?</p><table border=\"0\"><tbody><tr><td><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/Iphone%20closeup550.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"550\" height=\"293\"></td></tr></tbody></table><p>In a pinch, I\'d have to guess the one that was designed in Clifarnia cost less. It also has a shoddy touch-screen that you have to press down on really hard. On the other hand, it has a built-in broadcast TV receiver with a fold-out antenna. Take that, Apple!</p><p>There\'s a bright side to this sort of thing, however. In the aftermath of America\'s recent arms sales to Taiwan and Barack Obama\'s pledge to meet with the Dalai Lama, a lot of people in China have been <a href=\"http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7017951.ece\">calling for threatening moves towards America</a> or some kind of \"new cold war\". Both the \"Assembled in China\" tag on the real iPhone, and the existence of the fake iPhone, are reminders that China has commercial interests that make any such move unlikely. As Elizabeth Economy writes <a href=\"http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2010/02/02/the-u-s-and-china-have-at-it-again/\">here</a> and Fareed Zakaria echoes <a href=\"http://www.newsweek.com/id/233189\">here</a>, the apparent recent downturn in Chinese-American relations will probably not amount to much.</p><p>(For more coverage of America\'s relations with China, see <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15452821\">here</a> and <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15452683\">here</a>.)</p><div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-initials\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n\";s:8:\"comments\";s:98:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/china_and_intellectual_property#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:13:37 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004760 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:4228:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    China, America and intellectual property        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    What the iPhone tells us about America&#039;s relations with China        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"450\" height=\"398\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/Two Iphones450.jpg?1265730975\" />        </div>\n              <div class=\"field-item even\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"550\" height=\"293\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/Iphone closeup550.jpg?1265731003\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p>CHINA\'S patent applications grew by 210% from 2005 to 2009, surpassing France but still well behind America, as <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15487738&amp;fsrc=rss\">we report</a>&nbsp;this week. Does China\'s growing intellectual-property sector mean the country now has a stake in respecting international intellectual-property law? Well, maybe. Let\'s put it this way: I took this picture yesterday. Both of these phones were assembled in China. One of them cost me $800 three weeks ago, including local VAT. The other cost my assistant $110 last weekend. Which is which?</p><table border=\"0\"><tbody><tr><td><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/Two%20Iphones450.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"450\" height=\"398\"></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Having trouble guessing? Need a hint?</p><table border=\"0\"><tbody><tr><td><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/Iphone%20closeup550.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"550\" height=\"293\"></td></tr></tbody></table><p>In a pinch, I\'d have to guess the one that was designed in Clifarnia cost less. It also has a shoddy touch-screen that you have to press down on really hard. On the other hand, it has a built-in broadcast TV receiver with a fold-out antenna. Take that, Apple!</p><p>There\'s a bright side to this sort of thing, however. In the aftermath of America\'s recent arms sales to Taiwan and Barack Obama\'s pledge to meet with the Dalai Lama, a lot of people in China have been <a href=\"http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7017951.ece\">calling for threatening moves towards America</a> or some kind of \"new cold war\". Both the \"Assembled in China\" tag on the real iPhone, and the existence of the fake iPhone, are reminders that China has commercial interests that make any such move unlikely. As Elizabeth Economy writes <a href=\"http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2010/02/02/the-u-s-and-china-have-at-it-again/\">here</a> and Fareed Zakaria echoes <a href=\"http://www.newsweek.com/id/233189\">here</a>, the apparent recent downturn in Chinese-American relations will probably not amount to much.</p><p>(For more coverage of America\'s relations with China, see <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15452821\">here</a> and <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15452683\">here</a>.)</p><div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-initials\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n\";}i:17;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:46:\"Let\'s scream at each other about health reform\";s:4:\"link\";s:87:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/bipartisan_health-care_summit\";s:11:\"description\";s:5085:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Barack Obama, Republicans and the health-care summit        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    A bipartisan health care summit could work, if the CBO scores the proposals first        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p>AS MY colleague <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/health-care_summit\">notes below</a>, the&nbsp;health-care-reform summit has generated a good deal of debate in the blogosphere and beyond.&nbsp;At first glance, the idea of a summit appears slightly insane. But the key to making it work is in the process Mr Obama outlined in <a href=\"http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/couric_interviews_obama_--_and_he_makes_news.php\">his interview with Katie Couric</a> on Sunday. First, he will invite Republicans to come to the White House to lay their ideas on the table. Then, after the recess, a joint meeting will be held to go over the different plans and debate their merits. That could prove to be a useful discussion, as long as the intervening period provides time for the CBO and other neutral appraisers to score the different proposals. Otherwise, the meeting could turn into a ludicrous media circus where nobody knows what they\'re talking about.</p><p>My colleague says both sides will want to begin the conversation by criticising the other\'s ideas. Democrats will have gotten used to this by now, after months of defending their adequate yet imperfect bills in the House and Senate. The Republicans, on the other hand, should finally have to explain why none of their ideas&nbsp;address America\'s major health-care challenges in a politically feasible way. (That, of course, is also the tactical reason why Mr Obama wants to force Republicans to lay their cards on the table.)</p><p>Republicans essentially have two small ideas for health-care reform, and two big ones. The small ideas are limiting medical malpractice liability, and allowing cross-state purchase of insurance policies. Limiting malpractice liability, while a good idea, has little meaningful impact on the affordability of insurance or care: malpractice insurance amounts to less than 2% of the national health-care budget, and while \"defensive medicine\" is a problem, <a href=\"http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&amp;q=cache:zH6AnhcHCN0J:www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf+limiting+medical+malpractice+liability+budget+impact&amp;hl=en&amp;pid=bl&amp;srcid=ADGEESi77e4zzak5zAgPYx0fYPClwTbewIew-wBkbylCERJocjgnHFSjzJ9PUEIJ-3AqfB4CQJRMhUhLjvwMQV8XYigC3Geu6XQs9rteRUjSpC4aO0cec40Sqo7MQ9tHPjWxWNdoyPRp&amp;sig=AHIEtbS1Qdr1pnEKZvpGcML6Rx9ef3x7gw\">the CBO estimates</a> that an aggressive programme to limit liability would reduce the nation\'s overall health expenses by about 0.5%. And, obviously, tort reform does nothing to end discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions, to address the problem of people losing their health insurance when they lose their jobs, and so forth.