The Giant Rat of Sumatra
is not endangered "Sundamys infraluteus is classified as lower risk-least concern by the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the world's most comprehensive inventory of the global conservation status of plant and animal species maintained by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources."
One reason that the news is so depressing, is that good news is no news. I mean hear is this fairly rare species with an important role in literature which, if it were threatened with extinction, you would read about often. There is no problem, hence no news.
Another issue is that this perfectly normal animal has a bit of a sinister reputation. Absurdly it has been presented as a possible plague bearer, even though, of course, only the brown or roof rat bears plague. I think this is related to "on being the right size" and "Uncanny valley."
To our prejudiced and blinkered minds rodents are supposed to be small and investment banks are supposed to be huge. So we end up with banks that our too big to fail and avoid rodents which are too big to kill with traps which won't hurt us. All I can say is that I would rather share the world with a billion giant rats of Sumatra than one Citibank. The rats would consume a lot, but nothing compared to the value destroyed by giant mutant banks.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Sunday, March 08, 2009
A Classic
(stolen in full)
Worst. Apocalypse. Ever.
Dan:
If civilization collapses over credit default swaps I am going to be pissed.
We don't even get zombies. Bummer.
-Thers 00:26
Comments (413)
(stolen in full)
Worst. Apocalypse. Ever.
Dan:
If civilization collapses over credit default swaps I am going to be pissed.
We don't even get zombies. Bummer.
-Thers 00:26
Comments (413)
Media Matters notes that the position that the recent stimulus bill was too small was almost completely excluded from the debate as mediated by network TV news.
Paul Krugman comments that his broadcast voice and image made up one of the three cases. Clearly he thinks the media should get out of his way (I agree).
The odd thing is that the majority of US resident adults has also been excluded.
I vaguely recalled reading at www.pollingreport.com that most people in a poll thought the stimulus plan was not large enough and that more would be needed.
The poll ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 19-22, 2009. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. is presented here http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm
then search for "more will be needed," the answer chosen by 63 % of 1,001 adults nationwide (hmm that would be 631 wouldn't it ?). The question pushed in your direction as the only two options offered were "will be enough" (20%) and "more will be needed" so your criticism of the stimulus was the only one on offer. People bound and determined to criticize the Democrats had to agree with you or volunteer an answer that was not offered by the pollster (will make worse 6% or will not do anything 3%).
Still, a view expressed by 63% of respondents in a poll, oh and a lot of economists too, has been excluded from the debate as presented by network TV.
Now I speculate as to why this happens. Clearly the main issue is ballance. Any position to the left of the Democrats must be excluded, because, if an excellent case can be made that the stimulus was too small, then the Republicans look like idiots. This is not the networks' fault, but they are not allowed to let that happen.
However, I think another issue is that journalist opinion leaders are deficit hawks. People with a deep sincere belief that the public doesn't care enough about the national debt (that is people like me) are likely to suppress evidence from public opinion that the public doesn't care much and to suppress views which tell the public that, right now, due to extraordinary circumstances, their lack of concern is reasonable.
I should add (it will be clear to anyone who clicks the link) that poll respondents express concern about the deficit and, if they are given the option, more say the plan is too big than say it is too small. The ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 19-22 not only has the unusual question discussed above, it also has unusual answers on, more or less, ordinary too big/too small questions. So it might have happened to have an unusual sample.
"In terms of tax cuts, do you think the stimulus package goes too far, does not go far enough, or is it about right?" gives 15% "too far", 33% "not far enough" and
""In terms of spending on construction projects and aid to states and individuals, do you think the stimulus package goes too far, does not go far enough, or is it about right?" gives 24% each for "too far" and "not far enough".
In other polls I've just glanced at more say "too big" than say "not big enough". Of course part of what is going on here is that people want lower taxes and higher spending on all named programs *and* a lower deficit. There are good reasons that responses on polls are not taken seriously as contributions to the debate.
However, this is just one more fact which fits the pattern Krugman, Atrios, and the masses against the self appointed media elite.
Summary: A Media Matters review of the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news programs from January 25 through February 15 found that of the 59 broadcasts that addressed the economic stimulus package and debate in Congress during the three-week period leading up to and immediately following its passage, only three of those broadcasts included discussion of whether that package was big enough, despite statements from many economists that it may not be.
Paul Krugman comments that his broadcast voice and image made up one of the three cases. Clearly he thinks the media should get out of his way (I agree).
The odd thing is that the majority of US resident adults has also been excluded.
I vaguely recalled reading at www.pollingreport.com that most people in a poll thought the stimulus plan was not large enough and that more would be needed.
