The nation's shoppers took advantage of deals on toys and TVs with some renewed vigor in stores and online on Black Friday after a year of concentrating their spending on basic necessities.

Though the first numbers won't be available until Saturday, early reports indicated bigger crowds than last year, with people buying more and even throwing in some items for themselves.

It was an encouraging sign for retailers, which have suffered through a year of sales declines, and perhaps also for the broader economy, which could use a kickstart from consumer spending.

In Chicago, Dan Montgomery and his wife carted bulging Macy's bags, proclaiming the department stores had "killer deals." Their favorite buy? A set of two skillets for $19.99, marked down from $100.

Still, mall operators said more shoppers were sticking to making purchases in cash and debit cards instead of credit. "I like cash because when you're out of cash, you're out of cash. And you don't have the hangover in January," Montgomery said.

Worries about jobs clearly were on shoppers' minds. Most people buying for themselves were picking up practical things that were deeply discounted such as pillows, pajamas and coffee makers, according to stores and analysts.

"With the layoff there have been a few cutbacks, but with the great sales they're offering this year, I think it's, overall, going to be a great Christmas for my two granddaughters," said Ernest Bell of Marietta, Ga., who was laid off in April from his job as an information technology support representative and was at the local Walmart on Friday.

The nation's retailers ushered in the traditional start of the holiday shopping season with expanded hours and deep discounts in hopes of getting people to spend.

Online, Walmart.com, Amazon.com and other online retailers also grabbed for a piece of the action, pushing deals on Thursday and even earlier in the week. Several large retailers, including Walmart and many Old Navy locations, even opened on Thanksgiving.

Those stores now have to figure out how to keep people coming back through Dec. 25.

Though there were isolated reports of squabbles, the pre-dawn crowds were generally calm. Stores took extra precautions to control the throngs after a Walmart worker on Long Island was trampled to death last year on Black Friday.

Analysts monitoring the malls said shoppers were less frenetic, having researched deals before going shopping. Extended hours also gave shoppers more time to grab deals both online and in stores than a year ago. Most Walmart stores were open on Thanksgiving to prevent the mad dash of shoppers for its Friday 5 a.m. specials.

ShopLocal, a subsidiary of publisher Gannett Co., on Friday said traffic was up 27 percent at top retailers' online sites featuring their Black Friday ads.

Stores were encouraged that shoppers appeared to be a little freer with their spending. Best Buy, Sears Holdings Corp. and Mall of America, as well as mall operators Taubman Centers and Simon Property Group, offered signs people were buying more than last year.

An average of about 1,000 people were in line for midnight openings at Toys R Us stores, CEO Gerald Storch said. After setting aside 100 Zhu Zhu Pets hamsters for each location, Toys R Us came back with several shipments of the hot toy for several of its stores Friday.

Even luxury stores, which generally aren't the big attractions for Black Friday, had brisk traffic, according to analysts.

More than 5,000 people were at Macy's Herald Square store in New York early Friday, slightly more than last year, Macy's CEO Terry J. Lundgren said. Among the most popular items were Tommy Hilfiger $99 bomber jackets, marked down from $450.

Dondrae May, a manager at a Best Buy in Framingham, Mass., said shoppers started lining up at 4 p.m. Thursday – 13 hours before opening. He said shoppers were filling their baskets with more items than a year ago, when they were shellshocked after the financial meltdown. The biggest draws were laptops, TVs and GPS systems, he said.

The chain had sold out of all of its early morning specials within two hours of the 5 a.m. opening, spokesman Scott Morris said.

While Black Friday is not a bellwether for the season, analysts are studying Friday's receipts to better understand the mindset of shoppers like Laura Frankito, a nurse who found herself at Kohl's outside Cleveland buying a Snuggie blanket-robe for her aunt and Tony Hawk T-shirts for her nephew.

She's only giving money to her two children, and she pointed out her newfound practicality by saying she wouldn't get a $12.99 canine version of the Snuggie for her sister's dog.

"There would have been a year when I would have gotten that," she said.

___

Associated Press Writer Lisa Cornwell in Cincinnati, AP Writer Kate Brumback in Atlanta and AP Retail Writers Betsy Vereckey and Mae Anderson in New York City, Ashley Heher in Chicago, Emily Fredrix in Cleveland, and Vinnee Tong in San Francisco contributed to this report.

(This version CORRECTS to "Simon Property Group" instead of "Simon Properties.")

Elliott Spitzer got it wrong, as did Paul Krugman, and countless bloggers. The popular narrative – that Tim Geithner needlessly favored the interests of banks over those of taxpayers – does not withstand close scrutiny. No one noticed that Inspector General Neil Barofsky’s report on the AIG bailout excluded key facts that explained why Geithner’s options were forestalled.

Everyone agrees that Geithner’s decision to pay certain banks 100 cents on the dollar for their toxic assets was distasteful, if not enraging. The banks who benefitted very possibly did not have clean hands.  Most likely they underwrote the same collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, that AIG insured through credit default swaps. And those same banks probably ignored signs that the CDO investments, which were repackaged  subprime mortgages, were fatally flawed. (It’s too bad Barofsky never investigated those CDOs.) But the law gave the banks the upper hand, and a continued stalemate in negotiations would have exacerbated AIG’s liquidity crisis. So, for the same reasons that politicians cut deals with Kim Jong-Il or Joe Lieberman, Geithner held his nose and paid money to make the problem go away.

Credit Ratings and Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction

Warren Buffet presciently anticipated the Hobson’s Choice back in 2003, when he characterized all derivatives as financial weapons of mass destruction.  As Buffet explained, whenever a derivative obligation goes out of the money, that company’s liquidity may harmed by margin calls, or calls to post cash collateral. In October 2008, one month after the U.S. government signaled it would do whatever it took to keep AIG afloat, the insurance behemoth continued to hemorrhage cash, precisely because of collateral calls on its credit default swaps. That’s when the New York Federal Reserve, then headed by Geithner, was brought in to staunch the bleeding.

