Let me start by saying that I like Obama, I voted for Obama and I continue to be hopeful for Obama's presidency despite several disappointments over the past 10-12 months. I will also say that I'm generally a fan of deregulation (in financial markets and elsewhere) and believe that deregulation is only one of many factors that have contributed to the current financial crisis.

That said, I think the phenomenon you're discussing regarding the positive coverage of Obama's economic team can be attributed to the dominant narrative that has been used by much of the media to explain the current financial crisis. Over the last several months (and particularly during the presidential campaign) much of the media (including Salon) reported that the financial crisis was attributable to the loose regulatory policies of the Bush White House. From this jumping off point, the media now see that Bush is leaving and Obama is reaching to the pre-Bush years for economic advice so things will get better. The media and the public like a nice neat narrative and it was easy to string an analysis together that said:

-The financial crisis happened while Bush was President

-Certain large financial institutions played a role in the crisis

-Bush is a Republican and Republicans are pro-business

-Bush's lax regulatory approach caused the crisis

-It will all get better now that we have Obama and some Clinton throwbacks with pre-Bush experience in The White House.

The fact is that the sweeping deregulation of banks took place during Bill Clinton's presidency with the input of many of the players that Obama is tapping for his team. It took the collapse of Citibank and an article this weekend implicating Robert Rubin (among others) as a key player in deregulation generally and Citibank in particular, to get The New York Times to acknowledge when the deregulation took place and who was responsible. This is after months of The Times blaming Bush and Republicans for the financial crisis.

I am impressed by Obama's team and I hope they can help turn things around. I don't blame Summers, Rubin, Clinton or Bush for the mess we're in. It's clear that there were many contributing factors and time will reveal many more. But to the issue of widespread praise for Obama's team, I think that if we started off with more in-depth and accurate reporting as the crisis developed, we would have better analysis as the crisis is addressed.

...so why should your kid?

There are many balance bike options out there and I spent the weeks leading up to my son's 2nd birthday weighing the pros and cons of many of them. Like-a-bike is a slick package and is well marketed to the well-to-do set. I considered it but was turned off by the price, the turn limiter on the handlebars and the fact that it's made of wood. I'm trying to get the kid used to a bicycle and I'd rather do it on something that looks like a bicycle. We ended up going with a Strider (http://stridersports.com/) that had the following advantage over the alternatives from Like-a-Bike and others:

-Highly adjustable seat height

-Metal frame (like a real bike)

-Light weight

-Full range of steering (like a real bike)

-Great value (less than half the price of some competitors)

I would have preferred if the Strider had air filled tires but it's been great and the kid loves it. So do all his friends.

I don't want a Hummer. Most people I know don't want Hummers. But many people did and GM made the cars for them. Buying a car --any car-- is one of the worst things you will do to this planet. If one gets 12 mpg and another 22 and another 32, that's nice but none of them are going to save the world. Check out the numbers on a BMW 7 series or Mercedes S class. Not much better mileage than a Hummer H2 and a whole lot less practical. (I can't believe I'm saying a Hummer is practical. It isn't. But there are so many cars that don't show up on the radar screen because they have been deemed socially acceptable. We need to open our eyes and not let trends tell us what cars are good for the environment. None of them are and following trends is what led to The Hummer's popularity in the first place.)

Want to have a thoughtful discussion on the topic of environmental impact? Check out Salon's Ask Pablo column. Oh, wait a minute, Salon has cancelled that column for budgetary reasons. That Salon has been cutting back on its thoughtful columns and maintaining self-righteous drivel like this one is sad. Many of us will have to start looking elsewhere for thoughtful discussion and debate.

When "$975 Bottega Veneta boots and Tod's cashmere trenches" show up on GOOP, they appear because they were placed there by their marketers. If the PR and marketing people at these luxury brands think it's worth X dollars in cash and non-cash items to get their goods and services placed in GOOP, they will continue to do so. If the economy shifts that equation, they will cease to do so and GOOP will need to either court lower tier brands or close up shop.

In any case, it's important to recognize that the products that appear in these types of publications do so more and more as a result of business as opposed to editorial decisions.