The poll ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 19-22, 2009. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. is presented here http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm
then search for "more will be needed," the answer chosen by 63 % of 1,001 adults nationwide (hmm that would be 631 wouldn't it ?). The question pushed in your direction as the only two options offered were "will be enough" (20%) and "more will be needed" so your criticism of the stimulus was the only one on offer. People bound and determined to criticize the Democrats had to agree with you or volunteer an answer that was not offered by the pollster (will make worse 6% or will not do anything 3%).
Still, a view expressed by 63% of respondents in a poll, oh and a lot of economists too, has been excluded from the debate as presented by network TV.
Now I speculate as to why this happens. Clearly the main issue is ballance. Any position to the left of the Democrats must be excluded, because, if an excellent case can be made that the stimulus was too small, then the Republicans look like idiots. This is not the networks' fault, but they are not allowed to let that happen.
However, I think another issue is that journalist opinion leaders are deficit hawks. People with a deep sincere belief that the public doesn't care enough about the national debt (that is people like me) are likely to suppress evidence from public opinion that the public doesn't care much and to suppress views which tell the public that, right now, due to extraordinary circumstances, their lack of concern is reasonable.
I should add (it will be clear to anyone who clicks the link) that poll respondents express concern about the deficit and, if they are given the option, more say the plan is too big than say it is too small. The ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 19-22 not only has the unusual question discussed above, it also has unusual answers on, more or less, ordinary too big/too small questions. So it might have happened to have an unusual sample.
"In terms of tax cuts, do you think the stimulus package goes too far, does not go far enough, or is it about right?" gives 15% "too far", 33% "not far enough" and
""In terms of spending on construction projects and aid to states and individuals, do you think the stimulus package goes too far, does not go far enough, or is it about right?" gives 24% each for "too far" and "not far enough".
In other polls I've just glanced at more say "too big" than say "not big enough". Of course part of what is going on here is that people want lower taxes and higher spending on all named programs *and* a lower deficit. There are good reasons that responses on polls are not taken seriously as contributions to the debate.
However, this is just one more fact which fits the pattern Krugman, Atrios, and the masses against the self appointed media elite.
If not you who ? If not now when ? If not as a comment here how ?
Bruce Webb has left a new comment on your post "Homeless Man With Cell Phone Searching for someth...":
Alternative title -- "George Orwell Might Say."
Some decades ago, during the great depression, Orwell noted that poor people in his day didn't have access to necessities, but they did have access to luxuries. Said luxuries included Hollywood films and carryout junk food.
We've gotten used to the idea that people who watch actors on tv and eat in McDonald's aren't necessarily rich. Even the idiot conservatives among us will get used to the idea that people will cell phones aren't necessarily rich some time soon.
2nd alternative title:
When rdan finds out that you have been writing posts as comments here you're gonna be in trouble.
Bruce Webb has left a new comment on your post "Homeless Man With Cell Phone Searching for someth...":
Robert someone should write a post about the paradox of communication and content in the 21st century.
I am struck when watching footage from overseas whether that be Africa or Asia that cell phones are almost ubiquitous in even the poorest neighborhoods. And while I suspect they don't have the same data plan I have in my iPhone we are not that far away from a world where remote villages and slums don't have access to secure food supplies or clean water but via a solar powered communal TV and a crank up PC have access to information from around the world.
Europe has a project to put all of its greatest cultural resources online and many government and major research libraries are committed to getting as much of their collections online as well.
Is this heaven or hell? I mean it is somewhat hellish to think of some Sudanese kid orphaned by rebels and hoping that the UN aid people will return one day still being able to wander the virtual halls of the Louvre and browse the stacks at the L of C. On the other hand I am on the verge of selling my 2 BR condo (in which I live alone) with plans to move to a small studio. Because as long as I have access to high-speed internet, a microwave, and a refrigerator my needs are pretty much met.
Part of this is a desire to get a little more green and reduce my carbon footprint, but a lot of it is because I don't need to have eight book shelves double stacked with books anymore, or a record collection, or racks of floppy drives, or boxes of pictures, and I can save a bunch of green by not having to set aside living space for such things.
Given the economy I too might end up living out of my car, but one way or another I will still have access to the internet. We seem to be entering an era where all things are flipped. Once only the wealthy could afford fine art and books and travel, these days those may all the poor can afford going forwards (admittedly the travel being virtual).
Alternative title -- "George Orwell Might Say."
Some decades ago, during the great depression, Orwell noted that poor people in his day didn't have access to necessities, but they did have access to luxuries. Said luxuries included Hollywood films and carryout junk food.