</p><p>The interstate sales idea, meanwhile, is actively pernicious. It is a way to destroy the efforts of states to fix insurance-industry problems themselves. For example, <a href=\"http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&amp;q=cache:zH6AnhcHCN0J:www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf+limiting+medical+malpractice+liability+budget+impact&amp;hl=en&amp;pid=bl&amp;srcid=ADGEESi77e4zzak5zAgPYx0fYPClwTbewIew-wBkbylCERJocjgnHFSjzJ9PUEIJ-3AqfB4CQJRMhUhLjvwMQV8XYigC3Geu6XQs9rteRUjSpC4aO0cec40Sqo7MQ9tHPjWxWNdoyPRp&amp;sig=AHIEtbS1Qdr1pnEKZvpGcML6Rx9ef3x7gw\">New Jersey has guaranteed issue</a>: insurance companies must issue policies to all comers, regardless of pre-existing conditions. This, obviously, means healthy people must pay more than they otherwise would. Interstate sales of insurance would mean healthy, but not sick, New Jerseyites would exit the system and buy cheap insurance in Texas, which has no guaranteed issue. This would drive prices for sick New Jerseyites up even further, causing yet more people to drop out, in an insurance death spiral that would leave the sickest New Jerseyites paying astronomical premiums for in-state insurance. Ultimately, America must fix its broken health-insurance system at the national level; but absent a national solution, undermining the ability of the states to attempt their own fixes is one of the worst ideas around.</p><p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:96:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/bipartisan_health-care_summit#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:44:31 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004714 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:5085:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Barack Obama, Republicans and the health-care summit        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    A bipartisan health care summit could work, if the CBO scores the proposals first        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p>AS MY colleague <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/health-care_summit\">notes below</a>, the&nbsp;health-care-reform summit has generated a good deal of debate in the blogosphere and beyond.&nbsp;At first glance, the idea of a summit appears slightly insane. But the key to making it work is in the process Mr Obama outlined in <a href=\"http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/couric_interviews_obama_--_and_he_makes_news.php\">his interview with Katie Couric</a> on Sunday. First, he will invite Republicans to come to the White House to lay their ideas on the table. Then, after the recess, a joint meeting will be held to go over the different plans and debate their merits. That could prove to be a useful discussion, as long as the intervening period provides time for the CBO and other neutral appraisers to score the different proposals. Otherwise, the meeting could turn into a ludicrous media circus where nobody knows what they\'re talking about.</p><p>My colleague says both sides will want to begin the conversation by criticising the other\'s ideas. Democrats will have gotten used to this by now, after months of defending their adequate yet imperfect bills in the House and Senate. The Republicans, on the other hand, should finally have to explain why none of their ideas&nbsp;address America\'s major health-care challenges in a politically feasible way. (That, of course, is also the tactical reason why Mr Obama wants to force Republicans to lay their cards on the table.)</p><p>Republicans essentially have two small ideas for health-care reform, and two big ones. The small ideas are limiting medical malpractice liability, and allowing cross-state purchase of insurance policies. Limiting malpractice liability, while a good idea, has little meaningful impact on the affordability of insurance or care: malpractice insurance amounts to less than 2% of the national health-care budget, and while \"defensive medicine\" is a problem, <a href=\"http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&amp;q=cache:zH6AnhcHCN0J:www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf+limiting+medical+malpractice+liability+budget+impact&amp;hl=en&amp;pid=bl&amp;srcid=ADGEESi77e4zzak5zAgPYx0fYPClwTbewIew-wBkbylCERJocjgnHFSjzJ9PUEIJ-3AqfB4CQJRMhUhLjvwMQV8XYigC3Geu6XQs9rteRUjSpC4aO0cec40Sqo7MQ9tHPjWxWNdoyPRp&amp;sig=AHIEtbS1Qdr1pnEKZvpGcML6Rx9ef3x7gw\">the CBO estimates</a> that an aggressive programme to limit liability would reduce the nation\'s overall health expenses by about 0.5%. And, obviously, tort reform does nothing to end discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions, to address the problem of people losing their health insurance when they lose their jobs, and so forth.</p><p>The interstate sales idea, meanwhile, is actively pernicious. It is a way to destroy the efforts of states to fix insurance-industry problems themselves. For example, <a href=\"http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&amp;q=cache:zH6AnhcHCN0J:www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf+limiting+medical+malpractice+liability+budget+impact&amp;hl=en&amp;pid=bl&amp;srcid=ADGEESi77e4zzak5zAgPYx0fYPClwTbewIew-wBkbylCERJocjgnHFSjzJ9PUEIJ-3AqfB4CQJRMhUhLjvwMQV8XYigC3Geu6XQs9rteRUjSpC4aO0cec40Sqo7MQ9tHPjWxWNdoyPRp&amp;sig=AHIEtbS1Qdr1pnEKZvpGcML6Rx9ef3x7gw\">New Jersey has guaranteed issue</a>: insurance companies must issue policies to all comers, regardless of pre-existing conditions. This, obviously, means healthy people must pay more than they otherwise would. Interstate sales of insurance would mean healthy, but not sick, New Jerseyites would exit the system and buy cheap insurance in Texas, which has no guaranteed issue. This would drive prices for sick New Jerseyites up even further, causing yet more people to drop out, in an insurance death spiral that would leave the sickest New Jerseyites paying astronomical premiums for in-state insurance. Ultimately, America must fix its broken health-insurance system at the national level; but absent a national solution, undermining the ability of the states to attempt their own fixes is one of the worst ideas around.</p><p>\";}i:18;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:29:\"I\'m sorry you\'re such a loser\";s:4:\"link\";s:77:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/political_apologies\";s:11:\"description\";s:2576:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Political apologies        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    R.L.G. | NEW YORK        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    The art of saying you&#039;re not really sorry        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p>IT APPEARS, though we don\'t have exact quotes from their chat, that Rahm Emanuel apologised to the head of the Special Olympics for having called Democrats, in a closed-door meeting, \"fucking retarded\". One hopes the apology was thorough, even if, knowing Mr Emanuel, he did it through clenched teeth. For there are many classic strategies for avoiding any sign of real contrition (with a nod to <a href=\"http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000327.html\">Geoff Nunberg</a>). Classic non-apologies include:</p><p>- \"I\'m sorry <em>that this regrettable incident occurred</em>\" (not because someone was hurt, but because it\'s now rather embarrassing for me and I wish the whole thing hadn\'t happened).</p><p>- \"I\'m sorry <em>if any offense was caused</em>\" (because man, did I not expect that, but some people can\'t take a joke).</p><p>- \"I\'m sorry <em>if my words were misconstrued</em>\" (but I\'ll be damned if I\'ll withdraw them).</p><p>Now, Andy Samberg, channelling an imaginary (but not implausible) Mr Emanuel, offers a new category of non-apology: I\'m sorry I didn\'t call you something worse.</p><p><object id=\"W4727a250e66f97234b707503d7ea308d\" width=\"384\" height=\"283\" type=\"application/x-shockwave-flash\" data=\"http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/4b707503d7ea308d/4741e3c5156499a7/e8e0c80/-cpid/40bc0028c21821a8\"><param name=\"movie\" value=\"http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/4b707503d7ea308d/4741e3c5156499a7/e8e0c80/-cpid/40bc0028c21821a8\"><param name=\"wmode\" value=\"transparent\"><param name=\"allowNetworking\" value=\"all\"><param name=\"allowScriptAccess\" value=\"always\"><param name=\"allowFullScreen\" value=\"true\"></object></p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:86:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/political_apologies#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:00:30 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004753 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:2576:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Political apologies        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    R.L.G. | NEW YORK        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    The art of saying you&#039;re not really sorry        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p>IT APPEARS, though we don\'t have exact quotes from their chat, that Rahm Emanuel apologised to the head of the Special Olympics for having called Democrats, in a closed-door meeting, \"fucking retarded\". One hopes the apology was thorough, even if, knowing Mr Emanuel, he did it through clenched teeth. For there are many classic strategies for avoiding any sign of real contrition (with a nod to <a href=\"http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000327.html\">Geoff Nunberg</a>). Classic non-apologies include:</p><p>- \"I\'m sorry <em>that this regrettable incident occurred</em>\" (not because someone was hurt, but because it\'s now rather embarrassing for me and I wish the whole thing hadn\'t happened).