Thousands of Taliban have already joined our side -- something which is not unusual in Afghanistan according to Dexter Filkins, writing in the New York Times.  "Only 9,000" have come over to the other side is the way Filkins puts it.

In an impoverished country ruined by 30 years of war, tribal leaders said that many more insurgents would happily put down their guns if there was something more worthwhile to do.

Now there is a concerted effort to make that possible.

The American-backed campaign to persuade legions of Taliban gunmen to stop fighting got under way here recently, in an ornate palace filled with Afghan tribal leaders and one very large former warlord leading the way. ...

... The meeting is part of a battlefield push to lure local fighters and commanders away from the Taliban by offering them jobs in development projects that Afghan tribal leaders help select, paid by the American military and the Afghan government.

By enlisting the tribal leaders to help choose the development projects, the Americans also hope to help strengthen both the Afghan government and the Pashtun tribal networks.

These efforts are focusing on rank-and-file Taliban; while there are some efforts under way to negotiate with the leaders of the main insurgent groups, neither American nor Afghan officials have much faith that those talks will succeed soon.

During a campaign, we all implicitly sign on to a fantasy. The fantasy is that the president is the government, that what he says goes, that he is (or can be) the “commander-in-chief,” the prime mover of the nation and the world. The fantasy is that changing presidents will change everything.

An administration, on the other hand, is an exercise in confronting reality. The president is the head of just one of three separately elected federal “governments,” all of which must agree for anything fundamental to happen, especially on the domestic side. That’s no big problem if your agenda is limited to cutting taxes, starting wars, kowtowing to society’s winners, and punishing society’s losers. But if you want to do something large and positive and disturbing to the status quo, the obstacles are huge. ...Hendrik Hertzberg in an interview with Scott Horton

Maybe not, writes Paul Krugman. 

There’s the view that this is the beginning of many sovereign defaults, and that we’re now seeing the end of the ability of governments to use deficit spending to fight the slump.

That's too pessimistic for Krugman.  He thinks this may be just another real estate bust, one which involved the government of Dubai.  And/or, the Dubai collapse is just a Dubai collapse.

There are plenty of reputable economists who believe otherwise.  But whether Krugman is exactly right, slightly right, or a bit wrong, one thing we're all going to have to internalize is that when disease exists, there's a good chance of it spreading. 

Our economy is part of a world economy now, for good or ill.  Dubai could be a slight head cold or it could be the opener of the next pandemic.

Reliably conservative columnist, Kathleen Parker, has split from her party's ridiculous 10-point checklist, the litmus test for Republicans proposed by Republican National Committee member, James Bopp.  Parker asks:

When did thinking go out of style?

In fact, the 10-point checklist proffered by Bopp and others is the antithesis of conservatism. As Kirk wrote in his own "Ten Conservative Principles," conservatism "possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata . . . conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order."

Each of Bopp's bullets is so overly broad and general that no thoughtful person could endorse it in good conscience. Some are so simplistic as to be meaningless. As just one example: "We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges." What does that mean? Do we support all troop surges no matter what other considerations might be taken into account? Do we take nothing else into account? Does disagreement mean one doesn't support victory?

Whatever the intent of the authors, the message is clear: Thinking people need not apply. The formerly elite party of nuanced conservatism might do well to revisit its nonideological roots.

The beat goes on.  And so do the beatings. Out-of-control cruelty appears to be part of the make-up of the military.  (Note:  Irresponsibility not confined to beating up Muslim kids.  Military families are also breaking up at a greater rate.)

... In successive, on-the-record interviews, the teenagers presented a detailed, consistent portrait suggesting that the abusive treatment of suspected insurgents has in some cases continued under the Obama administration, despite steps that President Obama has said would put an end to the harsh interrogation practices authorized by the Bush administration after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The two teenagers -- Issa Mohammad, 17, and Abdul Rashid, who said he is younger than 16 -- said in interviews this week that they were punched and slapped in the face by their captors during their time at Bagram air base, where they were held in individual cells. Rashid said his interrogator forced him to look at pornography alongside a photograph of his mother.

The holding center described by the teenagers appeared to have been a facility run by U.S. Special Operations forces that is separate from the Bagram Theater Internment Facility, the main American-run prison, which holds about 700 detainees. The teenagers' descriptions of a holding area on a different part of the Bagram base are consistent with the accounts of two other former detainees, who say they endured similar mistreatment, but not beatings, while being held last year at what Afghans call Bagram's "black" prison.

What is consistent in all of this is the sexual component, whether it be suggestive and degrading poses (as seen in the Abu Ghraib documents) or the use of porn. 

At least as far as money from the federal government is concerned, Acorn will continue to be paid what it's owed.  The "bill of attainder" passed by Congress -- meant to punish ACORN for lapses in its staffing which enraged Republicans -- cannot be applied, according to the Justice Department.