We've gotten used to the idea that people who watch actors on tv and eat in McDonald's aren't necessarily rich. Even the idiot conservatives among us will get used to the idea that people will cell phones aren't necessarily rich some time soon.
2nd alternative title:
When rdan finds out that you have been writing posts as comments here you're gonna be in trouble.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Habeus Corpus Restored in the USA
McJoan explains
McJoan explains
The SCOTUS has vacated the 4th circuit court of appeals ruling which upheld the power of President George W. Bush to indefinitely detain Ali al-Marri, a legal resident in the U.S. on a student visa at the time of his arrest nearly six years ago. The court also dismissed the case as moot, per the Department of Justice request.
[snip]
That statement from the Justice Department's brief, that the government would accept having the 4th circuit ruling vacated, is key, and indicates that the Obama administration will not make the same extraordinary claims as its predecessor to the right to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens and lawful residents as enemy combatants without charges or trial. While it would have been preferable to have the Supreme Court rule definitively on this claim of executive power, it is no longer a binding precedent.
Wish I'd said that.
Jonathan Zasloff notes the faults of people who discuss the middle east
Jonathan Zasloff notes the faults of people who discuss the middle east
If you write or talk about the Middle East conflict, prepare to be insulted. You're a racist, anti-Semite, colonialist, imperialist, terrorist sympathizer who draws dangerous moral equivalences in service of brutal US hegemony. Now that you've gotten that into your head, just say what you are going to say and have done with it.
Homeless Man With Cell Phone
What homeless people have cell phones !?!?! Why don't they use fixed phones in their residences. Oh they don't have fixed residences.
But I mean why would a homeless person want a phone. Can't they just go get a job. You know when the guy says "Don't call us we'll call you" tell him to call a homeless shelter. Employers love to call homeless shelters to hire people.
It's very hard to live without a phone in the USA. Cell phones cost roughly nothing. Calling people with cell phones costs money, but, you know an SMS when one is late to an appointment, because the bus didn't come on time, costs very little. Receiving calls on a cell phone costs nothing.
All the poorish people I know (none of whom is homeless) save money by not having a fixed phone and relying on cell phones. They used to be a status symbol (really they were a status symbol once kids). Now they are, if anything, the opposite.
Of course *my* cell phone doesn't have a camera. A cell phone with a camera. Now that is tooo much.
Via atrios.
Update: I assumed that bit by TBogg about "phone bills delivered" was a joke, that is, I commented on Malcom's blog post without reading it (by bad). Now I find it ends as follows
I am honestly dumfounded by Malcolm's ignorance. I have a cell phone. I don't get cell phone bills. it is a prepaid cell phone. I pay in advance (at an ATM or using, you guessed it, a cell phone). This means that Malcolm is not only ignorant about the homeless, he is also ignorant about anti-terrorism policy, FISA and NSA surveillance.
The geniuses who can identify an al Qaeda sleeper agent with only a tiny amount of data on known al Qaeda sleeper agents (as in less than 10 are known) tend to be secretive about their techniques (partly so al Qaeda doesn't know, partly because they were grossly illegal, and, probably, mostly because they were nonsensical). They do however, discuss pre-paid cell phones a lot. No bill, no address, no need to have a record of the customer's name for the system to work (although I'm sure the customer's name is supposed to be recorded somewhere).
I mean has he been hiding in a cave as long as Osama bin Laden. I *hate* cell phones and even I know that you don't need an address where they can send the bill to use a cell phone.
Searching for something (anything) to bitch about when it comes to the Obama's, Andrew Malcolm seizes on Michelle Obama serving food at a homeless shelter in order to point out that some filthy homeless person is taking a picture of the First Lady with a cellphone. Blissfully unaware of cheap disposable cellphones that can be purchased anywhere, Malcolm wonders where the disgusting parasitic poor have their phone bills delivered.
What homeless people have cell phones !?!?! Why don't they use fixed phones in their residences. Oh they don't have fixed residences.
But I mean why would a homeless person want a phone. Can't they just go get a job. You know when the guy says "Don't call us we'll call you" tell him to call a homeless shelter. Employers love to call homeless shelters to hire people.
It's very hard to live without a phone in the USA. Cell phones cost roughly nothing. Calling people with cell phones costs money, but, you know an SMS when one is late to an appointment, because the bus didn't come on time, costs very little. Receiving calls on a cell phone costs nothing.
All the poorish people I know (none of whom is homeless) save money by not having a fixed phone and relying on cell phones. They used to be a status symbol (really they were a status symbol once kids). Now they are, if anything, the opposite.
Of course *my* cell phone doesn't have a camera. A cell phone with a camera. Now that is tooo much.
