... is the number of "independent contractors" who are out of work. Over the last 15-20 years there has been a large shift in many areas of the workforce away from staff positions to consultant positions (e.g., in tech jobs). These consultants are now being let go, and having big problems finding work, but they're not showing up in unemployment statistics because they're inelligible for unemployment benefits. I know several highly qualified people who have been un/underemployed for extended periods of time and are now entering the vicious circle of being unemployable because of the growing gaps on their resumes.

If Rush buys the team, that's one less blocking dummy they have to buy.

May be better than saying nothing.

"What we do obviously doesn't "diminish" -- or affect -- the morality of what others do. But it does obviously diminish our ability credibly to protest it and also diminishes the justification of our demands for accountability for others."

It's not just that what we do doesn't affect others' morality. It doesn't affect the truth of our critiques of others' actions. I don't think there's much dispute that the Iranian regime commits human rights abuses on quite a large scale, that its officials most likely steal elections, and that it most likely is involved in nuclear arms proliferation in violation of international agreements. This conduct should be labeled as intolerable. However, if your argument is that only leaders from powerful nations that haven't committed egregious human rights violations in the recent past have a right to say this, then it's going to go unsaid because there aren't any.

I think it would be better to encourage Obama to say these things, and then prod him to act more consonantly with his own rhetoric. I also think it's fair to hold Krauthammer et al's feet to the fire (oops, human rights violation) to do so. But I think it's unreasonable to tell the president not to say these things (which is what you seem to be doing), on the simple grounds that your reasoning is a form of fallacy, and that these are things that should be said.

That U.S. ever held the moral high ground on these matters is the stuff of propaganda and legend. We have always been a belligerent, militaristic nation that fails to live up its own standards at home, claims they don't apply to our conduct abroad, and criticizes others either arbitrarily or cynically. Nevertheless, our leaders also have a record of effecting postive change by shining a harsh light on the conduct of other nations. The former doesn't discredit that latter.