http://www.wikio.com/search=James Fallows Wikio - James Fallows http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=69331827 I was led to OneNote by James Fallows, and the OneNote 2007 version is extremely nice. Students (and faculty) will probably find it incredibly useful. Detailed review here. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:04:49 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=69331827 2008-08-28T21:04:49Z http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=69052668 James Fallows: > China Makes, The World Takes: [D]eals like those struck at the Sheraton Four Points have been mainly good for all parties. Chinese families have new opportunities in life. American customers have wider choices. American investors have better returns. But, of course, there are complications.... > In a world of frictionless, completely globalized trade, people on average would all be richer--but every society would include a wider range of class, comfort, and well-being than it now does. Those with the most marketable global talents would be richer, because they could sell to the largest possible market. Everyone else would be... Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:29:55 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=69052668 2008-08-26T18:29:55Z http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=69052670 James Fallows on who benefits most from China's manufacturing boom: > China Makes, The World Takes: Has the move to China been good for American companies? The answer would seemingly have to be yes—otherwise, why would they go there? It is conceivable that bad partnerships, stolen intellectual property, dilution of brand name, logistics nightmares, or other difficulties have given many companies a sour view of outsourcing; I have heard examples in each category from foreign executives. But the more interesting theme I have heard from them, which explains why they are willing to surmount the inconveniences, involves something called the “smiley... Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:22:17 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=69052670 2008-08-26T18:22:17Z http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68674597 Atlantic Monthly veteran writer James Fallows, who has spent a year reporting from China about everything from Beijing's pollution to the tightly controlled media, discusses the country's future following its turn in the Olympic spotlight. Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:53:00 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68674597 2008-08-22T20:53:00Z http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68661857 What a monumental task. James Fallows of The Atlantic goes the distance : R ecently I did what no sane person would: I watched the entire set of presidential primary debates, in sequence, like a boxed set of a TV show. In scale this was like three or four seasons' worth of The Sopranos . Talk about a political junkie's dream. Or nightmare. (ht/OOTM) The Democrats had 26 debates, nearly all more than one hour long, and all but one of them with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The Republicans had 21, if you count the session for which a single "debater" showed up. That was the NAACP forum in Detroit, which all eight Democrats but only Representative Tom Tancredo of the Republicans agreed to attend. I had seen only two of the debates in real time because so few were carried internationally. Those that were available in streaming video were too slow and jerky to be watchable in China, where I've been living. (It eventually took more than two weeks of round-the-clock Internet downloading to collect all the files.) Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:33:00 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68661857 2008-08-22T20:33:00Z http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68621992 I forgot to include a link in my previous post to James Fallows' fantastic coverage of the Olympics over at his Atlantic blog. Fallows is the guy who was keeping track of the air quality in Beijing in the run... Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:30:37 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68621992 2008-08-22T13:30:37Z http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68460969 Mapmatrix.com has what appear to be excellent maps of Shanghai and Beijing in pdf format. (h/t to James Fallows) Thu, 21 Aug 2008 07:48:00 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68460969 2008-08-21T07:48:00Z http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68374333 James Fallows claims in The Atlantic that "moments" from televised general-election debates have "figured in the ultimate outcome" in the presidential elections of 1960, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000, and 2004: There have been nine series of televised general-election... Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:37:14 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68374333 2008-08-20T15:37:14Z http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68238753 “Considering all the different ways in which China has interacted with the world in the last 50 years, considering all the challenges ordinary Chinese people have to put up with, it’s beneficial and, and, by any rational standard, non-threatening to have national energies channeled into this kind of competition. It’s touching to see so many ordinary Chinese crowds cheering for their new heroes.” James Fallows Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:48:54 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68238753 2008-08-19T13:48:54Z http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68203685 James Fallows telling us not to worry about the plethora of "I love China" decals we are seeing on so many Chinese people's faces: History is full of examples of "rising national powers" getting the big head, feeling arrogant, and doing dangerous things. That's not the main feeling I get here. It's negative Chinese nationalism, like what appeared after the protests over the Olympic torch relay in April, that we should worry about. So a... Tue, 19 Aug 2008 07:55:17 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68203685 2008-08-19T07:55:17Z http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68167635 James Fallows wrote this the other day: “Empty seats [at the Olympics]. This truly is amazing. A few marquee events have drawn full houses, like last night’s 100m sprint final. But much of the time, huge swaths of seats have sat empty. This is unfortunate, given how many people, Chinese and foreign, would love to see [...] Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:32:12 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68167635 2008-08-18T23:32:12Z http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68091888 The American Spectator: Before this Saturday, many analysts were predicting that the fall's presidential debates would be a wipeout, with Barack Obama conjuring the spirit of the young John F. Kennedy and John McCain imitating the aging Bob Dole. In a recent article in the Atlantic, James Fallows declared that McCain "will look and sound old and weak next to Obama." But if this weekend's forum hosted by Pastor Rick Warren at his Saddleback Church is any indication of how the two candidates will perform in the presidential debates, it's time to recalibrate the existing expectations. The debates may still be a wipeout -- only Obama now seems likelier to bite the dust. The Saddleback event appeared to be the ideal opportunity for Obama to make inroads among evangelicals. While his social views make the Democrat anathema to most evangelical voters, the bar is low for Obama. In 2004, 78 percent of evangelicals voted for President Bush in his narrow victory over John Kerry, and they represented nearly one out of four voters. Obama can win the election by improving over Kerry's performance by just a few percentage points, especially in the key swing state of Ohio. At first, it seemed that Obama was benefiting from the conversational format, in which each candidate answered identical questions from Warren for an hour, without strict time limits or sharp follow-ups. (McCain went second, but was kept in a soundproof room so he wouldn't have an unfair advantage). Obama showed humility, talked about selfishness that led him to experiment with drugs as a teenager, and invoked Matthew in discussing America's obligation to address poverty, racism, and sexism. This was classic Obama -- trying to frame his liberal views of economic and social justice in religious language. But within a few minutes of McCain taking the stage, it became clear that it was his night. While McCain is typically uncomfortable talking about his faith, he played to his strengths by discussing his powerful life story, showing his stature and experience, and flashing his sense of humor. He connected to the audience emotionally while Obama was academic and -- dare I say it -- boring by comparison. THE MOST DRAMATIC CONTRAST of the night came when Warren asked each candidate to talk about the most gut-wrenching decisions they've ever made. For Obama, it was deciding to oppose the Iraq War. At the time, he was a state senator who didn't have to vote on the matter and was representing an overwhelmingly liberal district. For McCain, it was deciding to reject an offer of early release while being held as a prisoner of war by the North Vietnamese. At the time, McCain was in horrendous physical condition and knew that rejecting early release would not only extend his stay in the prison camp, but lead to even harsher treatment. Asked to name an example of when they took a stand against their own party to do what they felt was best for the country, Obama cited ethics reform. McCain, after referencing climate change, spending, and torture, focused his answer on his opposition as a freshman congressman to President Reagan's decision to send U.S. Marines to Lebanon in 1983. The example subtly did two things. It pushed back against the portrait of McCain as a warmonger who supports military intervention in all circumstances and it reinforced the fact that he has been involved in America's national security debates for decades. Warren also asked the candidates whether evil exists and what we should do about it if it does. Both candidates acknowledged that it exists, but from there the responses couldn't have been more different. Obama didn't mention terrorism as evidence of evil, vaguely said we need to "confront" it, but cautioned that "a lot of evil's been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil." McCain, meanwhile, spoke like a commander in chief, firmly stating that "evil must be defeated" and acknowledging that the "transcendent challenge" of the century is