The story isn't how many, but rather why didn't he know.

If he can't be bothered to have that significant a grasp upon his own domestic life how could anyone expect him to keep a firm grip on the domestic policies of the United States of America.

glass houses... stones... don't throw them.

And here I thought the Republicans were against the media fairness act.

I know, I know... it isn't exactly the same. But the implications are well worth considering. You see, I get the impression that if the mass media were directed to provide equal coverage to both Republican and Democratic parties, the Republicans would wind up on the short end of the stick, and they know this.

Along with that impression, I am left thinking that Republicans like to whine. Specifically, they like to whine when the media (now that it isn't mandated to give equal coverage) gives more coverage to the Democratic candidate. They like to whine when the media doesn't print their Op-Ed. They like to whine when the media (actually) reports on their transgressions. They like to whine when the media tells the truth about their lobbyist supported (dictated) policies (EPA, FCC, FEMA, No Bid Contracts)

Strange that their narrative is "the media doesn't love us" when they orchestrated this maneuver all by themselves.

the substance behind this report is opaque to a layperson like myself.

Permit me to type this out, maybe I can make some hash of this...

I can see how demand can drive supply. The more people want a good, the more pressure exists to match that demand to take advantage of the the demand. I can also see how the introduction of supply can induce demand. Where I disconnect from what I believe the authors' position to be is I fail to see how demand can drive down costs, unless the supply-side over-innovates. So my question here is: Is this what the paper is concluding? That globalization is the result of over-innovation on the supply side of economics? Am I coming close to approximating the authors' position?

That interesting nugget aside, I ask the more knowledgeable, is today's market sufficiently more diverse or more diffuse that convergence and rising income is an issue completely separate from the energy costs of doing business? As I see it, the shift from Wind Power to Steam Power, and Steam Power to Diesel Power involved movements from abundant power supply to abundant power supply. If we consider petroleum products as a limited power supply, does this not fundamentally alter the underlying variables in the shipping equations? I stand unconvinced that the energy costs of shipping factored as much into the data that the cited article analyzes. I would further wonder if the rising specter of energy costs adds a dimension that may have been under-analyzed until late.

In short, I think that Globalism inherently relies upon cheap transport (and by dependence, cheap energy costs) to be a viable path to success. Without cheap transportation Globalism loses luster quickly.

If I am missing the point of the article please, someone point me in the right direction.

From my education, Context determines whether something is racist or not. Where the button is found, who created it, who sold it, who bought it, and where they bought it ALL matter when interpreting whether or not something is racist.

I believe there are situations where this wouldn't be considered racist... a previous poster mentioned this could be interpreted as a statement of pride and solidarity with a black candidate. Valid given alternate context. Somehow I doubt that is what the vendor was intending at a GOP convention, but it is a possibility.

That said, I interpret this based on the context of a button sold at a Republican convention, intented to put down the opposition candidate. This is apparently an expression against a candidate, not for a candidate. The humor is seemingly based on the opposition candidate's race. To me this smacks of very poor taste. I'd say it is appealing to purient interests. Given the context I am interpreting it in, it is Racist.

Judge the button on context, and I'd be very interested in hearing how someone will defend it. I don't believe you can defend it honestly.

I'll listen to the lobbyist whining against government regulation when the government stops bailing out the industries that de-regulated. All I hear from lobbyists is, "Caveat Emptor is great, when I'm selling, but I'll whine and whine when I'm the buyer".

On regulation, am I blind to something when I look at the "de-regulated" industries and all I see is human greed? Telcoms, Energy, Airlines, and the recent Financial industy's CDOs? If people believe there is healthy competition or low barriers to entry, or consumer choice in any of these industries... I need someone to tell me where to move to.

I chalk it up to human nature. Someone, somewhere is ALWAYS looking at the laws that govern an industry, and looking for the loophole, looking for that "angle" to make more money than the next guy. Why any of this greed is surprising to anyone is beyond me.

Mr. Leonard, please continue posting. Since Salon took away my blog report, you're my favorite section to read here.