Good to see things are hopping here in my absence :)

Did you guys discuss this already: Bill Clinton in Denver undercuts Obama ?

My mom and dad were positively gleeful about it - big fans of Bubba and looking to vote for McCain.

Why Push Russia?

"If we proceed on a course of isolating Russia from the West, keeping her out of the World Trade Organization, throwing her out of the G-8 and ending cooperation with NATO, where do we think Russia will go?"

Has John McCain thought this through? In the words of Gen. Patreous, "Tell me how does this thing end.?"

When the site relaunches and we return to regular series such as weekend art or science I will add a section for those. If anyone wants to do a regular series (weekly or bi-weekly, with no pressure if you miss a post here or there) on a topic that isn't regularly covered in open thread discussions (e.g., history, literature (pico!), military, supreme court, sports, profiles of House members -- anything non-partisan, basically) just let me know.

Not really a new idea, but here's how the founder of craigslist sees it : people are using the Internet as the platform for tools for elections and governance. Speaking as a nerd, I love the technology, but what really matters is the means by which we all can use the Net to strengthen democracy in the USA. We can address practical problems and also better realize the vision of the Founding Fathers.

He gives some specific examples of what would be nice to have, like citizens being able to report potholes through a webform, people connecting to troops serving overseas, and political leaders escaping the "bubble" by interacting with online communities.

This kind of stuff is usually hand-wavy but is also tough to dismiss. We've got a few people here who participate in Second Life, wonder if they agree with Newmark?

Interpreting stats is an interesting exercise.

The eternal skeptic/optimist in me perused the choice and selective stats and couldn't help but wonder why the stats were chosen the way they were.

Some stats chosen from 2006 to 2007, others from 2000 to 2007 and so on. Some stats shown as a raw number, others shown as a percentage of the population. No mention of demographic changes that influence numbers. Sub-groups are cited at opportune times, while generalities at other times.

Look, I'm not saying all is rosy. It isn't. These are evolving times. But one stat that I never see getting much attention when it comes to average household income and the like is one that considers the effect of baby boomers :

"the range most commonly accepted is 1946 to 1964. In the United States alone, approximately 76 million babies were born between those years. In 1946, live births in the U.S. surged from 222,721 in January to 339,499 in October. By the end of the 1940s, about 32 million babies had been born, compared with 24 million in the 1930s. In 1954, annual births first topped four million and did not drop below that figure until 1965, when four out of ten Americans were under the age of twenty."

People never seem to give this any weight or validity as a factor when looking at:

-high employment in the 1970s as many bombarded the work-force in a short amount of time.

-the beginning of an expansion in the mid 80s as the oldest boomers entered prime earning years

-the real explosion in the 1990s as the bulk entered prime earning years (consider the chosen stat above about the increase in median income of $6200 during the Clinton years...gee, I wonder why)

-The leveling off in the 2000s as many enter retirement.

These stats also have an effect on the number of privately insured as many switch to Medicare.

It also affects that stat of "working-age" groups.

There's many, many conclusions that can be drawn both positive and negative. But it's a huge 800lb Gorilla in the room.

Cato also had some findings to share from its POV. Again, a mixed bag but also don't mention the role of boomers.

One stat that has little Boomer effect is this one:

"

Median household income is not falling: “Between 2006 and 2007, real median household income rose 1.3 percent, from $49,568 to $50,233—a level not statistically different from the 1999 prerecession income peak.

"

One stat that does have a Boomer effect is this one:

"

The share of households earning a middle-class income of between $35,000 and $100,000 in real 2007 dollars has indeed shrunk slightly compared to a decade ago, but so too has the share earning less than $35,000 a year, while the share earning more than $100,000 continues to rise. The middle class is not shrinking; it is moving up.

"

Other notables include:

-the poverty rate of 12.5% is lower than the 13.3% mark in 1997.

-Gini Coefficient of .463 is slightly down from a few years ago and almost identical to a decade ago. Not bad considering that all the Boomers would be putting pressure on that number over the last ten years.

Overall, it's hard to truly argue that America is moving in an unmistakingly wrong direction economically. It's easy to parse stats and make a cheery or gloomy picture. I see a mixed bag influenced by many factors.