The cash drain was accelerated by downgrades from the rating agencies. Many of AIG’s swaps were subject to ratings triggers, which increased the level of mandatory cash collateral whenever AIG’s ratings went down. Prior to March 2007, when AIG entered into these deals, its AAA rating exempted it from collateral posting requirements. Right after September 15, 2008, when Standard and Poor’s downgraded AIG from AA- to A-, the company turned over $14.5 billion in cash to its trading partners. By the end of that quarter, the downgrades caused a $32.8 million loss of liquidity.  If the rating agencies had imposed further downgrades, AIG’s cash collateral calls could have exploded. Barofsky’s report, which notes that Geithner’s concern about ratings downgrades, fails to mention the cash impact of those potential downgrades. 

Geithner’s bottom line was that he wanted to preempt further downgrades by S&P and Moody’s. A long protracted dispute with the banks would have created fear in the marketplace and at the rating agencies. Geithner had no leverage over the rating agencies.  The cash downside from a ratings slide was much bigger than the $27 billion that might be paid out to the banks, who were already holding $35 billion in cash collateral.

Why Bankruptcy Was Never A Viable Threat

Of course, by October 2008, AIG’s ratings were, for all intents and purposes, a fiction. Without the support of the U.S. government, AIG was probably insolvent.  But the company’s value in a bankruptcy scenario was hard to discern, because of a 2005 change in the law that made derivatives even more dangerous. Spitzer overlooks this change when he argues that the government could have used the threat of bankruptcy against the banks. He writes:

The counterparties had the contractual right to refuse the terms, throw AIG into bankruptcy, and suffer the consequences. In a workout context, the entity with cash—here, the government—can set the terms, and the other parties can either accept those terms or walk over to bankruptcy court.

The bankruptcy code was designed so that no single creditor can jump to the head of the line. Once a company files in court, everyone – trade creditors, landlords, bondholders - must wait for an orderly resolution of all debt obligations. Even if a bank extends a cash-secured loan, that cash security is held by the bankruptcy estate. But creditors who holding derivative contracts get special treatment.  They can immediately liquidate their contracts and move against any collateral outside of bankruptcy. This inconsistency in the law was a major reason why the Lehman bankruptcy turned out to be such a disaster. And it’s why everyone knew that an AIG bankruptcy was never a viable option.

It’s also why Geithner could never impose the threat of bankruptcy against the banks who held the credit default swaps.  Even if AIG were to file for Chapter 11, the bankruptcy judge could not easily go after the cash collateral that the banks were already holding.

Spitzer overlooks this point in his fiery admonition of Geithner:

Geithner suggested he could not use the threat of AIG's default in the absence of a federal bailout to get concessions from AIG's creditors. Why not?

That is exactly what the government did with the auto industry, and rightly so. The entity providing financing to a near-bankrupt institution must always seek contributions from everyone else at risk. The fact that the Fed had a strong predisposition against letting AIG go into bankruptcy didn't mean the Fed shouldn't have used every opportunity to wrangle concessions from the other parties.

Except the government was able to attain concessions from GM’s and Chrysler’s creditors precisely because those companies were going into bankruptcy. The essential element for an expeditious bankruptcy plan is that all the creditors of a certain class get equal treatment. But it’s almost impossible to get quick agreement on the fair value of CDOs protected by credit default swaps because there’s no cash market for CDOs. It’s easy to figure out the value of an oil swap or a euro swap, because oil and euros are bought and sold every day. But there is no active market for exotic CDOs. The valuation is done by analogy. The banks would have litigated the amounts of their claims for years.

Geithner Had No Sway Over the Shadow Banking System

It wasn’t simply the banks who dug in their heels, it was also the French government. The Commission Bancaire, acting on behalf of Societe Generale and Calyon, said that French banks could not legally be compelled to reduce their claims against AIG outside of a formal bankruptcy. Again, bank regulators can act swiftly and decisively on insolvent banks like Washington Mutual, but Geithner lacked any comparable authority to impose his will on the creditors of an insurance company.

That’s why Spitzer’s insinuation, that Geithner deserves some blame for creating the predicament faced by AIG, doesn’t hold water. Spitzer writes that Geithner and others “grievously damaged the nation and capitulated to the very banks they should have been supervising.” But Geithner’s job was to regulate New York banks, not the shadow banking system, which is the multitude of non-bank entities – including AIG, hedge funds, brokerage firms, and mortgage lenders – that relied on short-term credit to fund their long-term investments. It was the shadow banking system that had collapsed in the fall of 2008. Prior to September 2008, Geithner’s regulators could only know that the banks had credit derivatives with a big insurance company rated AA-; they did not have access to AIG’s books. Everyone knew that the unregulated shadow banking system dominated the traditional banking system. But everyone also knew that any attempt to expand regulatory oversight while Bush was in office was a fool’s errand.

“For Geithner to say it would have been ‘unethical’ to negotiate for concessions is sheer silliness,” writes Spitzer. Actually, Geithner said that it was unethical to threaten actions that he couldn’t possibly enforce. But at the end of the day it wasn’t a matter of being ethical or unethical. Everyone knew what the endgame was, and Geithner knew he couldn’t fool the banks into thinking otherwise. 

LTCM was Different

Krugman frames the situation somewhat differently, suggesting that Geithner could have strong-armed the banks, who are all members of the same Wall Street club, to do the right thing. But he cites the bailout of a hedge fund, Long Term Capital Management, as a controlling precedent. The comparison is off base. The deal proposed by the New York Fed in 1998 was that all the major U.S. banks could contribute funds to acquire equity in LTCM. The offer was not compulsory, and Bear Stearns refused to participate. To bank executives, it’s one thing to say that you should provide emergency financing to invest in a hedge fund with some upside potential, and quite another to say that you should write off your legal claim to several billion dollars. In October 2008 Wall Street executives knew that when the dust settled, a lot of finger pointing would ensue and a lot of people were going to get fired, so no one was willing to stick his neck out. (If you think that foreboding was unwarranted, ask Ken Lewis or John Thain.) Whether or not you find that attitude morally repellant, you should not be shocked. Look at how politicians respond to the crises in health care and climate change.  “Major financial firms are a small club, with a shared interest in sustaining the system,” wrote Krugman.  That’s what they used to say about the U.S. Senate.

Of course, there’s still the most obvious question: Isn’t this the government? Can’t the government that bailed out these banks demand something in return? Yes it could have, at one time.