Via atrios.
Update: I assumed that bit by TBogg about "phone bills delivered" was a joke, that is, I commented on Malcom's blog post without reading it (by bad). Now I find it ends as follows
And if he is homeless, where do they send the cellphone bills?
-- Andrew Malcolm
I am honestly dumfounded by Malcolm's ignorance. I have a cell phone. I don't get cell phone bills. it is a prepaid cell phone. I pay in advance (at an ATM or using, you guessed it, a cell phone). This means that Malcolm is not only ignorant about the homeless, he is also ignorant about anti-terrorism policy, FISA and NSA surveillance.
The geniuses who can identify an al Qaeda sleeper agent with only a tiny amount of data on known al Qaeda sleeper agents (as in less than 10 are known) tend to be secretive about their techniques (partly so al Qaeda doesn't know, partly because they were grossly illegal, and, probably, mostly because they were nonsensical). They do however, discuss pre-paid cell phones a lot. No bill, no address, no need to have a record of the customer's name for the system to work (although I'm sure the customer's name is supposed to be recorded somewhere).
I mean has he been hiding in a cave as long as Osama bin Laden. I *hate* cell phones and even I know that you don't need an address where they can send the bill to use a cell phone.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Polling Arithmetic
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Feb. 26-March 1, 2009. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (for all adults).
"When it comes to the partisanship that goes on in Washington, how much blame for this situation do you feel that [see below] deserve(s): almost all the blame, a major part of the blame, at least half the blame, a minor part of the blame, or almost none of the blame?" 2/26 - 3/1/09
Almost All A MajorPart At LeastHalf A MinorPart AlmostNone
"The Bush administration"
33 23 25 13 5
"Republicans in Congress"
17 24 42 12 3
"Democrats in Congress"
9 15 45 20 8
"The Obama administration"
4 7 15 25 43
OK so "almost all" and "a major part" are presented as more than "at least half"
This means that there is quite a lot of blame to share around. I mean more than all of it.
The total blame to be shared is definitely more than half of the blame times the sum of shares to the 4 possibly blameworthy entities. That adds up to more than 2.83 halves of the blame so more than 141.5% of the blame.
Thats a large share of the blame no ?
Ah numbers, can't live with them, can't live without them.
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Feb. 26-March 1, 2009. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (for all adults).
"When it comes to the partisanship that goes on in Washington, how much blame for this situation do you feel that [see below] deserve(s): almost all the blame, a major part of the blame, at least half the blame, a minor part of the blame, or almost none of the blame?" 2/26 - 3/1/09
Almost All A MajorPart At LeastHalf A MinorPart AlmostNone
"The Bush administration"
33 23 25 13 5
"Republicans in Congress"
17 24 42 12 3
"Democrats in Congress"
9 15 45 20 8
"The Obama administration"
4 7 15 25 43
OK so "almost all" and "a major part" are presented as more than "at least half"
This means that there is quite a lot of blame to share around. I mean more than all of it.
The total blame to be shared is definitely more than half of the blame times the sum of shares to the 4 possibly blameworthy entities. That adds up to more than 2.83 halves of the blame so more than 141.5% of the blame.
Thats a large share of the blame no ?
Ah numbers, can't live with them, can't live without them.
Ndank ndank mooy japp golo ci naay
March 2 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama’s economic advisers are increasingly concerned about the U.S. Senate’s delay in confirming the nominations of Austan Goolsbee and Cecilia Rouse to the White House Council of Economic Advisers.
I remember when Ceci Rouse spent a year or so in Senegal and came back with a phrase that was much used by Harvard economics PhD candidates wondering if they would ever get the 3 letters after their name.
It means "slowly one catches the monkey in the bush." and means if you try and try you'll succeed at last.
Hang in there Ceci.
Alternative title for this post "Austan we have a problem."
March 2 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama’s economic advisers are increasingly concerned about the U.S. Senate’s delay in confirming the nominations of Austan Goolsbee and Cecilia Rouse to the White House Council of Economic Advisers.
I remember when Ceci Rouse spent a year or so in Senegal and came back with a phrase that was much used by Harvard economics PhD candidates wondering if they would ever get the 3 letters after their name.
It means "slowly one catches the monkey in the bush." and means if you try and try you'll succeed at last.
Hang in there Ceci.
Alternative title for this post "Austan we have a problem."