</p><p>- \"I\'m sorry <em>if any offense was caused</em>\" (because man, did I not expect that, but some people can\'t take a joke).</p><p>- \"I\'m sorry <em>if my words were misconstrued</em>\" (but I\'ll be damned if I\'ll withdraw them).</p><p>Now, Andy Samberg, channelling an imaginary (but not implausible) Mr Emanuel, offers a new category of non-apology: I\'m sorry I didn\'t call you something worse.</p><p><object id=\"W4727a250e66f97234b707503d7ea308d\" width=\"384\" height=\"283\" type=\"application/x-shockwave-flash\" data=\"http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/4b707503d7ea308d/4741e3c5156499a7/e8e0c80/-cpid/40bc0028c21821a8\"><param name=\"movie\" value=\"http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/4b707503d7ea308d/4741e3c5156499a7/e8e0c80/-cpid/40bc0028c21821a8\"><param name=\"wmode\" value=\"transparent\"><param name=\"allowNetworking\" value=\"all\"><param name=\"allowScriptAccess\" value=\"always\"><param name=\"allowFullScreen\" value=\"true\"></object></p>\";}i:19;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:12:\"It\'s a trap!\";s:4:\"link\";s:76:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/health-care_summit\";s:11:\"description\";s:3764:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    The health-care summit        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    R.L.G. | NEW YORK        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Does Barack Obama want to work with Republicans on health care, or expose them?        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"280\" height=\"154\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/obamahealthcare.jpg?1265659439\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/obamahealthcare.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"280\" height=\"154\" align=\"right\">TWO contrasting views on what Barack Obama is playing at with his health-care \"summit\" with Republicans, set to happen later this month. <a href=\"http://xpostfactoid.blogspot.com/2010/02/as-in-afghanistan-obama-picks-none-of.html\">Andrew Sprung</a>&nbsp;thinks Mr Obama wants to \"solicit Republican \'ideas\' and expose their vacuity\", and that this is likely to work. Brendan Nyhan <a href=\"http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2010/02/obamas-phony-health-care-summit.html?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed:+BrendanNyhan+(Brendan+Nyhan)&amp;utm_content=Google+Reader\">agrees</a> that the summit is a \"PR stunt\", but thinks it is raising genuine hopes of bipartisanship, and sets the president up for another slap.</p><p>Mr Sprung says that Mr Obama has \"structured this \'exchange of ideas\' as a debate he cannot lose.\" Is that right? Only if Mr Obama\'s frame is accepted. He <a href=\"http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/02/katie_couric_super_bowl_obama.html\">says</a></p><blockquote><p>I want to be very specific. \"How do you guys want to lower costs? How do you guys intend to reform the insurance market so people with preexisting conditions, for example, can get health care? How do you want to make sure that the 30 million people who don\'t have health insurance can get it? What are your ideas, specifically?\"</p></blockquote><p>It\'s true that if Republicans try to answer all these questions with \"tort reform\", they\'re going to look silly. But they won\'t. They\'ll criticise the Democratic bills that do exist, and they\'ll have a point. They\'re messy, they don\'t do enough on cost-control, and they include ugly indefensible giveaways to favoured constituencies and Ben Nelson.&nbsp;</p><p>In other words, both sides want to have a conversation that begins with \"First, let me expose how bad or nonexistent your ideas are.\" This seems rather unlikely to lead to a meeting of the minds. Can Mr Obama be sure that showing the Republicans as the party of No will outweigh yet another public discussion of Democratic bills people simply don\'t like? It\'s a risky bet. Mr Obama had a good session with the Republicans in Baltimore. But this time they\'re going to be better prepared.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:85:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/health-care_summit#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:58:28 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004749 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:3764:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    The health-care summit        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    R.L.G. | NEW YORK        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Does Barack Obama want to work with Republicans on health care, or expose them?        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"280\" height=\"154\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/obamahealthcare.jpg?1265659439\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/obamahealthcare.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"280\" height=\"154\" align=\"right\">TWO contrasting views on what Barack Obama is playing at with his health-care \"summit\" with Republicans, set to happen later this month. <a href=\"http://xpostfactoid.blogspot.com/2010/02/as-in-afghanistan-obama-picks-none-of.html\">Andrew Sprung</a>&nbsp;thinks Mr Obama wants to \"solicit Republican \'ideas\' and expose their vacuity\", and that this is likely to work. Brendan Nyhan <a href=\"http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2010/02/obamas-phony-health-care-summit.html?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed:+BrendanNyhan+(Brendan+Nyhan)&amp;utm_content=Google+Reader\">agrees</a> that the summit is a \"PR stunt\", but thinks it is raising genuine hopes of bipartisanship, and sets the president up for another slap.</p><p>Mr Sprung says that Mr Obama has \"structured this \'exchange of ideas\' as a debate he cannot lose.\" Is that right? Only if Mr Obama\'s frame is accepted. He <a href=\"http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/02/katie_couric_super_bowl_obama.html\">says</a></p><blockquote><p>I want to be very specific. \"How do you guys want to lower costs? How do you guys intend to reform the insurance market so people with preexisting conditions, for example, can get health care? How do you want to make sure that the 30 million people who don\'t have health insurance can get it? What are your ideas, specifically?\"</p></blockquote><p>It\'s true that if Republicans try to answer all these questions with \"tort reform\", they\'re going to look silly. But they won\'t. They\'ll criticise the Democratic bills that do exist, and they\'ll have a point. They\'re messy, they don\'t do enough on cost-control, and they include ugly indefensible giveaways to favoured constituencies and Ben Nelson.&nbsp;</p><p>In other words, both sides want to have a conversation that begins with \"First, let me expose how bad or nonexistent your ideas are.\" This seems rather unlikely to lead to a meeting of the minds. Can Mr Obama be sure that showing the Republicans as the party of No will outweigh yet another public discussion of Democratic bills people simply don\'t like? It\'s a risky bet. Mr Obama had a good session with the Republicans in Baltimore. But this time they\'re going to be better prepared.</p><p>(Photo credit: AFP)</p>\";}i:20;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:14:\"Sarah in Texas\";s:4:\"link\";s:69:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/sarah_texas\";s:11:\"description\";s:4282:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Sarah Palin        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    E.G. | AUSTIN        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Going rogue may win her fans, but it will not win her an election        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"220\" height=\"300\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/sarah palin thumbs300.jpg?1265653213\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/sarah%20palin%20thumbs300.jpg\" alt=\"Sarah Palin\" width=\"220\" height=\"300\" align=\"right\">EIGHTEEN months after Sarah Palin first sauntered into our daily lives, she pulled on her boots (knee-high purple suede stilettos) and got on down to Houston to rally with Rick Perry. Your young blogger friend was there, and today I\'ll have a few comments: on Mrs Palin, on Mr Perry, and on the Perry-Palin ticket (don\'t worry). But before that, a word about the rally. Ted Nugent was there, speaking with Piper Palin, who looked somewhat bored with it all.