Hank Paulson’s Preemptive Policy: Throw Money, Don’t Ask Questions, Don’t Negotiate

Every negotiation is a game of chicken. Geithner’s ability to say to the banks, “You’d better make some concessions on behalf of the taxpayer, or else!” was undercut by the actions of Hank Paulson. Two weeks before Geithner tried to resolve the problems of AIG’s credit default swaps, Hank Paulson announced that he was throwing money at the banks indiscriminately. On October 13, 2008 he told the nine largest U.S. banks that they must take $125 billion in government funds, with no strings attached, whether they wanted to or not. Paulson’s modus operandi was consistent throughout the crisis and afterwards. He pushed everyone into a corner to preempt any good faith negotiation or problem solving, he used threats to emasculate normal standards of government accountability and corporate governance, and he lied about his actions afterwards.

After October 13, 2008, Geithner and the banks knew that the Paulson’s Treasury did not care about protecting the taxpayers’ money, only about making problems go away. He could not withhold government aid, because the money was already out the door.

As with any complex financial transaction, if you overlook an important detail, you don’t understand what’s really going on. That’s why the conventional wisdom about Geithner’s role in the AIG bailout is wrong.

Finally, none of the foregoing is a slam on anything else written by Spitzer and Krugman, whose writings are almost always perceptive and illuminating.

Happy Thanksgiving. On this day I am truly grateful for all of my many blessings. I am thankful for my wonderful family. I am grateful for a lifetime of terrific friends. I am thankful to our military for their courageous service. And I am thankful to be an American, the greatest country on earth.

Yet while I am so grateful I can't help but be reminded of those who are not so lucky, especially this year.

About one in five Americans were hungry at some point this year. On the Upper East Side of New York City homeless people sleep every night in the entryway of a famous church surrounded by multi-million dollar condominiums, coops and townhouses. Wealthy people frequently pass by while walking their dogs after dinner.

About 40 million Americans do not have health insurance. I know of someone who contracted cancer and now is having difficulty getting health insurance because she has a preexisting condition. I know of someone who left a job and started his own business that is struggling to get health insurance. I know a young boy who has brain cancer. His family's efforts to find a cure for him have been slowed by insurance companies.

It is estimated that more than 10% of eligible Americans cannot get full time work. I know some people who have been out of work for a long time. They are smart and skilled at their profession yet they were laid off because of the economic downturn and changes in business models and technology. The unemployment rate is still increasing at an alarming rate throughout the country.

Millions of Americans have either defaulted on their home mortgage or are on the verge of doing so in the next few months. Many more are "under water" as the value of their home is well below the amount of their mortgage. Little is being done to slow this serious problem. Of course, credit card companies with high interest rates and penalties are hosing many of these same Americans.

While a few powerful investment banks are setting record profits and paying huge bonuses, dozens more are near bankruptcy. Banking regulations have not been improved, and the fat cats are not loaning money to average Americans. Rather they are making money off financial investments, many of which are financed with government loans at zero interest. Wall Street and Main Street are worlds apart.

Our country is involved in two wars, where thousands of American soldiers have died or been injured. While there is a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel, billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent for uncertain long-term gain. Meanwhile, the threat of terrorism is ever present.

The country remains polarized, and the shouting is louder than at any time in recent memory. Short-term political gain and local agendas have paralyzed our government.

So while I have plenty to be thankful for, on this great American holiday I can't help but wonder about the future for my daughter and my country. Yet I remain optimistic that the very characteristics that have made our country great for more than two centuries will lead us to even brighter days ahead.

I have a confession to make. I recently bid on a bronze bust of Lavrenti Beria on eBay. He was Joseph Stalin's last secret police chief. Alas, someone outbid me.

But at a Chelsea flea market in New York City last weekend I did purchase a World War I German military cigarette case.

Despite what you might think, I'm really not a communist-sympathizer. Nor a fan of the Kaiser. Just a collector. Collecting might be a form of mental illness, but it's not the same as endorsing mass murder.

I'm thinking a bit more about my collecting these days after the controversy that erupted over Marc Garlasco of Human Rights Watch, who collects World War II German militaria. It is the most popular military genre, but Garlasco was attacked as a Nazi-sympathizer by people who don't like his analytical work critical of Israel.

Garlasco--whom I have never met--seems to have survived the kerfuffle, but the controversy demonstrated not only Washington's tendency toward the ad hominem but also a more general failure to understand collectors. Collectors collect. The doing often is as important as the what. Few collectors collect because they identify with the politics behind the items they are accumulating. In fact, many can't even explain why they like what they like.

I blame my collecting on genetics. In high school my Air Force father was stationed in Great Britain. I traveled with my parents all over the British isle hitting antique shops. Virtually all of my limited income went into my collections. I mostly bought antique bladed weapons. But there were a few chess sets, some old guns, a World War I trench periscope, a couple of African clubs and shields, and even a cuff band for a foreign Waffen SS unit. Don't worry, however--I never wore the latter.

Back in the U.S. I merely dabbled, watching the want ads for chess sets and picking up occasional sets while playing tourist abroad. But then I met someone whose outward appearance as a deputy fire chief hid a seriously demented collector within. He tended to cycle through collections and I met him when he was selling off chess sets. Since his girlfriend did not share his passion, unless the item somehow related to Michael Jordan, then playing for the Chicago Bulls, I started visiting flea markets and antique shops with him. And the rest is, as they say, is history.

The problem with "hitting the shops" was that it multiplied temptation. Until then I hadn't realized that I was an antiques addict without the slightest iota of self-control. In high school my funds were limited. Back in the U.S. I saw few collectibles through work or play. But now I was visiting antique shops with an adult income, ready credit, and no one at home to say nyet.

My interests slowly multiplied. There were chess sets. Most are non-controversial, but I do have a commie propaganda capitalists versus communists set. The capitalist queen is a representative of death with a cornucopia of gold. But really, I'm not a closet Red.

I've also gotten into eagles and hawks. That doesn't mean I have a brutal, atavistic core, however. I just like the way they look. I have a few icons. I appreciate the religious imagery, but I'm not Orthodox, despite what some people might think.

I also collect military art and propaganda. I don't have any Nazi posters, but I do own some communist Soviet and Chinese posters. I've been picking up a multitude of commie tchotchke, especially cheap plastic deskware with pictures of Lenin and Stalin, the hammer and cycle, Red Army symbols, images of war memorials, and more. Then there was the Beria bust.