Lesser Flees Upon Rush's Back to Bite Him
Rush Limbaugh has moved from just another Republican to the Republican boss man by staking out the ground as Obama's most intemperate opponent. The key move is saying he hopes Obama will fail. That is terrible politics, but he's not a politician. Democratic political strategists like James Carville ("its the stupidity stupid") know that Limbaugh gave them a perfect weapon to use against the Republican party. Democrats used it, of course, prominently including the whole communications staff of the Obama administration. Thus Limbaugh became the number one Republican. Republican elected officials must hate him, but they don't dare criticize him. By going too far and playing into Obama's hands he has become Obama's favorite anti-Obama.
Hmmm. Two can play that game. A Republican who needs attention can be The One Republican Who Dares Criticize Limbaugh. Not a better position than Congressman, Senator or RNC chairman in the good graces of the party, but much better that "who ? .... Oh yeah I remember he had something to do with the "Axis of Evil" ... Oh yeah he had a lot to do with "Axis"."
David Frum seems to be aiming to be Rush's Rush.
Via Brad DeLong
p.s. I agree with everything Frum says and just criticize him, because I suspect his motives without direct evidence.
Rush Limbaugh has moved from just another Republican to the Republican boss man by staking out the ground as Obama's most intemperate opponent. The key move is saying he hopes Obama will fail. That is terrible politics, but he's not a politician. Democratic political strategists like James Carville ("its the stupidity stupid") know that Limbaugh gave them a perfect weapon to use against the Republican party. Democrats used it, of course, prominently including the whole communications staff of the Obama administration. Thus Limbaugh became the number one Republican. Republican elected officials must hate him, but they don't dare criticize him. By going too far and playing into Obama's hands he has become Obama's favorite anti-Obama.
Hmmm. Two can play that game. A Republican who needs attention can be The One Republican Who Dares Criticize Limbaugh. Not a better position than Congressman, Senator or RNC chairman in the good graces of the party, but much better that "who ? .... Oh yeah I remember he had something to do with the "Axis of Evil" ... Oh yeah he had a lot to do with "Axis"."
David Frum seems to be aiming to be Rush's Rush.
Via Brad DeLong
p.s. I agree with everything Frum says and just criticize him, because I suspect his motives without direct evidence.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Can't Help Myself from Dumping on Washington Post Ombudsman Andrew Alexander and on George Will
This is a teeny tiny point. It appears that he changed a column in a way that made it a tiny bit more difficult for readers to check something for themselves.
Brad DeLong quoted him as writing
Now the column reads
The url is not presented after the word "citation." Actually I guess Brad could have added the url (he's too busy right now to answer if I ask). The column doesn't contain the url. It does contain a link to the University of Illinois Arctic Climate Research Center home page.
Brad DeLong is not the only person who has expressed the suspicion that Alexander wrote his first piece defending Will without clicking the link. I too have that suspicion. It seems possible to me that after reading the pdf, Alexander decided that it contradicted Will's claim. It seems possible that after putting the link into his column, he decided to make it a bit more difficult for readers to check for themselves, because his earlier interpretation and that of "editors" is so absurd.
Not that it matters much.
In Will's second column he acknowledges that the source of his contested claim was not the University of Illinois Arctic Climate Research Center (UIACRC) but rather a blog.
He wrote "Citing data from the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, as interpreted on Jan. 1 by Daily Tech, a technology and science news blog, the column said that since September"
Without noting that this confession implies that he committed a gross journalistic error in his first column when he wrote "According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979."
He says the claim about the UIACRC in a blog justifies his asserting the claim as fact. The claim is not just that "global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979" (which is false) but also that the UIACRC said or wrote that they are. The correct sentence would read "According to the blog Daily Tech, a technology and science news blog, the UIACRC found that global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979." The UIACRC officially denies that they found, or reported or said or wrote any such thing. Will made a claim of fact about the UIACRC based on a blog and didn't say he was assuming that what he read on some blog must be true.
In his second column printed Feb 27he wrote "The center generally does not make its statistics available, but in a Jan. 12 statement the center confirmed that global sea ice levels were within a difference of less than 3 percent of the 1980 level."
As if it confirmed his claim that "According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979".
Then astonishingly Will wrote in his Feb 27 column.
"So the column accurately reported what the center had reported. "
Huh ? -2% = 0 ??? That's a good bit of reduction in ice in 29 years. If he had described the area in multiples of say the size of Delaware (or California for that matter) even he wouldn't have the nerve to call that confirmation.
Also importantly Will didn't claim that he knew about the Jan 12 statement (presumably the pdf) when he wrote his original column, that is he confesses that he operated on the assumption that, if something is written on a blog it must be true and can be stated in his own voice as fact.
Obviously George Will thinks mere facts are beneath him. Alarmingly Fred Hiatt seems to agree that mere facts are beneath George Will.