</p><p>With regard to Mrs Palin. This was my first time hearing her speak in person and that was somewhat enlightening. She is definitely one of those politicians with charisma. She has it, whatever it is, and people respond accordingly. It was a dramatic contrast to seeing her on television. In interviews with non-Fox journalists, Mrs Palin has floundered dramatically, and accordingly has started to avoid the \"liberal media\" she often derides. But she was much more sure-footed in front of an adoring crowd.</p><p>Consider the ramifications for the body politic. The people who like Mrs Palin see her at her best. Many of the people in the Texas crowd were toting copies Going Rogue, and talking about her speech the day before in Nashville. They\'re not dwelling on the Katie Couric clips, which to them are old news. The people who loathe Sarah Palin, of course, aren\'t watching her stump at conservative rallies. So not only do they continue to think she\'s a loon, they can\'t understand why a third of the country thinks she\'s a reasonable person. This is how polarisation happens.</p><p>For the time being, the bifurcated public personality is working for Mrs Palin. Her ability to gin up liberal derangement makes conservatives love her even more. \"I doubt there is another public figure in our country who gives liberals a bigger case of hives,\" said Mr Perry, introducing the former governor. \" He chuckled to himself for a few seconds, thinking of the liberals foaming at the mouth, and said that if Keith Olbermann was in Houston that day his head would explode. The crowd cheered and cheered.</p><p>Eventually, though, the problem is Mrs Palin\'s. Politics is intrinsically adversarial and successful politicians have to know how to win an argument. Although Mrs Palin often attacks other politicians and says that her policies would be better than theirs, she doesn\'t welcome debate, and her preferred oppositional strategy is abrupt withdrawal. Think about the resignation from the Oil &amp; Gas commission and from the statehouse, or her choice to \"go rogue\" rather than convince the McCain campaign of the merits of her approach. That\'s how you get 30% of the vote, not 51%. And it goes without saying that it wouldn\'t be an effective way to govern.</p><p>(Photo credit: Bloomberg)</p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:78:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/sarah_texas#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:28:34 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004713 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:4282:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Sarah Palin        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    E.G. | AUSTIN        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Going rogue may win her fans, but it will not win her an election        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"220\" height=\"300\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/sarah palin thumbs300.jpg?1265653213\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/sarah%20palin%20thumbs300.jpg\" alt=\"Sarah Palin\" width=\"220\" height=\"300\" align=\"right\">EIGHTEEN months after Sarah Palin first sauntered into our daily lives, she pulled on her boots (knee-high purple suede stilettos) and got on down to Houston to rally with Rick Perry. Your young blogger friend was there, and today I\'ll have a few comments: on Mrs Palin, on Mr Perry, and on the Perry-Palin ticket (don\'t worry). But before that, a word about the rally. Ted Nugent was there, speaking with Piper Palin, who looked somewhat bored with it all.</p><p>With regard to Mrs Palin. This was my first time hearing her speak in person and that was somewhat enlightening. She is definitely one of those politicians with charisma. She has it, whatever it is, and people respond accordingly. It was a dramatic contrast to seeing her on television. In interviews with non-Fox journalists, Mrs Palin has floundered dramatically, and accordingly has started to avoid the \"liberal media\" she often derides. But she was much more sure-footed in front of an adoring crowd.</p><p>Consider the ramifications for the body politic. The people who like Mrs Palin see her at her best. Many of the people in the Texas crowd were toting copies Going Rogue, and talking about her speech the day before in Nashville. They\'re not dwelling on the Katie Couric clips, which to them are old news. The people who loathe Sarah Palin, of course, aren\'t watching her stump at conservative rallies. So not only do they continue to think she\'s a loon, they can\'t understand why a third of the country thinks she\'s a reasonable person. This is how polarisation happens.</p><p>For the time being, the bifurcated public personality is working for Mrs Palin. Her ability to gin up liberal derangement makes conservatives love her even more. \"I doubt there is another public figure in our country who gives liberals a bigger case of hives,\" said Mr Perry, introducing the former governor. \" He chuckled to himself for a few seconds, thinking of the liberals foaming at the mouth, and said that if Keith Olbermann was in Houston that day his head would explode. The crowd cheered and cheered.</p><p>Eventually, though, the problem is Mrs Palin\'s. Politics is intrinsically adversarial and successful politicians have to know how to win an argument. Although Mrs Palin often attacks other politicians and says that her policies would be better than theirs, she doesn\'t welcome debate, and her preferred oppositional strategy is abrupt withdrawal. Think about the resignation from the Oil &amp; Gas commission and from the statehouse, or her choice to \"go rogue\" rather than convince the McCain campaign of the merits of her approach. That\'s how you get 30% of the vote, not 51%. And it goes without saying that it wouldn\'t be an effective way to govern.</p><p>(Photo credit: Bloomberg)</p>\";}i:21;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:13:\"Minstrel show\";s:4:\"link\";s:98:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/james_okeefe_acorn_and_racial_resentment\";s:11:\"description\";s:3381:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    James O&#039;Keefe, ACORN and racial resentment        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    James O&#039;Keefe&#039;s pimp act was disturbing for a reason        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"260\" height=\"240\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/Okeefe260.jpg?1265646835\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/Okeefe260.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"260\" height=\"240\" align=\"right\">MAX BLUMENTHAL\'S article \"<a href=\"http://salon.com/news/feature/2010/02/03/james_okeefe_white_nationalists/index.html\">James O\'Keefe\'s Race Problem</a>\" is a few days old by now, and has been through an entire cycle of rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. It appears that the guy who punk\'d ACORN last fall and tried to tamper with Senator Mary Landrieu\'s phones also played some role in a rather dicey panel on \"race and conservatism\" in 2006. He was a colleague of the panel\'s organiser, Marcus Epstein, who appears to have <a href=\"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/02/marcus-epsteins-racist-as_n_210163.html\">some serious</a> <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/opinion/01sun1.html?_r=3\">racial issues</a>. He tried to prank an office of Planned Parenthood by offering donations on the condition the money be used to abort black fetuses. He seems to have resented alleged preferential treatment of blacks while he was an undergrad at Rutgers, and to have gotten himself into some racially-charged conflicts there, which he described in unwise terms on a blog he kept as a diary.</p><p>I\'ve included above only those claims that have not been disputed. The details of whether or not Mr O\'Keefe personally staffed a table that featured racist literature are <a href=\"http://washingtonindependent.com/75861/conservative-media-mogul-plays-defense-on-racism-story\">hotly contested</a>. What I don\'t think can be contested is that this is all well on the anxious side of America\'s racial dialogue. If any segment of American society has moved into a \"post-racial\" era, this isn\'t it.</p><p>Mr Blumenthal\'s article reminded me of my initial reaction to <a href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UOL9Jh61S8\">Mr O\'Keefe\'s ACORN tapes</a>, and more specifically to the stylised sequences featuring Mr O\'Keefe dressed up like a music-video director\'s idea of a pimp.