Despite appearances, I really do not admire one of Stalin's chief henchman, a person responsible for the murder and imprisonment of millions of people. Rather, I'm fascinated with what amounts to a celebration of the banality of evil. A bust of this unprepossessing figure, bald head highlighted by pince-nez glasses, actually sat on someone's desk a half century ago (he was arrested and shot shortly after Stalin's death in 1953).

I have other politically incorrect collectibles. Some cigarette cases and smoking paraphernalia (even though I don't smoke) with Soviet political and military symbols; German beer steins decorated for Marxists before World War II; propaganda books by the Soviet and Nazi regimes; and German military stuff, mostly World War I.

For obvious reasons, Germany has, sadly, generated a wealth of military material. Garlasco was attacked for wearing a sweatshirt with an Iron Cross, the basic German military award which had nothing to do with Nazism--it was first awarded in 1813. Unfortunately, to collect German militaria from 1933 to 1945 likely means accumulating--different from "collecting"--items with Nazi imagery.

There was no more hideous movement than Nazism, which sought to eradicate an entire people. Nazi imagery understandably creates a very strong emotional reaction. But collecting items with Nazi images does not make one a Nazi-sympathizer, any more than collecting communist imagery suggests communist sympathies. Undoubtedly there are neo-Nazis who collect Third Reich material because they are neo-Nazis, but most collectors with Third Reich material detest that regime and everything it stood for.

Indeed, there is a curious disconnect between the way people react to Nazi and communist collectibles. I wouldn't buy Nazi curios like my communist acquisitions because the former would generate a hostile and uncomprehending reaction. Yet in principle, what is the difference between displaying a bust of Heinrich Himmler and one of Lavrenti Beria? Both were unfeeling human monsters who participated in mass murder. There is something uniquely horrific about attempted genocide, but there is no real moral difference between Nazism and communism.

Also unsettling to some people was the passion evidenced by a Garlasco internet comment: "That is so cool. The leather SS jacket makes my blood go cold it is so COOL!" I can't speak for Garlasco, but, again, for most collectors the passion is for collecting, not the political meaning behind the items being collected.

When I've gathered with fellow collectors talk always turns to our favorite acquisitions. Saying a prized item was "cool" is a very moderate reaction. I don't know if I've ever publicly admitted that my blood ran cold on seeing a particular item, but when I found a particularly nice London-made chess set some years ago--well, my blood ran cold.

A prominent Civil War historian friend once suggested that I visit so we could "fondle books" together. Trust me: no kinky sex was involved. Another friend lovingly cleans silver steins after he buys them. He then sends out before and after pictures of his new acquisitions. I can't say for sure that he likes collecting more than sex, but I have my suspicions.

And it's not unusual for crazy collectors to identify with their collections. Garlasco's license plate and web identity are Flak88--for the famed 88mm anti-aircraft and anti-tank gun used by his grandfather, who was conscripted into the air defense service. I do the same with "chessset"--for the chess sets which I collect. Weird, perhaps. Evidence of totalitarian tendencies, I don't think so.

Alas, it's apparently impossible to strip politics out of even the most innocent activities, like collecting. But for most collectors, there is no politics in their acquisitions. So if another bust of Lavrenti comes up again, I'll be back bidding. And not because I'm a com-symp.

Attempts to paint the economic stimulus package as a failure begin with wordy paeans to budget austerity and end with anecdotes of Spanish wind turbines and prison inmates. Responsible Republicans claim to have proposed a more effective alternative to the stimulus, no matter that an economic adviser to their own presidential candidate rates the effectiveness of tax cuts lower than that of government spending.

But the stimulus truly was a model of political compromise, providing that devilish mixture of effective public policy - increased unemployment benefits, help for the uninsured, state aid - and politics - scaled back spending and a bill with a diluted purpose. This last element, embodied by a piece of legislation designed to boost aggregate demand and at the same time increase employment and prevent hardship for the worst off and invest in a clean energy economy and set the stage for long-term economic growth, was probably necessary for passage but also ensured that no single narrative for the stimulus's impact could be created.

Imperfect provisions accepted for expediency's sake - beyond the reduced size of the package - include state aid that shortchanged cities, shovel-ready requirements that have been observed more closely than requirements to focus money on areas of economic distress, and at times overly burdensome reporting requirements. Of course, the fact that we are in the midst of a "jobs crisis" does not mean that alternative measures should not be taken to deal with other problems (for instance, our gaping infrastructure deficit). But, especially now that Speaker Pelosi is considering deficit-neutral jobs legislation, the disparate nature of the stimulus perhaps drove a permanent wedge between what we think of as a stimulus bill and what we consider a jobs bill.

Whatever the actual content of the likely jobs bill, the legislation must be as straightforward as possible with the number of jobs saved and created as simply relatable to dollars spent as possible. This means that the administration and Congress should reconsider its support for something like the jobs tax credit. The credit, which would provide a tax break to companies for hiring workers, is as politically attractive as the housing tax credit, but is also susceptible to the same type of fraud as the housing credit and just as bereft of benefits.

The most important task of the administration, though, is to fight against the notion that saved jobs are any less important than created jobs. Sure, job creation is a sign that the economy has turned around for the non-Wall Street portion of the United States. But saved jobs mean fewer unemployed, fewer benefits paid out, more consumer spending, and less foreclosures, among other things. In fact, one of the best proposals for additional stimulus - direct aid to state and cities - is almost wholly reliant on saving jobs (some 900,000 of them). Right now, the administration is losing the battle for why saved jobs are important.

Future administrations will perhaps be loath to portray "stimulus" bills as job creators. It is essential, then, that the benefits of any "jobs bill" be readily apparent.

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet suddenly finds himself the darling of liberals on health care reform, but he appears more cautious on the Democrats' other major priority for the year -- imposing new regulations on Wall Street.

Within the span of a week, Bennet, D-Colo., has earned accolades from liberal bloggers for vowing to vote for health care reform even if it costs him his job, and a rebuke from his Democratic primary opponent in an area where he could have far more influence.