This is a teeny tiny point. It appears that he changed a column in a way that made it a tiny bit more difficult for readers to check something for themselves.
Brad DeLong quoted him as writing
The editors who checked the Arctic Research Climate Center Web site believe it did not, on balance, run counter to Will's assertion that global sea ice levels "now equal those of 1979." I reviewed the same Web citation http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/global.sea.ice.area.pdf and reached a different conclusion.
Now the column reads
The editors who checked the Arctic Research Climate Center Web site believe it did not, on balance, run counter to Will's assertion that global sea ice levels "now equal those of 1979." I reviewed the same Web citation and reached a different conclusion.
The url is not presented after the word "citation." Actually I guess Brad could have added the url (he's too busy right now to answer if I ask). The column doesn't contain the url. It does contain a link to the University of Illinois Arctic Climate Research Center home page.
Brad DeLong is not the only person who has expressed the suspicion that Alexander wrote his first piece defending Will without clicking the link. I too have that suspicion. It seems possible to me that after reading the pdf, Alexander decided that it contradicted Will's claim. It seems possible that after putting the link into his column, he decided to make it a bit more difficult for readers to check for themselves, because his earlier interpretation and that of "editors" is so absurd.
Not that it matters much.
In Will's second column he acknowledges that the source of his contested claim was not the University of Illinois Arctic Climate Research Center (UIACRC) but rather a blog.
He wrote "Citing data from the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, as interpreted on Jan. 1 by Daily Tech, a technology and science news blog, the column said that since September"
Without noting that this confession implies that he committed a gross journalistic error in his first column when he wrote "According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979."
He says the claim about the UIACRC in a blog justifies his asserting the claim as fact. The claim is not just that "global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979" (which is false) but also that the UIACRC said or wrote that they are. The correct sentence would read "According to the blog Daily Tech, a technology and science news blog, the UIACRC found that global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979." The UIACRC officially denies that they found, or reported or said or wrote any such thing. Will made a claim of fact about the UIACRC based on a blog and didn't say he was assuming that what he read on some blog must be true.
In his second column printed Feb 27he wrote "The center generally does not make its statistics available, but in a Jan. 12 statement the center confirmed that global sea ice levels were within a difference of less than 3 percent of the 1980 level."
As if it confirmed his claim that "According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979".
Then astonishingly Will wrote in his Feb 27 column.
"So the column accurately reported what the center had reported. "
Huh ? -2% = 0 ??? That's a good bit of reduction in ice in 29 years. If he had described the area in multiples of say the size of Delaware (or California for that matter) even he wouldn't have the nerve to call that confirmation.
Also importantly Will didn't claim that he knew about the Jan 12 statement (presumably the pdf) when he wrote his original column, that is he confesses that he operated on the assumption that, if something is written on a blog it must be true and can be stated in his own voice as fact.
Obviously George Will thinks mere facts are beneath him. Alarmingly Fred Hiatt seems to agree that mere facts are beneath George Will.
Governor Tim Pawlenty Violates the Constitution
He said
Now you might think that such a declaration was protected by the first amendment. However, the first amendment wasn't the last amendment and it was partially repealed by the 14th amendment which includes the following clause
Since July 9, 1868*, the US has not had freedom of speech. You can say anything except you can't question the validity of the pubic debt of the United States.
The 14th amendment does not propose sanctions for violation of the "validity of the public debt ... shall not be questioned clause.
Also Pawlenty is such a fool. US public debt sold at what is very likely to be the highest price debt ever has had. 1 month T-bills sold for more than their face value implying a negative interest rate. I know he is making predictions for the long run, but his predictions are crazy.
* update: highly embarrassing typo corrected thanks to anonymous in comments.
He said
Secretary of State Clinton, in China about a week ago, [was] publicly pleading with the Chinese to buy our debt, because the federal government is now so reliant on debt financing that the point at which China or sovereign wealth funds or others discontinue buying the federal debt, the house of cards they have constructed in Washington DC comes tumbling down. They're going to have the government debt equivalent, some years from now, of today's mortgage crisis, in my opinion.
Now you might think that such a declaration was protected by the first amendment. However, the first amendment wasn't the last amendment and it was partially repealed by the 14th amendment which includes the following clause
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
[skip]
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
[skip]
Since July 9, 1868*, the US has not had freedom of speech. You can say anything except you can't question the validity of the pubic debt of the United States.
The 14th amendment does not propose sanctions for violation of the "validity of the public debt ... shall not be questioned clause.
Also Pawlenty is such a fool. US public debt sold at what is very likely to be the highest price debt ever has had. 1 month T-bills sold for more than their face value implying a negative interest rate. I know he is making predictions for the long run, but his predictions are crazy.