</p><p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:107:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/james_okeefe_acorn_and_racial_resentment#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:42:11 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004715 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:3381:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    James O&#039;Keefe, ACORN and racial resentment        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    James O&#039;Keefe&#039;s pimp act was disturbing for a reason        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"260\" height=\"240\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/Okeefe260.jpg?1265646835\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w06/Okeefe260.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"260\" height=\"240\" align=\"right\">MAX BLUMENTHAL\'S article \"<a href=\"http://salon.com/news/feature/2010/02/03/james_okeefe_white_nationalists/index.html\">James O\'Keefe\'s Race Problem</a>\" is a few days old by now, and has been through an entire cycle of rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. It appears that the guy who punk\'d ACORN last fall and tried to tamper with Senator Mary Landrieu\'s phones also played some role in a rather dicey panel on \"race and conservatism\" in 2006. He was a colleague of the panel\'s organiser, Marcus Epstein, who appears to have <a href=\"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/02/marcus-epsteins-racist-as_n_210163.html\">some serious</a> <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/opinion/01sun1.html?_r=3\">racial issues</a>. He tried to prank an office of Planned Parenthood by offering donations on the condition the money be used to abort black fetuses. He seems to have resented alleged preferential treatment of blacks while he was an undergrad at Rutgers, and to have gotten himself into some racially-charged conflicts there, which he described in unwise terms on a blog he kept as a diary.</p><p>I\'ve included above only those claims that have not been disputed. The details of whether or not Mr O\'Keefe personally staffed a table that featured racist literature are <a href=\"http://washingtonindependent.com/75861/conservative-media-mogul-plays-defense-on-racism-story\">hotly contested</a>. What I don\'t think can be contested is that this is all well on the anxious side of America\'s racial dialogue. If any segment of American society has moved into a \"post-racial\" era, this isn\'t it.</p><p>Mr Blumenthal\'s article reminded me of my initial reaction to <a href=\"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UOL9Jh61S8\">Mr O\'Keefe\'s ACORN tapes</a>, and more specifically to the stylised sequences featuring Mr O\'Keefe dressed up like a music-video director\'s idea of a pimp.</p><p>\";}i:22;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:23:\"Tebow versus Man Crunch\";s:4:\"link\";s:81:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/culture_wars_super_bowl\";s:11:\"description\";s:6228:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Culture wars at the Super Bowl        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    R.L.G. | NEW YORK        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    CBS showed itself both cowardly and clumsy in deciding which ads to run during the Super Bowl        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"290\" height=\"163\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w05/UStebow290.jpg?1265568174\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w05/UStebow290.jpg\" alt=\"Tim Tebow\" width=\"290\" height=\"163\" align=\"right\">TODAY will see the New Orleans Saints, an American football team famed for its past haplessness, take on the Indianapolis Colts, a longtime powerhouse, in the Super Bowl. The on-field action should keep most fans glued to their couches, unless it\'s a blowout.<br><br>This year, political junkies will be on the edge of their seats for something else: a political controversy over the ads. Focus on the Family is running a spot about Tim Tebow—one of the best two or three players in college football, and a highly-touted future professional. Mr Tebow, with the biblical verses he wears on the black glare-protectors under his eyes, and his public promise to save his virginity for marriage, is probably the most outspokenly Christian sporting star in the country.<br><br>The ad will feature Mr Tebow and his mother, who was a missionary in the Philippines when he was born. She became ill and her placenta partially detached. Doctors, fearing for her health, counselled abortion. Insead, Ms Tebow will say, she prayed, and her superstar son was born healthy. Abortion-rights groups are furious. The Super Bowl\'s producers have, by tradition, rejected advocacy ads during the game.</p><p>CBS, the network airing the Super Bowl, then added fuel to the controversey by turning down, as \"not within the network’s broadcast standards\", a lighthearted ad for a gay dating site called <a href=\"http://mancrunch.com/\">Man Crunch</a>. What was so offensive that CBS could not bring itself to air it? Two manly fans\' hands meet in a bowl of crisps as they watch the game at home; humorously exaggerated passions ensue. We don\'t even see the men\'s lips meet, since one has practically tackled the other on the couch. A slightly stunned friend watches from the next chair.</p><p><object width=\"425\" height=\"344\"><param name=\"movie\" value=\"http://www.youtube.com/v/5MQWFiIrBLA&amp;hl=fr_FR&amp;fs=1&amp;\"><param name=\"allowFullScreen\" value=\"true\"><param name=\"allowscriptaccess\" value=\"always\"><embed type=\"application/x-shockwave-flash\" width=\"425\" height=\"344\" src=\"http://www.youtube.com/v/5MQWFiIrBLA&amp;hl=fr_FR&amp;fs=1&amp;\" allowfullscreen=\"true\" allowscriptaccess=\"always\"></object></p><p>CBS\'s decision to air the Tebow ad has gotten most of the attention, but it is the rejection of the Man Crunch ad that rankles me. America\'s first-amendment tradition is so robust that even though no one has a constitutional right to have their views disseminated by CBS, we understandably expect those who sell advertising space to sell it fairly. And the decision not to air the Man Crunch ad can only be due to rank homophobia—the family-friendliness of past Super Bowl ads has allowed for bikini waxes, dogs attacking crotches, farting horses, erectile-dysfunction drug pitches and more, and that in just <a href=\"http://www.slate.com/id/2094745/\">one typical year</a>. One year, a Snickers bar, being eaten from its two ends, results in two sweaty non-gay males horrified to find themselves accidentally kissing. Acceptable, of course—becasue the joke is on the gays.</p><p>It\'s often said that outrageous ads are made to be rejected by the networks at Super Bowl time, for free publicity, and some think that this is what Man Crunch did. But to believe that, you have to find the idea of two men kissing outrageous. Increasingly, Americans don\'t—we\'ve just had <a href=\"http://www.feministing.com/archives/019561.html\">the first gay love scene</a> on a daytime soap opera. CBS is simply thinking as Bill Kristol does about \"Don\'t Ask, Don\'t Tell\"—even if people\'s prejudices are unjustifiable, they must be deferred to. Shame on CBS, for making a decision both controversial and cowardly at the same time.</p><p><strong>Update: </strong>In the end, the Tebow ad was pretty understated, so much so that, as several commenters pointed out, you might not know it was an anti-abortion ad if you didn\'t know Focus on the Family. Still, CBS thought that several GoDaddy.com ads that featured women ripping their shirts off to reveal a GoDaddy tank-top shirt underneath, urging viewers to go to GoDaddy.com for a slightly more explicit strip-teasy version of the same, family-friendly enough for prime time. Not so the goofy gay dating ad. Talk about (GoDaddy\'s slogan) \"too hot for TV\".</p><p>Also, following up from <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/01/who_dat_say_dey_gonna_beat_dem_saints_1\">my previous post</a>, I predict a big temporary hit to New Orleans\'s GDP, with strong growth in the tourism and entertainment sectors, and sharp negative growth in sectors that do not involve the production or serving of alcohol.</p><p>(Photo credit: AP)</p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:90:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/culture_wars_super_bowl#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:15:11 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004705 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:6228:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Culture wars at the Super Bowl        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    R.L.G. | NEW YORK        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    CBS showed itself both cowardly and clumsy in deciding which ads to run during the Super Bowl        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"290\" height=\"163\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w05/UStebow290.jpg?1265568174\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w05/UStebow290.jpg\" alt=\"Tim Tebow\" width=\"290\" height=\"163\" align=\"right\">TODAY will see the New Orleans Saints, an American football team famed for its past haplessness, take on the Indianapolis Colts, a longtime powerhouse, in the Super Bowl. The on-field action should keep most fans glued to their couches, unless it\'s a blowout.