Looking at Obama's tactics so far, it's hard to say that he is not fighting hard or nasty enough. I've seen him on TV many times discussing health care. I've received countless Organizing for America emails. He's been willing to give a little in some areas. He's been standing firm in others. In most ways that matter, he's been behaving fairly typically by Washington standards, and that's the problem. Taken in it's entirety, the problem with Obama has not been his effort to be a transformative figure. It's that he hasn't been transformative enough. From day one, he has caved too often to Congress when his electoral mandate and outsized approval ratings should have put him in more of a leadership position.

The problem isn't that Obama brought a cake knife to a gunfight. The problem is that he's not even in the fight. He's letting one side use his name/brand to promote their own agenda and letting the other side use his name as a punching bag. While they're fighting it out, he's on the sidelines asking America to support whatever reform Congress comes up with. This is pathetic and unfortunate. We voted for change and we're getting more of the same. I think I was one of the few people who came away from inauguration day depressed rather than inspired. The problem wasn't the man in the middle of the stage. The problem was that when you glanced around, you saw all the same faces. Unfortunately, Obama is letting all the regulars run the show. He was popular enough that when that first pork-laden spending bill landed on his desk in February he could have vetoed it and produced a list of all the members in Congress whose earmarks warranted the veto. Then he would have wielded the power of the people fed up with business as usual. Instead, he signed it, ceded all his popularity and power to Congress, and the rest is history.

People smarter than me have been declaring that the recession is over but such proclamations premature as long as the economy continues to shed jobs. I am tired of hearing how unemployment is a "lagging indicator." Our economy is driven by consumer spending. I can't see the economy truly turning around as long as there are fewer consumers with jobs each week/month. The economy cannot rebound until we stop shedding jobs. It's the growth in unemployment that is the problem, not the rate of growth.

Focusing on fractional monthly differences in the rate of unemployment growth is a distraction. (These numbers seem to end up getting revised a few weeks later anyway.) Certainly, slower unemployment growth is a better sign than faster unemployment growth, but the only good news for this consumer-driven economy will be positive jobs growth.

I have been drinking from SIGG bottles for years. Long before I ever heard of bpa. Am I concerned? Certainly, based on articles like this one. Should I be concerned? Hard to say. SIGG claims that their bottles contained bpa but were tested and are non-leaching. Does this make it safe? I don't know. Seems to me that if there's bpa but none of it comes off in the water I'm drinking that I should be fine. I would expect a journalist (Salon? Rossmeier?) to do a little research here for me. Beyond the obvious PR blunder, is there a legitimate health risk?

Also, SIGG's website clearly states that they don't cover shipping but that many of their retailers are managing exchanges. I guess they could provide a list of participating retailers (e.g., REI, Whole Foods) but I'd hardly say that they are withholding information regarding this exchange option.

Clearly this is a stunt to get attention, write/promote books and movies and otherwise gain media attention and prominence. But why all the anger at the choice of lifestyle. It may seem a little extreme but it really isn't too far off the charts. Most of what this family gave up are items, activities and luxuries that only became the norm in the western world in the last 50 years plus or minus. Looking more broadly at human existence around the world and throughout history, the way Beavan and Conlin have lived is hardly extraordinary.

The "you lie" outburst was rude. It was also factually wrong. (I believe there are many lies in the argument for the proposed health care changes ranging from 'you get to keep EXACTLY what you have' to 'the plan will be deficit neutral' but the point Wilson was disputing was factually true.) Joe Wilson may also be a racist. But, Joan Walsh is wrong to casually state that the racism displayed by Obama's current opponents make those employed by Hillary Clinton's campaign seem "damn silly". This comment shows a very short memory. Facing a neck-and-neck race, a large gap in general appeal and relatively few policy differences, the Clinton campaign stoked the flames of racism among primary voters. The campaign both actively portrayed Obama as an "other" and more passively implied that his race made him unelectable. The racist comments coming out of the campaign were as frequent as they were ugly. By contrast, Obama is facing real criticism today as a result of real policy proposals he is making. To think that Obama would recommend such dramatic changes in policy without any serious and sometimes fierce challenge is naive. To attribute that challenge to racism is frankly a distraction. It is "damn silly" to suggest that a president facing such a tough economic environment and proposing such dramatic changes for nearly 20% of our economy is in the host seat because of his race.