Opponents of the right to die appeared to savor a public relations victory with the reported "rebirth" of car-crash victim Rom Houben, a forty-six year old Belgian man who is said to have spent twenty-three years trapped immobile in his own body. Dr. Steven Laureys, a leading neurologist and well-respected coma expert based in Liege, used brain imaging techniques not available at the time of Houben's accident to argue that his patient was "locked-in" and fully conscious, rather than relegated to a vegetative state. A speech therapist, Linda Wouters, now claims that she has helped a grateful Houben to communicate with the outside world using a touch-screen keyboard. If Houben's story does live up to the media hype--and many authorities in the field are not yet convinced--conservative activists may attempt to use his tragedy as an argument against withdrawing care from those believed to be persistently comatose. However, should Dr. Laureys prove correct in his belief that many other patients are similarly imprisoned, these calamities may instead offer a compelling argument for withdrawing such care. In fact, such circumstances might present the rare occasions when active euthanasia is morally justified without overt consent.

I should emphasize that I have no personal knowledge of Rom Houben's case beyond what has been revealed by the media. At the same time, I confess that I am still highly suspicious of the details of this alleged medical miracle--and particularly of the messages that Houben purportedly types with the help of his aide. Wouton claims that she can feel gentle pressure in her patient's finger that help steer him toward keys. Yet if Houben is truly paralyzed, the neurological mechanism that allows for these signs is unclear. American bioethicist Arthur Caplan, not persuaded by Dr. Laurey's claims after watching video of Wouton "assisting" Houben, suggested that the patient's "messages" were actually acts of facilitated communication in which the caregiver, rather than the patient, was choosing the letters. Caplan described facilitated communication as "ouija board stuff" that has "been discredited time and time again." James Randi has gone even further, describing these writings as "a farce" and "a lie." Of course, that does not mean that Houben is not "locked-in" yet sentient, as Laurey's brain scans may show. Houben's cognitive abilities can be tested in numerous ways--such as reading him a sentence when his helper is out of earshot, and then asking him to retype it--so eventually we may learn whether his story is authentic, a matter of wishful thinking, or even a cruel and manipulative hoax. Until that time, the media and the public should retain a healthy skepticism.

For momentary argument's sake, let us give Houben's tale of "rebirth" the benefit of the doubt. Does this mean that patients in vegetative states should be kept alive at all costs in the belief that some of them may be merely locked-in? Not necessarily. If one believes that the preservation of life is the paramount value in all circumstances, then human beings should never be allowed to die prematurely--even if the alternative is torture. On the other hand, if one believes that the prevention of suffering may sometimes justify the withdrawal or withholding of care, then the very fact that Houben was conscious for twenty-three years might call more convincingly for such action. Houben's own words are haunting: "I would scream, but no sound would come out....I became the witness to my own suffering, as doctors and nurses tried to speak to me and eventually gave up." That sounds strikingly like a form of torture. Keep in mind that patients like this have no guarantee that their consciousness will ever be discovered. And even if it is, they will be locked forever in the shackles of their own bodies. So rather than offering a compelling reason to keep such patients alive, the horrors of enduring such a petrified existence may offer a compelling reason to let them die.

The distinguished neuroethicists Guy Kahane and Julian Savulescu make such a case in their paradigm-shifting article, "Brain Damage and the Moral Significance of Consciousness," in this February's Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. Their reasoning turns traditional progressive thinking in such tragedies on its head. During the court battles over the fates of Terri Schiavo and Eluana Englaro, liberals argued that these women should be permitted to die, in part, because they were no longer sentient. Yet if they were no longer capable of thought--dead in all but name--at least they were not suffering. In contrast, if they were indeed conscious, then the horror of being prisoners in their own bodies might offer a far stronger argument for allowing their suffering to end. Most people would prefer not to live if their quality of life dropped below a certain level. Short of being boiled alive in hot oil daily, finding oneself completely locked-in is about as low a quality of life as one can achieve while conscious.

That is not so say that some partially locked-in patients, like Jean-Dominique Bauby, who blinked The Diving Bell and the Butterfly with his left eyelid, don't achieve meaning in their frozen condition. But many more probably suffer like Johnny Bohnam, the senseless, limbless soldier who begs for death by pounding morse code with his head in Dalton Trumbo's indelible Johnny Got His Gun. I can say with confidence and considerable reflection that I personally would not want to live twenty-three locked-in years, even knowing that "rebirth" loomed in the future. I regard such a fate as medically-induced torture. I'd hope that my friends and family would press a pillow over my face until my breathing stopped--and I believe that, in honoring this previously and frequently expressed wish, they would be acting fully within the bounds of medical ethics and decency and love.

When a "locked-in" individual can express a preference for life or death, respect for autonomy strongly suggests that such a wish be honored. No conscious individual should ever be euthanized against his wishes merely because he is not socially productive, or because his care is costly, or because a panel of bioethicists believes that his life is not worth living. The problem is that few individuals ever express their wishes regarding this disturbing set of particular circumstances--one way or another--before they find themselves in a locked-in state. That omission leads to a deeply unsettling question: In cases where no prior preference has been expressed, should the default rule be the preservation of life or should the default be freedom from suffering? One solution might be to survey the population and to establish the majority preference as the default. Another might leave the decision in the hands of family members. Or we could even conclude that some forms of suffering are so horrific that a few patients may have to die against their preferences so that others will not have to undergo years of unremitting psychological agony.

What is clear is that, if there are truly more locked-in patients than once believed, our society must confront these unpleasant choices directly. While we might ultimately decide to let these patients live, even at the risk of allowing them to suffer, we should recognize that such a policy is neither obvious nor intuitive. Whatever the truth of Rom Houben's case, it does not offer any easy answer to these questions.

The White House just released the list of those attending the State Dinner honoring India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Cool list actually. But not just because it's India night -- but because there are a lot of folks that could push other agendas in Obama Land.

Domestic Policy Council chief Melody Barnes, who recently expressed support for "gay marriage" will be there. I admire her and have been irritated by the pressure others in the White House operation have brought on her to retract or reframe her comments.

Gay iconic businessman David Geffen and his excellent partner Jeremy Lingvall will be there and should give Melody Barnes some support -- and to make their case to Michelle and Barack Obama that being absent in today's civil rights movement shouldn't be part of his presidency. Obama and team need to reconnect with the gay community which has a lot of doubt about his support of an end to Don't Ask, Don't Tell and for an end to other anti-gay discriminatory legislation.