<br><br>This year, political junkies will be on the edge of their seats for something else: a political controversy over the ads. Focus on the Family is running a spot about Tim Tebow—one of the best two or three players in college football, and a highly-touted future professional. Mr Tebow, with the biblical verses he wears on the black glare-protectors under his eyes, and his public promise to save his virginity for marriage, is probably the most outspokenly Christian sporting star in the country.<br><br>The ad will feature Mr Tebow and his mother, who was a missionary in the Philippines when he was born. She became ill and her placenta partially detached. Doctors, fearing for her health, counselled abortion. Insead, Ms Tebow will say, she prayed, and her superstar son was born healthy. Abortion-rights groups are furious. The Super Bowl\'s producers have, by tradition, rejected advocacy ads during the game.</p><p>CBS, the network airing the Super Bowl, then added fuel to the controversey by turning down, as \"not within the network’s broadcast standards\", a lighthearted ad for a gay dating site called <a href=\"http://mancrunch.com/\">Man Crunch</a>. What was so offensive that CBS could not bring itself to air it? Two manly fans\' hands meet in a bowl of crisps as they watch the game at home; humorously exaggerated passions ensue. We don\'t even see the men\'s lips meet, since one has practically tackled the other on the couch. A slightly stunned friend watches from the next chair.</p><p><object width=\"425\" height=\"344\"><param name=\"movie\" value=\"http://www.youtube.com/v/5MQWFiIrBLA&amp;hl=fr_FR&amp;fs=1&amp;\"><param name=\"allowFullScreen\" value=\"true\"><param name=\"allowscriptaccess\" value=\"always\"><embed type=\"application/x-shockwave-flash\" width=\"425\" height=\"344\" src=\"http://www.youtube.com/v/5MQWFiIrBLA&amp;hl=fr_FR&amp;fs=1&amp;\" allowfullscreen=\"true\" allowscriptaccess=\"always\"></object></p><p>CBS\'s decision to air the Tebow ad has gotten most of the attention, but it is the rejection of the Man Crunch ad that rankles me. America\'s first-amendment tradition is so robust that even though no one has a constitutional right to have their views disseminated by CBS, we understandably expect those who sell advertising space to sell it fairly. And the decision not to air the Man Crunch ad can only be due to rank homophobia—the family-friendliness of past Super Bowl ads has allowed for bikini waxes, dogs attacking crotches, farting horses, erectile-dysfunction drug pitches and more, and that in just <a href=\"http://www.slate.com/id/2094745/\">one typical year</a>. One year, a Snickers bar, being eaten from its two ends, results in two sweaty non-gay males horrified to find themselves accidentally kissing. Acceptable, of course—becasue the joke is on the gays.</p><p>It\'s often said that outrageous ads are made to be rejected by the networks at Super Bowl time, for free publicity, and some think that this is what Man Crunch did. But to believe that, you have to find the idea of two men kissing outrageous. Increasingly, Americans don\'t—we\'ve just had <a href=\"http://www.feministing.com/archives/019561.html\">the first gay love scene</a> on a daytime soap opera. CBS is simply thinking as Bill Kristol does about \"Don\'t Ask, Don\'t Tell\"—even if people\'s prejudices are unjustifiable, they must be deferred to. Shame on CBS, for making a decision both controversial and cowardly at the same time.</p><p><strong>Update: </strong>In the end, the Tebow ad was pretty understated, so much so that, as several commenters pointed out, you might not know it was an anti-abortion ad if you didn\'t know Focus on the Family. Still, CBS thought that several GoDaddy.com ads that featured women ripping their shirts off to reveal a GoDaddy tank-top shirt underneath, urging viewers to go to GoDaddy.com for a slightly more explicit strip-teasy version of the same, family-friendly enough for prime time. Not so the goofy gay dating ad. Talk about (GoDaddy\'s slogan) \"too hot for TV\".</p><p>Also, following up from <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/01/who_dat_say_dey_gonna_beat_dem_saints_1\">my previous post</a>, I predict a big temporary hit to New Orleans\'s GDP, with strong growth in the tourism and entertainment sectors, and sharp negative growth in sectors that do not involve the production or serving of alcohol.</p><p>(Photo credit: AP)</p>\";}i:23;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:42:\"Unions, like companies, can be good or bad\";s:4:\"link\";s:118:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/are_teachers_unions_inherently_opposed_rewarding_performance\";s:11:\"description\";s:6149:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Teachers&#039; unions        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    And the same probably goes for teachers&#039; unions and schools        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><a href=\"http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/02/what-is-the-education-reform-debate-about.php\">MATTHEW YGLESIAS</a>&nbsp;and <a href=\"http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=3d412e240afc746d679948a493ee0c21\">Megan McArdle</a> are having a debate about whether teachers\' unions will always inherently tend to oppose merit pay. Mr Yglesias thinks the tendency of American unions to oppose such pay is a historical accident; teachers\' unions grew to dominance at a time when contracts rewarded seniority and degree-scarfing, so those are the kinds of contracts unions now defend. Ms McArdle thinks this misses the intrinsic logic of union self-interest:</p><blockquote><p>A collective bargaining unit run by a \"majority rules\" system is always going to look for a system that rewards the median or modal worker, not the best... Unions are set up to minimize frictions and maximize benefits for the bottom 55%. That\'s how they work everywhere—in schools, and out.&nbsp; That\'s&nbsp;<em>how they have to work</em>. No amount of cajoling, no number of white papers, is going to change that.</p></blockquote><p>I don\'t know whether or not it is inevitable that American teachers\' unions will oppose merit pay, but this thesis seems overstated to me. I think it runs into some of the same problems as a lot of analyses that try to boil complicated institutions down to a single intrinsic logic. Take for example&nbsp;<a href=\"http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch09.htm\">this thesis</a>:</p><blockquote><p>The more productive capital grows, the more the division of labor and the application of machinery expands. The more the division of labor and the application of machinery expands, the more competition among the workers expands and the more their wages contract.</p></blockquote><p>It seems logical, after all, that competitive capitalism will drive wages relentlessly down. But in fact things are a lot more complicated than that, and another effect of competitive capitalism is to generate huge increases in productivity that drive wages up. Similarly, unions are implemented in different ways in different industries, firms and countries. So, <a href=\"http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/DP0539.pdf\">finds David Metcalf</a> of the London School of Economics:</p> <blockquote><p>It is not possible to use theory to predict unambiguously any union effect on productivity because unions can both enhance and detract from the productivity performance of the workplace or firm.&nbsp; The evidence indicates that, in the USA, workplaces with both high performance work systems and union recognition have higher labour productivity than other workplaces. In the UK previous negative links between unions and labour productivity have been eroded by greater competition and more emphasis on “partnership” in industrial relations but there is a lingering negative effect of multi-unionism, just as there is in Australia. In Germany the weight of the evidence suggests that the information, consultation and voice role of works councils enhances labour productivity particularly in larger firms. In Japan unions also tend to raise labour productivity via the longer job tenures in union workplaces which makes it more attractive to invest in human capital and through the unpaid personnel manager role played by full-time enterprise union officials in the workplace.