* update: highly embarrassing typo corrected thanks to anonymous in comments.
Matt Yglesias asks for "better finance policy and more effective international coordination of anti-recession efforts."
Quite frankly I don’t think “coordination” is the right word European governments and the ECB are acting as if the recession is no big deal. They are willing to stimulate so long as it doesn’t cause budget deficits. That is they are totally confused or trapped by ideology or … well it doesn’t matter much. Obama needs to light a fire under them.
Now I know the idea was to be all internationalist and respectful and stuff, but he can’t let the world fall into a depression because the alternative would be to be rude.
Now how can this fire be lit under them ? I think the appropriate agency of the US gov is it’s AIG division which is sending tons of money to European banks. That is currently the US Treasury is sending tons of money to European banks. The Treasury has a limited liability stake in AIG. Beggars can’t be choosers and sometimes neither can ceditors.
I think that Obama has to say to Trichet, Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown and Berlusconi “nice banking system you have over there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it.”
Quite frankly I don’t think “coordination” is the right word European governments and the ECB are acting as if the recession is no big deal. They are willing to stimulate so long as it doesn’t cause budget deficits. That is they are totally confused or trapped by ideology or … well it doesn’t matter much. Obama needs to light a fire under them.
Now I know the idea was to be all internationalist and respectful and stuff, but he can’t let the world fall into a depression because the alternative would be to be rude.
Now how can this fire be lit under them ? I think the appropriate agency of the US gov is it’s AIG division which is sending tons of money to European banks. That is currently the US Treasury is sending tons of money to European banks. The Treasury has a limited liability stake in AIG. Beggars can’t be choosers and sometimes neither can ceditors.
I think that Obama has to say to Trichet, Merkel, Sarkozy, Brown and Berlusconi “nice banking system you have over there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it.”
How to get EFCA passed
This post is going to be extraordinarily confused even for me.
Update: However, a well argued version of this post has been written by Ezra Klein
concluding line "Crime should not be tolerated. Not even when it's against labor unions."
The trigger was the strange fact that health insurance companies are lobbying for universal health insurance(the H. Clinton, Edwards, Baucus approach not that of the Obama campaign). I suspect Obama was lucky, but his proposal, designed to support health care reform and help him win the presidencey, turns out to be an excellent bargaining position for scaring health insurance companies. The Obama (campaign) plan offers only nice things to consumers. The problem is that it will create a huge free rider problem which could bankrupt the health insurance companies. The prospect scares them so much that thjey might leave Harold and Louise in undisturbed retirement.
So can this approach be applied to other problems ? The EFCA would allow workers to recognise a union as their exclusive bargaining agent by petition basically. The current system requires a vote scheduled in effect by the company and normally preceded by illegal but effective efforts to intimidate workers. EFCA is very controversial. It might be less controversial if the alternative really scared managers.
So what a good threat ? It doesn't have to be reasonable policy. It might be a bluff really like the campaigns health care proposal. So I thought and thought and came up with a really crazy idea
How about enforcing the existing law ? How about taking depositions under oath from managers who have obviously broken it, reminding them that perjury is a felony before they sign ?
The fact is that there is a law which is almost always violated. This makes actually applying the law seem like a policy innovation and a radical one at that.
So thinking about the possibility of actually enforcing laws, I notice that the routine violation of the Wagner act (with the effective permission of the National Labor Relations Board which is slowww and imposes absurdly mild penalties) is just one example of the Bush administrations utter contempt for the law.
The SEC is an even more extreme example. It's policy was that regulations were a problem so the SEC should help corporations free themselves from them. Harvey Pitt was a classic case of a fox guarding the chicken coop.
I personally associate the crimes committed by the Bush administration with their support of private lawbreaking.
I'd say the threat is to treat violations of the Wagner act as uhm violations of the law which lead to investigations in which people are sworn in and in which the cover up can be much more severely punished than thecrime illegal act.
update: Of course Obama is way ahead of me on this
oh yeah executive orders about federal contracts, like, you know the introduction of affirmative action (by Johnson's executive order not the 64 civil rights act)
This post is going to be extraordinarily confused even for me.
Update: However, a well argued version of this post has been written by Ezra Klein
concluding line "Crime should not be tolerated. Not even when it's against labor unions."
The trigger was the strange fact that health insurance companies are lobbying for universal health insurance(the H. Clinton, Edwards, Baucus approach not that of the Obama campaign). I suspect Obama was lucky, but his proposal, designed to support health care reform and help him win the presidencey, turns out to be an excellent bargaining position for scaring health insurance companies. The Obama (campaign) plan offers only nice things to consumers. The problem is that it will create a huge free rider problem which could bankrupt the health insurance companies. The prospect scares them so much that thjey might leave Harold and Louise in undisturbed retirement.