But having Geffen and Lingvall at this dinner is a great move -- and was Rahm Emanuel's doing. I haven't been able to credit Emanuel with much lately -- but he did the right thing tonight.

On another front, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman will be there tonight -- and so too will be New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. The connection? Cuba.

Both strongly support moving the US-Cuba relationship into new territory and ending the restrictions on travel to Cuba for American citizens. Oddly, American citizens today can travel to North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, virtually anywhere in the world -- but because the Cold War still rages 90 miles off the US border, US citizens can't go to Cuba freely. This is a self-damaging restriction on American rights that should be ended -- and Berman and Bill Richardson are on the case. Look for them whispering in the President's ear.

After all, India joined 186 other nations in voting against us a few weeks go in the United Nations condemning the US embargo of Cuba.

Intelligence adviser to the President John Brennan will be there -- and so too will be his policy and political rival, White House Counsel Gregory Craig. Greg Craig is leaving the White House on January 10, but Obama really should begin talking to Craig right away about a new role. My suggestion is that he replace Israel/Palestine Envoy George Mitchell, who will not be at the dinner tonight.

Greg Craig would be excellent on the defining Middle East challenges facing the US -- and my suggestion is that we encourage Senator Mitchell to try his hand at brokering peace among warring White House factions around Obama and Rahm Emanuel.

On the journalistic front, Tom Friedman of the New York Times will be there -- and so too will Fareed Zakaria whose star continues to climb. Zakaria has largely been quite positive about the presidency of Barack Obama and not taken any substantial jabs at the White House -- but I suspect that after an invite like this one, he'll have to balance out his hyper-access with some substantial critique of the limited results of the Obama team's foreign policy accomplishments.

Some other cool names: Michele Flournoy, Louisian Governor Bobby Jindal, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, Hunter Biden, Jim Steinberg, Jack Lew, Under Secretary of State Bill Burns, the Afghanistan War Tax advocate Representative David Obey, OMB chief Peter Orszag, General Colin Powell, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, Ben Rhodes (very cool dude), US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, Vinod Shah and John Doerr, Amartya Sen, Steven Spielberg, oops -- and I forgot Brian Williams.

But some interesting folks are not there.

If I had any influence over the White House social secretary, I would have invited Steve Coll, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the book that Barack Obama has been carrying around with him for 11 months, Ghost Wars. Coll has been one of the most articulate advocates of an India-Pakistan rapprochement that eventually decreases tensions in Afghanistan and the broader region. Coll and Obama went to Occidental College together -- and he would have been on my list for the evening.

Dennis Ross will be there -- but neither George Mitchell nor Richard Holbrooke, who is reportedly off skiing for the weekend. But it would seem to me that Holbrooke's portfolio is closer to India matters than what Ross is doing with Iran.

Where is Brent Scowcroft? Maybe the former National Security Adviser was busy tonight, but really -- he is a guy Obama turns to behind the scenes and should have been invited.

Zbigniew and Emilie Brzezinski are other obvious DC political personalities who are missing from the roster. Brzezinski's early endorsement of President Obama's campaign was significant -- and it is always good to have Brzezinski and Scowcroft on your side -- but neither will be at Obama's side tonight.

Two guys who should have definitely been there and somehow either kept themselves in the background or weren't invited are former National Security Council chief of staff Mark Lippert and current National Security Council chief of staff Denis McDonough. These guys for quite a while were the most significant axis of power in the foreign policy arena, and Obama trusts them. McDonough works extremely hard, as recently recounted in David Plouffe's book, The Audacity to Win, so may have been too busy. But come to think of it, David Plouffe is not on the list.

Eric Schmidt of Google would have been on my recommended list -- even though General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt is there. I would have not allowed Larry Summers to bring a guest -- and would have asked Paul Volcker to fill that seat.

Where are any of the Republicans for Obama? The three that got that movement going are philanthropist Rita Hauser, former Republican Senator turned independent Lincoln Chafee, and former House International Relations Committee Chairman Jim Leach. Not on the list!

I'd add Susan Eisenhower and General Wesley Clark. Missing in action both -- and they shouldn't be.

I am also surprised not to see Caroline Kennedy -- who may be done with the political scene as far as running for office, but America needs her at State Dinners!

For fun -- I'd include Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, and Arianna Huffington, but they are not on the list.

Gary Hart and former Defense Secretary William Cohen should really be there tonight -- both for the leadership they have shown in foreign policy, but also because they both are reservoirs of smart thinking on India.

Where are Chuck Hagel and David Boren -- the incoming co-chairs of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board....and where is R. Nicholas Burns??? When serving as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Nick Burns put the US-India nuclear deal together. He worked with Evan Bayh's father -- the much more progressive than Evan former Senator Birch Bayh, who should have been invited.

I'll stop there....but I could keep going. It's as much fun thinking about who is not there as who is.

Except for David Geffen and Jeremy Lingvall who will be the life of the party, I'm sure.

-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note

Disclaimer: I’m not a big fan of American holidays.  The cultural critic in me can’t help but harp on the Hallmark-ization of most of the majors.  I grew up more or less godless: my family leveraged the time off school and work to hit the slopes in Tahoe while everyone else was otherwise obliged.

There were moments when this odd-one-out behavior spawned the desire for belonging in me. Once, at a mediocre restaurant somewhere near the ski lifts, I ordered the “Thanksgiving plate” just so I could sample the traditional trappings of the day.  Over the years I’ve dabbled with competitiveness: a mostly vegetarian foodie, I love to proffer a pre- or post-Thanksgiving feast, sans bird, to tantalize my turkey-toting friends. Turns out that I love Brussels sprouts, real stuffing, and my mom’s cranberry sauce… but I’ll never look another Tofurkey in the unface.  If anyone would listen, I’d wager that I could remember at least half of the words in Alice’s Restaurant.

Thanksgiving has my vote as far as American holidays go. It’s a keeper.  Other than Martha Stewart, Thanksgiving does not seem to fuel the eternal combustion engines of American consumption in the way the other holidays do.  We may consume a month’s worth of calories in one meal, but we don’t have to buy gifts, cards, flowers, or champagne.

The juxtaposition of Thanksgiving and Black Friday is not lost on me. On Thursday we celebrate with cornbread stuffing and on Friday we celebrate with package stuffing and credit card limit-pushing.  On Thursday we fill our hearts and bellies with gratitude and food, and on Friday we fill our trunks with superfluous consumer items.