</p></blockquote><p>In the case of schools, things are particularly complex because \"productivity\" is not measured in dollars. How exactly to measure it is controversial, but it clearly involves some mix of grades, standardised text scores, and social metrics such as graduation and truancy rates. The question is whether teachers\' unions will always prefer job security and higher salaries for their mediocre and low-performing members to improvements in the education of the kids they\'re teaching. The fact that many teachers will accept a cut in pay to teach at more successful, inspiring (and generally private) schools suggests that the overall population of teachers has some willingness to trade wages and job security for workplace satisfaction. This isn\'t surprising, given the fairly low pay and status that attends the profession in America.</p><p>It may of course be that the current shape of the American educational system drives most of the results-motivated teachers out of the unions and the public school system, but I don\'t think that\'s inevitable because of the intrinsic logic of unions. It seems like a mistake to ignore the influence of such non-inevitable historical factors as white flight from America\'s urban core in the aftermath of desegregation, the peculiarly anti-high-school-teacher path taken by America\'s counterculture in the same period, the political tensions caused by funding schools through property taxes, and constant <a href=\"http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2009/06/food_fight_breaks_out_at_n_hun.html\">cafeteria</a> <a href=\"http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/news_article.aspx?storyid=129219&amp;catid=3\">food</a> <a href=\"http://www.fox30jax.com/content/actionlocal/story/Cafeteria-food-fight-leads-to-heavy-punishment/qvTBsmyng0GMLI2QiuIVdw.cspx\">fights</a>.</p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:127:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/are_teachers_unions_inherently_opposed_rewarding_performance#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:10:50 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004669 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:6149:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Teachers&#039; unions        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    And the same probably goes for teachers&#039; unions and schools        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><a href=\"http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/02/what-is-the-education-reform-debate-about.php\">MATTHEW YGLESIAS</a>&nbsp;and <a href=\"http://www.pheedcontent.com/click.phdo?i=3d412e240afc746d679948a493ee0c21\">Megan McArdle</a> are having a debate about whether teachers\' unions will always inherently tend to oppose merit pay. Mr Yglesias thinks the tendency of American unions to oppose such pay is a historical accident; teachers\' unions grew to dominance at a time when contracts rewarded seniority and degree-scarfing, so those are the kinds of contracts unions now defend. Ms McArdle thinks this misses the intrinsic logic of union self-interest:</p><blockquote><p>A collective bargaining unit run by a \"majority rules\" system is always going to look for a system that rewards the median or modal worker, not the best... Unions are set up to minimize frictions and maximize benefits for the bottom 55%. That\'s how they work everywhere—in schools, and out.&nbsp; That\'s&nbsp;<em>how they have to work</em>. No amount of cajoling, no number of white papers, is going to change that.</p></blockquote><p>I don\'t know whether or not it is inevitable that American teachers\' unions will oppose merit pay, but this thesis seems overstated to me. I think it runs into some of the same problems as a lot of analyses that try to boil complicated institutions down to a single intrinsic logic. Take for example&nbsp;<a href=\"http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch09.htm\">this thesis</a>:</p><blockquote><p>The more productive capital grows, the more the division of labor and the application of machinery expands. The more the division of labor and the application of machinery expands, the more competition among the workers expands and the more their wages contract.</p></blockquote><p>It seems logical, after all, that competitive capitalism will drive wages relentlessly down. But in fact things are a lot more complicated than that, and another effect of competitive capitalism is to generate huge increases in productivity that drive wages up. Similarly, unions are implemented in different ways in different industries, firms and countries. So, <a href=\"http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/DP0539.pdf\">finds David Metcalf</a> of the London School of Economics:</p> <blockquote><p>It is not possible to use theory to predict unambiguously any union effect on productivity because unions can both enhance and detract from the productivity performance of the workplace or firm.&nbsp; The evidence indicates that, in the USA, workplaces with both high performance work systems and union recognition have higher labour productivity than other workplaces. In the UK previous negative links between unions and labour productivity have been eroded by greater competition and more emphasis on “partnership” in industrial relations but there is a lingering negative effect of multi-unionism, just as there is in Australia. In Germany the weight of the evidence suggests that the information, consultation and voice role of works councils enhances labour productivity particularly in larger firms. In Japan unions also tend to raise labour productivity via the longer job tenures in union workplaces which makes it more attractive to invest in human capital and through the unpaid personnel manager role played by full-time enterprise union officials in the workplace.</p></blockquote><p>In the case of schools, things are particularly complex because \"productivity\" is not measured in dollars. How exactly to measure it is controversial, but it clearly involves some mix of grades, standardised text scores, and social metrics such as graduation and truancy rates. The question is whether teachers\' unions will always prefer job security and higher salaries for their mediocre and low-performing members to improvements in the education of the kids they\'re teaching. The fact that many teachers will accept a cut in pay to teach at more successful, inspiring (and generally private) schools suggests that the overall population of teachers has some willingness to trade wages and job security for workplace satisfaction. This isn\'t surprising, given the fairly low pay and status that attends the profession in America.</p><p>It may of course be that the current shape of the American educational system drives most of the results-motivated teachers out of the unions and the public school system, but I don\'t think that\'s inevitable because of the intrinsic logic of unions. It seems like a mistake to ignore the influence of such non-inevitable historical factors as white flight from America\'s urban core in the aftermath of desegregation, the peculiarly anti-high-school-teacher path taken by America\'s counterculture in the same period, the political tensions caused by funding schools through property taxes, and constant <a href=\"http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2009/06/food_fight_breaks_out_at_n_hun.html\">cafeteria</a> <a href=\"http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/news_article.aspx?storyid=129219&amp;catid=3\">food</a> <a href=\"http://www.fox30jax.com/content/actionlocal/story/Cafeteria-food-fight-leads-to-heavy-punishment/qvTBsmyng0GMLI2QiuIVdw.cspx\">fights</a>.</p>\";}i:24;a:7:{s:5:\"title\";s:34:\"No good compromise goes unpunished\";s:4:\"link\";s:103:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/republicans_voted_against_democratic_tax_cuts\";s:11:\"description\";s:5950:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Republicans and tax cuts        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    If Republicans won&#039;t vote for Democratic tax cuts, what will they vote for?        