Michael nails this one nicely. Generally, the US government works off a speak no evil policy where, if they're not talking about a problem, it doesn't exist. It's quite convenient, actually, appearing as less an oligarch's callousness than a child's sweet, blissful ignorance. The government couldn't have done anything, they didn't even know! Which brings us to Bush's grossly self-serving use of African-American life expectancies. Having spent four years doing nothing to make their lot better, he suddenly revealed a full knowledge of black inequality. Which means he has spent four years being aware that African-Americans die before their time and, with the entire power of the American government arrayed before him, consciously chose to do nothing about it. And he has decided, finally, to publicly acknowledge it not in order to rectify the injustice, but to push an unrelated policy that'll help -- guess who? -- rich white folks. Bush has done a lot of disappointing things. He's done a...

Nicholas Thompson's case for Chief Justice Scalia is persuasive, but a tad optimistic. While I agree that, given Scalia's predictability, intelligence, and symbolic value to the right, we'd benefit from a trade that put him in Rehnquist's place and filled his vacancy with a moderate, what in Bush's history or character makes Nick think such a trade is even within the realm of possibility? Is there any evidence that Bush is a political moderate held hostage by his association with the Christian Right? Is there any evidence that the Republican-held Senate won't vote to confirm a conservative nominee? Is there any evidence that Bush, having made this deal, wouldn't immediately renege on it or define "moderate" as arch-conservative? Far as I can tell, there isn't. Now, I support nominating Scalia for Chief Justice. He's a lightning rod with questionable ethics and and reams of extremist public statements, all atop a singularly unappealing public persona. So let's have that confirmation...

So, as Jesse finds out, the Cato and Heritage Social Security calculators are totally misleading. But the real question is, why don't liberal organizations have similar, albeit less lie-filled, calculators online? Why isn't the DNC hitting their list with a calculator letting them see what the Bush plan could do to their retirement? Why isn't Kerry e-mailing the world with his progressive-themed java applets? I mean, not to pick on anyone, but CAP doesn't even mention Social Security on their front page! The Heritage Foundation, in contrast, has it (along with their !@*!#& calculator) in as prominent a spot as they could find. The right's institutions, while certainly mendacious, are a hell of a lot more focused than ours. The calculators, by the way, are a good example of what I was inarticulately arguing earlier about the political adeptness of policy organizations.

Da Moose is right , Hillary is making the sweet moves. If Bill's enormous charisma and obvious potential gave him the credibility to cross liberals on key policies (or symbols), Hillary's position as bugaboo of the right and liberal icon is allowing her to assume unorthodox stances on issues where progressives desperately need some creative repositioning. And it's freedom she's taking, at least if her efforts to stake out consensus ground on choice and tougher, but fairer, positions on immigration reform are admissible as evidence. I've said it before, but after spending three years laughing at Hillary for President remarks, I'm starting to take them quite seriously. Now, if I could only power through The Right Nation and The Persian Puzzle , maybe I could get to Hillary's Turn and give you all a feel for her abilities as a campaigner. Ah, bookshelf, why must you mock me so?

Privatization . Private accounts . Personal accounts clearly have but a few days left before some forgetful pundits start getting Guantanamo'd for the term. And yes, we could just watch successive labels fall like manna from the lips of Luntz, but here at EK Inc., we like to stay ahead of the curve. So what's the next, next, next name for this kick in the New Deal's gut gonna be? Best answer gets a mention, and the transcendent joy that comes from seeing your label appear in my posts. Get crackin'. Update : Matt's got a great idea ...

Sue reminds me of what impressed me most about DC -- the brilliant merging of the bar and bookstore. My drunkenness is seriously impeded by my nerdiness, hanging out with the books often wins over cracking open some beer. Usually, this inconveniences only my girlfriend*, who is stunningly tolerant of my poor life choices. Other groups of people, however, are less enthralled by periodicals and usually respond to my suggestions with a mix of derision and incredulity. But DC! There I can suggest going to the bars and sneakily lead to a bookstore. It's a dream come true. *How I got a girlfriend is an excellent, excellent question. Chalk it up to freestyle shirt buttoning.

How is Michael Lind so damn prolific? If he's not writing books rearguing Vietnam or tracking Southern ascendance , he's penning must-reads on America's burgeoning dispensability in foreign affairs. And I thought bloggers covered a lot of ground. Jealousy aside, Lind's piece , sneakily reprinted by Steve Clemons, is the best big-think I've read on foreign policy in the last couple of months. American exceptionalism, until recently an international belief, is now confined to mere regions of our own country. But since those regions control the bully pulpit, the world is finding itself more and more contemptuous of the arrogant, hypocrital, self-defined superpower righteously condemning the uncooperative just before begging for their help. As a result, various areas of the world are uniting to create international superstates, confederations of countries unified in world affairs, often for the sole purpose of blunting American influence. And it's working, both in practical matters and in...