WSJ.com - The Rich Recession: "It is this progressivity that makes the federal government so hugely dependent on top earners for revenue. In the period 1997-to-2000, the last years of the Clinton bubble, adjusted gross income for the top 1% went up every year and so did its share of all income taxes paid. When times are really good, in other words, tax revenue from the rich tends to increase faster than the economy. When times are bad, however, federal revenue falls faster than overall growth does. This helps to explain the wide budget swings in the past decade from deficit to surplus and back to deficit."

An interesting explanation that I'd never considered before. It helps the liberal rhetoric to say that Bush drove us from surplus to defecit, and it's always surprised me that that would be possible. This seems to explain some of that broad swing.

WSJ.com - Who's Vulnerable? (sorry, subscribers only)

Barnes lays out a good case for why Bush isn't nearly as vulnerable as the press seems to think. The key here is to recognize that it's easy to get excited into thinking that, since the Democrats have been campaigning now for almost 6 months, they're beating him. But the election itself is 13 months away, and he has not yet begun to respond to the Dems' criticisms of him. As the situation in Iraq continues to improve, as the economy continues to show signs of recovery and jobs begin increasing again, his approval will go back up. As Barnes says, "President Bush has until mid-2004 for the public to sense the improved trajectory of the economy. That's plenty of time." Everyone is overly excited, and Bush has more than enough time to earn reelection.

OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today: "That Must Be Some Bed!
Bob Graham on George W. Bush, from last night's debate: 'He is literally in bed with pharmaceutical companies.'"

Taranto pays attention: if you scroll down to the the thanks at the bottom of the page, you'll see that it was I who caught this absurdity during the debate.

OpinionJournal - The Grove and Academe

Gina pointed to this very recently. An interesting perspective on the same issue.

New Sun chip may unseat the circuit board | CNET News.com: "Sun has not decided whether to license the technology to other manufacturers or reserve it exclusively for Sun's own systems, Mitchell said. Analysts, though, say they believe that the company is moving toward a more liberal technology licensing policy."

This has me really excited, especially since I own Sun stock. But I've got to say, if we've learned anything from Apple, it's: Don't Try to Keep Your Technology To Yourself!! Honestly, how they could even say that they want to keep this technology to themselves is absurd. This is the type of thing that they could make boatloads of money on in licensing fees if they get all of the kinks worked out.

James-- Licensing can mean two things. With Apple and MSFT, it meant whether they should sell their OS to people who made hardware. In manufacturing it typically means that you've come up with some new technology and you will sell the knowledge about how to make it to someone else. My advice to Sun would be to protect their technology by not selling the right to make it, but "license" it in terms of selling the chips to anyone who wants to put them on a motherboard.

OpinionJournal - The Western Front: "What Gen. Clark is left with is an impossible argument: that he somehow found a better way to defeat al Qaeda in the skies over Kosovo, than Mr. Bush has in defeating first the Taliban and then Saddam Hussein."

This whole column is a great read, concluding with the above-quoted idea. For about a week now, I've been talking to my Democratic friends at yale, many of whom jumped very quickly on the Clark bandwagon. I have basically been saying that I don't think Clark can win the Democratic nomination, and that even if he does, he won't be able to beat Bush. I'm not 100% sure of that, and I can't defend it - it's just a gut feeling. This article, though, does a really good job of showing the potential pitfalls.

Taranto has also done a few good things on BOTW, including pointing out Clark's untenable views on gays in the military, the war in Iraq, and the fact that he thinks he voted for Reagan and Nixon. My instinct tells me he can't pull it off, but it'll certainly be interesting to see.

WSJ.com - Wonder Land: "Shortly after the war was over, a high official from France's Parliament visited our offices hoping to let bygones be bygones. He said we were all joined in the war on terror and that our countries' long-term interests coincided. He was visiting American editorial boards and going to Washington to see key Members of Congress in the belief that if he could convince these influential people -- the U.S. networking equivalent of les grandes écoles -- Franco-American relations would revive."

I can't help but constantly feel like the French just simply don't understand our country. They think that by having Woody Allen on TV ads American tourists will suddenly return to France, forgiving how they stabbed us in the back. They think that sending a diplomat to our editorial boards and congressmen will change public sentiment. How about they try just a little not screwing us instead?

James-- I have a much more simple complaint. Voicemail, they need to setup their voicemail accounts. "Ring, Ring, Ring.... Ring*5.... Ring, Bonjour avec qui est-ce que vous voulez parler?"; "umm Hi, I'm trying to reach [business contact]."; "Oh pardon monsieur, she must not be in today";"Well may I have her voicemail please";"Oh pardon monsieur, she must not have activated it." Somehow, I had no confidence in leaving a message with a receptionist that didn't seem to know the woman I was calling.

WSJ.com - Blacklisting Hamas (Outside France)

Sorry that it's a subscriber only site, but I think it's very good news that the European Union (minus France) agreed to block the "political" arms of Hamas. This should greatly hamper their ability to raise money in European circles, and hopefully limit their terrorist efforts throughout the Middle East.

The Problem With the French ... (washingtonpost.com)

This is worth reading to the end, despite its length. Though it reaches no real conclusion, it is a great in-depth analysis of French anti-American sentiments, as well as how they fulfill our stereotypes concerning them.

CNN.com - Johnny Depp: U.S. is like a stupid puppy - Sep. 3, 2003

Honestly, why are we supposed to care?

OpinionJournal - Column by Wolfowitz

I really, really like this guy, and I feel extraordinarily comfortable with him and Rummy at the top of the Pentagon ladder. But why can't we get a guy like this into Sec State? This idea was sparked by something that James pointed out to me a while ago -- the State Department is full of career diplomats, who think that diplomasy is an end unto itself. I had hoped that Powell would offer a different perspective to the organisation, but in too many ways he seems to have just fallen in with the crowd. What would be so wrong with someone like Wolfowitz, who understands the fact that there are other goals then simply "playing nice with the other children"?