The department’s conclusion, laid out in a recently disclosed five-page memorandum from David Barron, the acting assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, adds a new wrinkle to a sharp political debate over the antipoverty group’s activities and recent efforts to distance the government from it.

Since 1994, Acorn, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has received about $53 million in federal aid, much of it grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for providing various services related to affordable housing.

But the group has become a prime target for conservative critics, and on Oct. 1, President Obama signed into law a spending bill that included a provision that said no taxpayer money — including money authorized by previous legislation — could be “provided to” the group or its affiliates.

A Housing and Urban Development Department lawyer asked the Justice Department whether the new law meant that pre-existing contracts with Acorn should be broken. And in a memorandum signed Oct. 23 and posted online this week, Mr. Barron said the government should continue to make payments to Acorn as required by such contracts.

The new law “should not be read as directing or authorizing HUD to breach a pre-existing binding contractual obligation to make payments to Acorn or its affiliates, subsidiaries or allied organizations where doing so would give rise to contractual liability,” Mr. Barron wrote.  NYT

Acorn, which has been involved lately in efforts to help people keep their foreclosed homes, has been vilified over the years by the Republican party for its "get out the vote" drives.

The Bank of Japan let it be known that it would support the falling dollar.  Just the news of an intervention perked our currency up a bit -- for now, along with a rush out of European markets because of the Dubai debt/default problems.

Investors' broad retreat from riskier assets pushed Treasury prices higher. The dollar gained against most other major currencies as investors sought safety following steep drops in overseas markets. Commodities prices tumbled.

Investors are worried that a default by a government investment company in Dubai over $60 billion in debt payments could have a ripple effect in world financial markets. The fear is that losses in the small emirate, which has drawn wealthy tourists from around the globe in the past decade with its Las Vegas-in-the-Middle East appeal, could imperil a nascent economic rebound.... WaPo

Meanwhile, the stock markets have been down as much as a percent and a half so far, but are meandering up slightly.  This is a day when New York closes early -- at 2 pm Eastern. 

Black Friday is here.  Black stands for merchants in the black on a big shopping day.  That's a nice black for WalMart and others.  But maybe not for the rest of us.  We may be witnessing a huge drop in economic optimism by the end of the day and with it a big drop in the stock markets.

U.S. stock index futures were sharply lower on Friday, a day after markets were shut for the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday, as a possible debt default at a Dubai state-owned conglomerate sparked fears of renewed global financial turmoil.

Dubai, part of the oil-exporting United Arab Emirates, said Wednesday it will ask creditors of state-owned Dubai World and builder Nakheel for a standstill agreement on billions of dollars in debt as a first step toward restructuring.

Overseas, Hong Kong shares dropped 4.8 percent while Shanghai stocks fell 2.4 percent on concerns that Dubai would spark a financial relapse.

S&P 500 futures sank 29.8 points and were below fair value, a formula that evaluates pricing by taking into account interest rates, dividends and time to expiration on the contract. Dow Jones industrial average futures tumbled 222 points, while Nasdaq 100 futures slid 47.25 points. ...NYT

On the other hand, if everyone goes on a wild spending spree today and over the weekend, the market could put on its happy face next week.

This is like trying to decide whether to go skating or not -- whether the ice on the lake will hold us or whether it has big, dangerous slushy spots.

Steve Coll asks if it isn't time to dump Joe -- and use Olympia Snowe to get rid of him.  He bases strategy, at least in part, on an episode of "Mad Men."

Remember, in the final episode, when the English cost-cutting axe man turns against his bosses in London, “fires” the Sterling Cooper partners to release them from their contracts, then joins them in a breakaway firm? I have a suggestion for similar end-game negotiations in the Senate, in the extremely unlikely event that the Rahm Emanuel has not already thought of a much more effective and emotionally satisfying version.

Coll lays out the steps, finding a way to get Snowe to accept a public option, offering in return a list of goodies for Maine Snowe can't afford to turn down.  They're the very goodies Joe Lieberman has sought for his state over the years.

If Snowe agrees to an acceptable public-option provision, immediately stop negotiating with Lieberman and go to the Senate floor with a bill. Let him vote no. Afterward, return to him humbly, soliciting his wish list. Flatter and negotiate with him during the treacherous conference phase that follows. Take care to hold Snowe close; reach out to Collins. 

When the final bill is passed, with some public option intact, graciously invite Lieberman to the White House signing ceremony. All the while, think about when and at what restaurant, over what vintage, Harry Reid wishes to deliver the news to Lieberman that, with the challenges ahead in 2010, the Senate’s Democratic caucus has decided to move on; Lieberman’s service as a committee chairman (for which his colleagues all remain grateful and admiring, etc.) will no longer be required.

Finally, telephone Chuck Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. “We’re done.” Redouble search for the most attractive possible Democratic Senate candidate in Connecticut for the 2012 cycle. There will be no sixty votes possible after the mid-term elections, anyway.