radical Islamic extremism. "Not long ago in Baghdad, al Qaeda took two young women who were mentally disabled, and put suicide vests on them, sent them into a marketplace and, by remote control, detonated those suicide vests," he said with refreshing moral clarity. "If that isn't evil, you have to tell me what is." Aside from substance, McCain's style couldn't have been more different. While Obama gave long-winded and meandering answers (especially when he needed to obfuscate his views on abortion and gay marriage), McCain's were short and to the point -- so much so that he was left with extra time for additional questions. Asked whether he would support merit pay for the best teachers, McCain simply responded, "Yes, yes, and find bad teachers another line of work." The answer drew laughter and applause, and led Warren to remark, "You know, we're going to end this, you're answering so quickly. You want to play a game of poker?" WHILE POLITICAL JUNKIES who have been following the campaign for nearly two years have heard many of McCain's jokes and anecdotes, they appeared to be a hit with the crowd, as they consistently are in his town hall meetings. "My friends, we spent $3 million of your money to study the DNA of bears in Montana," McCain quipped in one of his standard lines about government waste. "Now I don't know if that was a paternity issue or a criminal issue." Most importantly, McCain managed to meet the most important challenge of his campaign by coming off as independent and yet conservative -- on taxes, judges, and abortion (where he stated in clear terms that he believed that babies are entitled to human rights at the moment of conception). Given that evangelicals are still overwhelmingly Republican, McCain did have a built-in advantage among this audience. And since it was broadcast on a Saturday night in the summer -- the same night that Michael Phelps broke the record for most gold medals in an Olympics -- the event itself didn't garner enough attention to affect the outcome of the election. But if McCain can shine like this in his high-profile appearances between now and Election Day, he'll be our next president. Obama has proven himself to be a fast learner, and no doubt will find ways to improve before the debates begin next month. But in all honesty, Obama wasn't that bad on Saturday -- McCain was just that good, and largely because of fundamental advantages. Obama can read all the briefing books he wants and go through hours of debate training, but he can't simply acquire a life story as compelling as McCain's, make up for decades of experience he doesn't have, or buy a sense of humor. Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:49:00 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68091888 2008-08-18T10:49:00Z http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68066898 By Philip Klein Before this Saturday, many analysts were predicting that the fall’s presidential debates would be a wipeout, with Barack Obama conjuring the spirit of the young John F. Kennedy and John McCain imitating the aging Bob Dole. In a recent article in the Atlantic, James Fallows declared that McCain "will look and sound [...] Mon, 18 Aug 2008 05:34:26 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68066898 2008-08-18T05:34:26Z http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68035697 Rick Warren has made transcripts of last night's faith forum available here . CNN has video links to some questions and answers. Ryan Corsaro observes that John McCain repeatedly violated Warren's admonition not to answer with his stump speech, a tactic that served McCain well. James Fallows doesn't expect McCain to do as well when under pressure in a debate. Adele Stan compares the candidates' approaches to (and definitions of) evil. On the topic of abortion, it's interesting to note the wording of Warren's question: [more ...] This is from volume 2, addressed to Barack Obama: NOW, LET 'S DEAL WITH ABORTION. 40 MILLION ABORTIONS SINCE ROE V. WADE. YOU KNOW, AS A PASTOR I HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS ALL OF THE TIME. ALL OF THE PAIN AND ALL OF THE CONFLICTS. I KNOW THIS IS A VERY COMPLEX ISSUE. 40 MILLION ABORTIONS. AT WHAT POINT DOES A BABY GET HUMAN RIGHTS IN YOUR VIEW ? From volume 5, a similar question addressed to John McCain: LET 'S DEAL WITH ABORTION. I, AS A PASTOR, HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS ALL THE TIME, EVERY DIFFERENT ANGLE, EVERY DIFFERENT PAIN, ALL THE DECISIONS AND ALL OF THAT. 40 MILLION ABORTIONS SINCE ROE V WADE. SOME PEOPLE WHO -- PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION WOULD SAY THAT 'S A HOLOCAUST FOR MANY PEOPLE. AT WHAT POINT IS A BABY ENTITLED TO HUMAN RIGHTS ? Not at what point does a human life come into existence, but at what point does that life acquire human rights? Neither candidate answered that question. Does a fetus have the right not to lose its liberty without due process? Does the fetus have a right, independent of the mother's, to petition for habeas corpus if the fetus, having committed no crime, finds itself in a prison cell? Is that what John McCain meant when he answered that babies acquire human rights "at the moment of conception"? Is he among those who would lock a woman up at any stage of a pregnancy if she acts in a way that endangers the "rights" of a fetus? Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:35:33 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68035697 2008-08-17T19:35:33Z http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=67978742 James Fallows goes above and beyond the call of duty: Recently I did what no sane person would: I watched the entire set of presidential primary debates, in sequence, like a boxed set of a TV show. In scale this was like three or four seasons’ worth of The Sopranos. [...] I won’t contend that Beijing, over a [...] Sat, 16 Aug 2008 22:28:02 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=67978742 2008-08-16T22:28:02Z http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68026970 Will Lewis over at Experience Not Logic has an interesting post up riffing on my post wondering why China cannot produce an elite point guard, nicely weaving in the David Brooks/James Fallows/John Pomfret discussion on individualism versus collectivism. (I always love it when someone elevates one of my posts to a higher intellectual plane, figuring at least something good has to rub off on me because of it.) Will quotes this from Pomfret, questioning why... Sat, 16 Aug 2008 18:38:55 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=68026970 2008-08-16T18:38:55Z http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=67864704 James Fallows, in his Atlantic cover story on debates, writes: John McCain is not a good debater, not even by comparison with George W. Bush. Having been in Washington for decades, he knows many issues in detail. Having been in Washington for decades, he often overexplains those details, as Bob Dole did against Bill Clinton in 1996. The exception is the whole field of economics, where through most of the Republican debates, he skated by with allusions to the advisers he would consult. Worse, he will look and sound old and weak next to Obama. Ronald Reagan was about McCain's current age when he ran for reelection against Walter Mondale, but Reagan looked 10 years younger than McCain does now. Obama is 10 years younger than Mondale was and looks younger still. McCain must hope that he can apply a version of Reagan's line about his opponent's "youth and inexperience." But lacking Reagan's outward haleness, he risks coming across like Dole against Clinton--or, more ominously, his fellow ex-POW James Bond Stockdale, who turned in a notoriously lost- and incoherent-sounding performance against Al Gore and Dan Quayle (!) in the 1992 vice-presidential debates. McCain also runs the risk of being the first Republican since Dole to go into the debates trailing in the national polls. This would allow Obama to do what George W. Bush did four years ago: nurse a lead and simply try to avoid mistakes. He's had more practice with debates than McCain, and more recently. In these circumstances, McCain's tactics against Obama are obvious. He will ask for as many debates as he can, starting with informal town halls before either he or Obama is officially nominated. The informal setting shows him off to his best advantage, with the affable bantering that has long made him a favorite with the press. Whoever is behind wants more debates. Expectations are kind of muddled up. I don't think the media generally expects Sen. Obama to do better in these debates, as his "performances" in the fall were somewhat uneven. And I disagree with Fallows: I didn't think McCain came off as old and weak when standing next to his younger Republican opponents in the fall. Certainly, the generational difference between Obama and McCain will be heightened during televised debates, but McCain just isn't a tottering old man. And in the second presidential debate, a town hall meeting on October 7 in Tennessee, McCain will be in his element. I've attended roughly a dozen McCain town hall meetings and about a half a dozen Obama town hall meetings; McCain's a natural and knows how to deftly deflect a critical question. Obama's getting much better, but McCain shines. Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:21:13 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=67864704 2008-08-15T15:21:13Z http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=67785745 Kevin Drum points us to this very interesting James Fallows article about the Presidential debates and while Fallows, as always, writes a great insightful article about the debates, he ignores the elephant in the room - the Media's hatred of Hillary Clinton. I think there are two particularly revealing excerpts of the article that demonstrate what Fallows ignores - the Media's persistent, unfair and grinding attacks on Hillary Clinton (which also translated into open rooting for Barack Obama). The first Kevin highlights: When I'd seen this final [ABC] debate in real time, I'd been outraged by its harsh tone and belated attention to policy matters (including Gibson's little lecture to the candidates on why capital-gains tax cuts always paid for themselves). When I saw its place in the series, I realized it was like a late episode of The Sopranos in which nearly everyone gets mowed down. It was violent and dehumanizing, but it was the culmination of a long process. What Fallows is saying without saying it is that it was Hillary Clinton who got the treatment in the previous 25 Democratic debates that Obama got in the ABC debate. I found the ABC event outrageously unfair to Obama, as I wrote that night. I found almost all of the previous 25 outrageously unfair to Hillary Clinton. None more so the the October 