It turns out that, in spite of calories and tryptophan, Thanksgiving is a healthy holiday. At least, the giving of thanks is a particularly healthy practice.  In the last thirty years the field of psychology has begun to get over its bad self and endeavor to study the positive side of human emotions. 

Professor Robert Emmons, one of those positivity pioneers, has a book pleasantly entitled  Thanks! How the new science of gratitude can make you happier.  His premise, put simply, is that we used to think we were born with a  certain degree of happiness, and that’s all there was to it, but now we know that that happiness level can be changed by being grateful.

In his study, the first major academic research into the “science of gratitude,” Emmons discovered that:

 A daily gratitude intervention with young adults resulted in higher reported levels of the positive states of alertness, enthusiasm, determination, attentiveness and energy…

Gratitude intervention! Who would have thought?

And that:

Grateful individuals place less importance on material goods; they are less likely to judge their own and others success in terms of possessions accumulated; they are less envious of others; and are more likely to share their possessions with others relative to less grateful persons.

A true scion of the me-generation and instant gratification addiction, I have to admit that I like the idea that I can do something about how happy my life will be.  I like the idea, too, that it can be as easy as spending a couple of moments being grateful, which is pretty easy.

This is an easy one to try at home. As you prepare to spend the rest of the week in the kitchen, give yourself a gratitude intervention.  If you’re a little rusty with the gratitude, check in with a nearby kid.  Once you get them rolling, kids can remind us to be grateful for the darnedest things.

 Who knows, maybe you'll be happy with Thursday's stuffing and you won't have to go shopping on Friday.

 I cannot tell you anything that, in a few minutes, will tell you how to be rich.  But I can tell you how to feel rich, which is far better, let me tell you firsthand, than being rich.  Be grateful… It’s the only totally reliable get-rich quick scheme.

 — Ben Stein, actor, comedian, economist

There's obviously a lot to take out of this game, both good and bad. Are we excited that Eli played like a stud for the second straight game and appears to have conquered his historical second half swoon? Or are we worried sick about our defense, which repeatedly came up small after folding against San Diego the game before? Do we laud the resilience of this squad? Or are we pissed that the concept of resilience even entered the conversation? Are we grateful that Tynes responded to the pressure of having the game, and probably his job, on the line? Or are we upset that our kicker is so bad that his job is perpetually on the line?

Either way, the most important takeaway is that we came away with a win. Tom Coughlin's put it succinctly. "It's nice to win. We were miserable around here for a month."

**

What's to like: (as always, in no particular order and non-exhaustive)

Eli: I have never seen Eli throw so many beautiful balls. Granted, doing so is easier when your receivers are wide open. But there were a bunch of key plays today on which the receivers weren't wide open a very good throw was needed. (Quick examples: The 33-yard deep ball to Manningham before the Tynes missed field goal; the 51-yard deep ball to Smith; the 31-yard deep ball to Manningham before our last touchdown; Eli's pass deeper on that same drive where he lofted it over a linebacker to get it to Boss, who took it down to the 3 yard-line; the back-shoulder fade to Manningham on the OT drive.)

That's two great games in a row for Eli. Against the Chargers, he posted a 112.6 rating. This week, his rating was 111.5. He went 25-for-39 for 384 yards, 3 TDs, and 1 interception. Not only has he restored confidence in his overall play after two stinkers against Arizona and Philly, he also rediscovered his late-game mojo. Among all the other awesome things he did out there today, Eli led us on a game-winning drive that, based on how the defense was playing, was pretty much do-or-die. So including the Dallas and Arizona games, that's 2-for-3 on leading us down the field in crunch time. I'll take that.

The Star-Ledger's Mike Garafolo made a really good point about Eli in his game breakdown. He wrote, "He's a streaky player and those streaks always seem to last a few weeks -- good and bad. He's never been one to be up and down from week to week but rather weeks to weeks."

A few of nitpicky points about Eli's performance:

1) The interception on the first drive was vintage Bad Eli. I can't think of a quarterback for whom it's so obvious that bad results are forthcoming by the way he releases the ball. When you're watching the game on TV -- self-inflicted stomach woes kept me from Giants Stadium this week, shamefully -- you usually can't see downfield where the quarterback is throwing. But whenever you see Eli drift away from the pressure and then blindly wing the ball downfield off his back foot, there's about a 75 percent chance that there are more defenders in the area than receivers. (For the record, Eli stepped into his throw on Tyree's Super Bowl catch, which means it wasn't dumb luck after all....)

2) There are times when Eli is in the pocket with defenders converging on him where I wish he would employ a shorter, more compact throwing motion. To a certain degree, a guy's throwing motion is a guy's throwing motion. But can't Eli shorten it up a little bit if he knows guys are crashing down on him?

3) I did not like how Eli looked when we took possession after the Falcons tied the game with 28 seconds left. If Chris Houston hadn't been in the midst of the worst performance by a cornerback against the Giants since Al Harris in the 2007 NFC Championship game (mitigating factor for Harris: It was Plax that abused him), he might have had a shot at an interception on the 1st down play. The 2nd down play was a little too close for comfort as well.

Kevin Gilbride: Devised a game plan that fully exploited the Falcons horrendous pass defense. However.... Even though we converted big plays on many 3rd and short situations, I still don't like how that has become such a staple of our offense. On Sunday, Eli was hitting all those deep passes. That's not always going to be the case.

Mario Manningham, Steve Smith, and Hakeem Nicks: Manningham gets the game-ball with 6 receptions for 126 yards. Included among these were the game-clinching back-shoulder fade and another back-shoulder fade earlier in the game. It would be great if Eli and Manningham could develop a rapport on that play.

Smith (4 for 79) and Nicks (5 for 65) were very good as well. One complaint about Nicks though: As Sue Simmons would say, what the fuck was he thinking on that second overtime catch? He was holding the ball -- and our season -- in a very precarious way.

Kevin Boss: Boss is what he is: He's not in the class of Brent Celek, Jason Whitten, or -- gasp -- Tony Gonzalez. But he's a reliable target whose subpar speed is largely offset by his crafty body positioning, admirable toughness, and velvety hands. Boss had 76 yards on 5 catches, two of which were touchdowns. Credit for this also belongs to the coaching staff for making more of an effort to use Boss in the red zone (or as the coaching staff calls it, the green zone. Power of positive thinking on that one!). "We have had the idea that this would be one way to help ourselves in the green zone. It proved true today," said Coughlin in vintage Coughlinspeak.