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"200\" height=\"253\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w05/BLmrsmith200.jpg?1265395775\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w05/BLmrsmith200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"200\" height=\"253\" align=\"right\">LAST night I was trying to explain American politics to a Dutch friend. It wasn\'t that hard; the Dutch pay a surprising amount of attention to American politics. But this friend had never heard of the filibuster before. (Fair enough. Until last month I didn\'t know <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15213212\">what proroguing was</a>, and Canada is right next door.) In any case, I ran through the familiar script about how the demise of Southern Democrats had unified the parties into coherent ideological blocs, while at the same time the modernising reforms of 1976 had unintentionally made it easier to filibuster by removing the requirement that Jimmy Stewart actually stand on the floor reading the Federalist Papers until the room goes all swirly. (Good thing Frank Capra lived in the 1930s, not the 1970s. Jimmy Stewart indicates he is unlikely to vote for the bill, and it dies—now there\'s a lousy movie.) So essentially, I said, unless the Democrats can cobble together a couple of Republican votes, they can\'t pass anything. Perhaps something very minor. Or, of course, they could always pass a Republican bill, if they wanted to. They could probably increase defence spending, or pass tax cuts, I said.</p><p>But I was wrong! It turns out the Democrats don\'t even get Republican votes when they try to pass tax cuts. Last weekend David Axelrod noted on \"Meet the Press\" that the Democrats passed 25 tax cuts this year and got no Republican support. PolitiFacts <a href=\"http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/02/david-axelrod/axelrod-claims-democrats-passed-25-tax-cuts-last-y/\">examined the claim</a>, and they say he\'s right. The biggest is the \"Making Work Pay Tax Credit\", which for 2009 and 2010 only provides \"a refundable tax credit of 6.2% of earned income up to $400 for individuals and up to $800 for married taxpayers filing joint returns.\" That comes to $116 billion. In all, tax cuts made up about a third of the stimulus bill, which is estimated to cost $862 billion over ten years.</p><p>Nick Baumann, filling in this week for Kevin Drum, <a href=\"http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/tax-cut-fail\">writes</a> that \"Democrats\' inability to inform the public that the stimulus plan cut taxes in a big way should go down as one of their biggest political screw-ups in recent years.\" To be sure, all of the tax cuts were part of the stimulus bill, which made them harder to publicise: the conservative-friendly tax cuts were offset by liberal-friendly spending, and the cuts are so complex and narrowly tailored that they tend to get buried in the bill in a way George Bush\'s across-the-board cuts in marginal rates didn\'t. One also wonders whether the upper limits on the cuts didn\'t have something to do with their failure to make more noise. For the median American household, with an income of $50,000 a year, a tax refund of $800 would be a substantial benefit. But most of the people with the power to set media agendas won\'t even notice it. This isn\'t going to register on the radars of Roger Ailes or Keith Olbermann, and it\'s not going to be detectable for people who subscribe to Bloomberg terminals either. But the main point is that it\'s really not clear what Democrats can hope to pass with the Republican Party as unified as it is. If not tax cuts, then what?</p><p>Anyway, getting back to rising partisanship, the august traditions of the Senate, and the wisdom of checks and balances: Richard Shelby, a Republican senator from Alabama, has just <a href=\"http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/report-shelby-blocks-all-obama-nominations-in-the-senate-over-al-earmarks.php\">put a hold on every single one</a> of Barack Obama\'s nominees for government posts. According to reports, he won\'t let them proceed until the administration moves forward with two programmes: a $40 billion contract for airborne refueling tankers (parts of which would be built in Mobile) and a $45m IED testing lab for the FBI (which Mr Shelby earmarked for Alabama\'s Redstone Arsenal). Aren\'t we glad we have this saucer in which to cool the hot passions of the House? Still, calling it the \"<a href=\"http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/the_worlds_most_ridiculous_leg.html\">world\'s most ridiculous legislative body</a>\" may be a bit overblown. Imperial Russia\'s Council of Boyars was worse. I think.</p><p>(Photo credit:  Ronald Grant Archive)</p>\";s:8:\"comments\";s:112:\"http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/republicans_voted_against_democratic_tax_cuts#comments\";s:7:\"pubdate\";s:31:\"Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:40:30 +0000\";s:4:\"guid\";s:36:\"21004678 at http://www.economist.com\";s:7:\"summary\";s:5950:\"<div class=\"field field-type-nodereference field-field-mtblog-site\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <a href=\"/blogs/democracyinamerica\">Democracy in America</a>        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-fly-title\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    Republicans and tax cuts        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-byline\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    M.S.        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-text field-field-mtblog-rubric\">\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    If Republicans won&#039;t vote for Democratic tax cuts, what will they vote for?        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<div class=\"field field-type-filefield field-field-mtblog-images\">\n      <div class=\"field-label\">Images:&nbsp;</div>\n    <div class=\"field-items\">\n            <div class=\"field-item odd\">\n                    <img  class=\"imagefield imagefield-field_mtblog_images\" width=\"200\" height=\"253\" alt=\"\" src=\"http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w05/BLmrsmith200.jpg?1265395775\" />        </div>\n        </div>\n</div>\n<p><img class=\"mceItem\" src=\"/sites/default/files/images/blogs/2010w05/BLmrsmith200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"200\" height=\"253\" align=\"right\">LAST night I was trying to explain American politics to a Dutch friend. It wasn\'t that hard; the Dutch pay a surprising amount of attention to American politics. But this friend had never heard of the filibuster before. (Fair enough. Until last month I didn\'t know <a href=\"http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15213212\">what proroguing was</a>, and Canada is right next door.) In any case, I ran through the familiar script about how the demise of Southern Democrats had unified the parties into coherent ideological blocs, while at the same time the modernising reforms of 1976 had unintentionally made it easier to filibuster by removing the requirement that Jimmy Stewart actually stand on the floor reading the Federalist Papers until the room goes all swirly. (Good thing Frank Capra lived in the 1930s, not the 1970s. Jimmy Stewart indicates he is unlikely to vote for the bill, and it dies—now there\'s a lousy movie.) So essentially, I said, unless the Democrats can cobble together a couple of Republican votes, they can\'t pass anything. Perhaps something very minor. Or, of course, they could always pass a Republican bill, if they wanted to. They could probably increase defence spending, or pass tax cuts, I said.</p><p>But I was wrong! It turns out the Democrats don\'t even get Republican votes when they try to pass tax cuts. Last weekend David Axelrod noted on \"Meet the Press\" that the Democrats passed 25 tax cuts this year and got no Republican support. PolitiFacts <a href=\"http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/02/david-axelrod/axelrod-claims-democrats-passed-25-tax-cuts-last-y/\">examined the claim</a>, and they say he\'s right. The biggest is the \"Making Work Pay Tax Credit\", which for 2009 and 2010 only provides \"a refundable tax credit of 6.2% of earned income up to $400 for individuals and up to $800 for married taxpayers filing joint returns.\" That comes to $116 billion. In all, tax cuts made up about a third of the stimulus bill, which is estimated to cost $862 billion over ten years.</p><p>Nick Baumann, filling in this week for Kevin Drum, <a href=\"http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/tax-cut-fail\">writes</a> that \"Democrats\' inability to inform the public that the stimulus plan cut taxes in a big way should go down as one of their biggest political screw-ups in recent years.\" To be sure, all of the tax cuts were part of the stimulus bill, which made them harder to publicise: the conservative-friendly tax cuts were offset by liberal-friendly spending, and the cuts are so complex and narrowly tailored that they tend to get buried in the bill in a way George Bush\'s across-the-board cuts in marginal rates didn\'t. One also wonders whether the upper limits on the cuts didn\'t have something to do with their failure to make more noise. For the median American household, with an income of $50,000 a year, a tax refund of $800 would be a substantial benefit. But most of the people with the power to set media agendas won\'t even notice it. This isn\'t going to register on the radars of Roger Ailes or Keith Olbermann, and it\'s not going to be detectable for people who subscribe to 