30, 2007 NBC moderated debate in Philadelphia, probably the most important night of the campaign - the one that should be remembered as the late Tim Russert's legacy as a journalist. Because the late Tim Russert was a terrible journalist (something Fallows alludes to gracefully in the article.) More . . . The second excerpt that is revealing in the Fallows article demonstrates how internalized the Hillary Hate became, even for Fallows. The excerpt is telling: The problem for Clinton is that while she was nearly always at the top of her game, the game she was playing changed debate by debate. In one encounter, she hailed Obama as a comrade in their joint struggle against the Bush administration and the media. In the next, she regretfully but relentlessly pointed out the ways in which he wasn't prepared to lead. At one of the last debates, in Cleveland, Brian Williams began the program by showing back-to-back tapes of her saying “I am honored to be here” with Obama and “Shame on you, Barack Obama.” She neatly reconciled the differences in two sentences: “Well, this is a contested campaign. And as I have said many times, I have a great deal of respect for Senator Obama, but we have differences.” But there was no way to talk around the jarring inconsistency of her two statements, especially the emotional contrast as it came through on the clips. In making different cases against Obama, she reinforced the strongest argument against herself: that she would say whatever she thought might work at the moment. Obama, with a few leaden exceptions in which he made a point of criticizing Clinton in a debate, seemed like the same character from one session to the next. This is truly one of the most obtuse things James Fallows has ever written. Is he really positing that never before in the history of a party primary has a candidate said at one point nice things about his or her opponent and later criticized that same opponent? Is he really arguing that? Is he really arguing that NO OTHER candidate in THESE Democratic debates did that? Is he really arguing that Barack Obama did not do that? The REAL story of the Brian Williams game playing is that only Hillary Clinton was asked that type of question. Barack Obama was not, even though we all know the same type of question could have been asked of him. Indeed, an important negative attack of the Obama campaign against Clinton is used here by Fallows himself without attribution, to wit - "[Clinton] reinforced the strongest argument against herself: that she would say whatever she thought might work at the moment[,]" - without even mentioning that that was an argument consistently forwarded by Barack Obama. Fallows himself unwittingly demonstrates PRECISELY what was wrong with the Media during the entire Presidential primary process - the Media was out to get Hillary Clinton. And indeed, in the October 30 debate, Tim Russert and Brian Williams DID get her. And changed the course of the contest. Fallows demonstrates how much this Media Hillary Hate resembled another contest where the Media picked sides - the 2000 Presidential election. Fallows writes: Hillary Clinton's level of skill remained consistent; the ends toward which she used it varied. We have seen this pattern before, with Al Gore's performances in his three debates against George W. Bush in 2000. In the first he was hyper-aggressive, with the instantly famous sighs that signaled his displeasure. In the second, after being mocked on Saturday Night Live for the first performance, he seemed almost sedated. By the third, he was Just Right, but the damage had been done. Bush was mediocre in all three, but consistent. By scoring logical points but confusing his identity, Gore hurt himself with the “jury.” So did Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton was actually better in the debates than Al Gore was in 2000 in my opinion. But Hillary's opponents were better than Gore's opponent. But the one constant was the Media picked sides. In 2000, the Media picked Bush. In 2008, the Media picked the anti-Hillary, Barack Obama. It seems to me that much of the Media is sticking with Obama in the general election (as I thought they would) over McCain and I think that will continue in the debates. Fallows' article is, in theory, an evaluation of the debating skills of the candidates. A more worthy exercise would have been an analysis of the Media's performance. By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:34:46 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=67785745 2008-08-14T20:34:46Z http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=67746507 At The Atlantic, James Fallows smartly assesses the two candidates' strengths and weaknesses as debaters. His big question is why then-state Sen. Barack Obama was so strong, in Fallows' view, in his debates against Ambassador Alan Keyes during his 2004... Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:55:27 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=67746507 2008-08-14T13:55:27Z http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=67688970 The last line of the post: Take a little time and look around, David. The parts that don't fit what you theorized before arriving are actually the most stimulating. On my radar thanks to Gen. Journalism Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:23:06 GMT http://www.wikio.com/search/James+Fallows?rinfoid=67688970 2008-08-13T23:23:06Z