Madison Hedgecock: For catching the ball. Who knew? Maybe he's wearing contacts now like a less obvious Rick Vaughn. Kudos for him for picking out a pair that's more him.

The pass protection: Eli was sacked once and hit twice. The Falcons looked like they were bringing their fair share of blitz packages too. Overall, a nice bounceback performance after two bad games in a row.

Corey Webster: Another bounceback, another good sign going forward. Coming off two straight bad games -- it least it looked like that to the layman -- Webster rebounded in a big way. He was locked in single coverage all game with Roddy White, one of the game's better number one wideouts. White was targeted 12 times, but made only four catches, and Webster was credited with five passes defensed. Awesome stuff. He was actually in position to intercept a pass (on the far sideline on TV) before White egregiously held his arm. This uncalled pass interference was one of a few bad calls that went against the Giants (the Cofield and Rouse personal fouls were bad too.)

The pass rush: This was a call for me, because for the second straight game they were nowhere to be found on the opposition's last drive. They registered 2 sacks and 8 hits on the quarterback, however, including a forced fumble, so they fall in this section. We'll get to Sheridan in the next section, but I first I have to stress that it seemed like a high percentage of his blitzes seemed to be getting there this week. In previous games, it always seemed like our blitzes were telegraphed and easily figured out. I don't know, it just seemed that way to me. So before we rip into Sheridan, that's something to keep in mind.

Feagles: It wasn't a noteworthy game, but it wasn't noteworthy in a bad way, and that's a step in the right direction for him and a relief for us.

Danny Ware: There are two reasons Ware goes in the "What's to like" column: 1) The 11-yard run he salvaged from a botched snap just before the end of the half; and 2) He looks like our best back right now. We will overlook that he didn't get the first down on that pitch to the short-side on 3rd and 4 (straight out of the Derrick Ward playbook) and that he didn't leak out of the backfield for an outlet pass on third down of the drive on which Tynes missed the 31-yard field goal.

Osi and Tuck: I wasn't as sold on this pair as Darryl Johnston, who was jocking them all game. But it did look like they were applying pressure pretty consistently for most of the game, the last drive notwithstanding. Tuck's injuries are a concern though. The guy is always getting nicked up in every conceivable place, and I'm not sure that's ever going to change.

**

What's not to like:

The defense: Obviously. But please indulge me as I offer a contrarian take:

There are two takes on the defense's performance:

1) Allowing the Falcons to basically go 9-for-10* on 3rd downs in the second half, coupled with the choking against the Chargers the week before, tells you that our defense can't come through in a big spot. (*I say basically because they Falcons picked up 11 yards on a 3rd and 12, which was not an unsuccessful play and therefore shouldn't be held against them.)

Or 2) The Falcons' performance on third down was a total fluke. If not for that fluke -- if Matty Ice grounds one pass, if one receiver slips coming out of his break, etc. -- our opinion of the defense would be completely different.

Coming into this game, we've actually been much better on 3rd down than 2nd or first, according to Football Outsiders advanced DVOA statistic, which adjusts for situation. (For instance, letting up a conversion on 3rd and 1 doesn't count as much against you as allowing one on 3rd and 14). Before the game, we ranked 4th in DVOA on 3rd down, 11th on 2nd down, and 20th on 1st down. But during the second half on Sunday, we allowed 3rd down conversions of 13, 10, 10 (on a penalty), and 10 yards. The only 3rd down conversion we prevented was on 3rd and 7. Allowing conversions on 4 out of 5 of these 3rd-and-longs is extremely rare. And judging by our numbers coming into this game, obviously isn't an inherent weakness to this team. To boot, the fact that we even got them in so many 3rd-and-longs shows that our defense outplayed them on a play-be-play basis during the second half. Yes, we kept on allowing difficult plays tat extended drives. But that wasn't the case before this game, and it's not likely to be the case after.

Bill Sheridan: All that statistical analysis doesn't explain away the last drive, during which the Falcons only converted on two 3rd downs of 4 and 3 yards. So whatever can be said about the previous drives in the second half -- that we actually outplayed them -- can't be said about the last drive. That makes two straight huge drives that our defense has folded when we needed them to step up. And that's on Sheridan.

The running game: Granted, the game-plan was predicated on the pass, but averaging 3.4 yards per carry against a mediocre rush defense lands you in this column. Another week has gone by in which the Giants didn't dominate up front. Those days seem like a distant memory, and maybe we should give up hope that they will ever return. Our reduced expectations for the pass rush and running game go a long way towards explaining why we're not an elite team right now.

Bradshaw: He's just getting way too cute. In the past, his shifty, herky-jerky running style was refreshing, and the moves he made were a sign of confidence. Now he looks unsure of himself. In my column two weeks ago, I diagnosed him with "Sinorice Moss Syndrome," a condition defined by getting frustrated with a mounting lack production and consequently always trying to make the perfect play rather than settling for the good play.

My podcast partner Dan is convinced Bradshaw's ineffectiveness stems from his ankle and foot injuries. But I'm not so sure. I haven't noticed any lack of explosiveness in Bradshaw, just a lot of bad decisions. Dan pointed out that maybe his injury isn't affecting his running directly, but having an indirect effect because of his lack of practice reps. It's a good point. Plaxico Burress notwithstanding, these guys practice for a reason.

Chris Canty and Rocky Bernard: They're getting paid a lot of money and haven't done anything yet between them (3 tackles between them yesterday). I'm calling them out.

Tynes: 1) He missed a 31-yard field goal, which is the third chip-shot he has missed this year; and 2) His weak kickoffs allowed the Falcons an average starting field positions after kickoffs of the 32.2 yard-line. I'm not positive where I read this*, but I think I once remember seeing that the average starting field position for an NFL team was around the 27.5 yard line. (*Honestly, I searched far and wide on the internet. If you see something, say something. Why was this stat so hard to find?) So if you take that 4.7 yards difference and multiply it by 5, you can say that Tynes cost us 23.5 yards on Sunday. That really isn't okay, but I'm not sure there's anything we can do about it.