So can this approach be applied to other problems ? The EFCA would allow workers to recognise a union as their exclusive bargaining agent by petition basically. The current system requires a vote scheduled in effect by the company and normally preceded by illegal but effective efforts to intimidate workers. EFCA is very controversial. It might be less controversial if the alternative really scared managers.
So what a good threat ? It doesn't have to be reasonable policy. It might be a bluff really like the campaigns health care proposal. So I thought and thought and came up with a really crazy idea
How about enforcing the existing law ? How about taking depositions under oath from managers who have obviously broken it, reminding them that perjury is a felony before they sign ?
The fact is that there is a law which is almost always violated. This makes actually applying the law seem like a policy innovation and a radical one at that.
So thinking about the possibility of actually enforcing laws, I notice that the routine violation of the Wagner act (with the effective permission of the National Labor Relations Board which is slowww and imposes absurdly mild penalties) is just one example of the Bush administrations utter contempt for the law.
The SEC is an even more extreme example. It's policy was that regulations were a problem so the SEC should help corporations free themselves from them. Harvey Pitt was a classic case of a fox guarding the chicken coop.
I personally associate the crimes committed by the Bush administration with their support of private lawbreaking.
I'd say the threat is to treat violations of the Wagner act as uhm violations of the law which lead to investigations in which people are sworn in and in which the cover up can be much more severely punished than the
update: Of course Obama is way ahead of me on this
Within days of taking office Jan. 20, Obama signed three orders to bolster unions and workers' rights. The first will prevent taxpayer funds from being used to reimburse federal contractors who spend money to impede workers from organizing.
A second requires federal contractors to inform employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, and third was aimed at ensuring that qualified workers kept their jobs even when a federal contract changed hands.
oh yeah executive orders about federal contracts, like, you know the introduction of affirmative action (by Johnson's executive order not the 64 civil rights act)
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Stipulated
Atrios Writes
Jonah Goldberg writes
via thinkprogress.
Atrios must be clairvoyant.
I assume Mr Goldberg meant "Well, given what Obama wants to do, I too hope he fails."
Atrios Writes
If I hadn't spent the day watching CNBC it's possible I would have the energy to see if Jonah Goldberg said anything stupid today. Presumably he did, and presumably we could make fun of it. Let's just stipulate that and move on.
Jonah Goldberg writes
Well, given what Obama wants to do, I hope he fails too.
via thinkprogress.
Atrios must be clairvoyant.
I assume Mr Goldberg meant "Well, given what Obama wants to do, I too hope he fails."
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Wish I'd said that
I do run regressions, and I'll report some of these on occasion. But it's a misconception to think that simple comparisons are meaningless or that regression analysis is always necessary. One thing sophistication can give you is an appreciation for the simple things in life. -- Andrew at 538.com
Oh and read the whole thing.
I do run regressions, and I'll report some of these on occasion. But it's a misconception to think that simple comparisons are meaningless or that regression analysis is always necessary. One thing sophistication can give you is an appreciation for the simple things in life. -- Andrew at 538.com
Oh and read the whole thing.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Brad DeLong contrasts the articles on Accountability Now by Same Stein and Jim Rutenberg in a post entitled "Trying to Reduce the Power of K Street."
What is Accountability Now ? Ask Stein
Rutenberg concludes
"The new organization is in many ways the liberal equivalent of the Club for Growth,"
Brad Speculates "I think this is because Rutenberg likes incumbents because he has lunch with them."
I comment.
Yes that makes sense. There is a web based movement featuring two liberal bloggers and so we can assume that an unbiased story won't come from the dead tree establishment MSM where they practically are lobbyists and crooked congressmen but from an unbiased neutral liberal web journal.
Brad, you are inviting parody. The most obvious interpretation of the difference between the slants of Stein's and Rutenberg's articles is that Stein is friendly with Hampshire, Greenwald, move on and that guy Hauser who I don't read every day.
Let's see if I can criticize DeLong as you criticize Rutenberg.
" Brad DeLong's post on accountability Now's plan to support primary challengers against, among others, Democratic congressmen who are to the right of their consitituents is entitled "Trying to reduce the power of K Street." You may not know this but all US conservatives and centrists are on K-street which is very long and has paved over most of Utah.
There is no need to argue that the only reason anyone has views to the right of Hampshire is that he or she is bought off by K-Street. Ipsit quos loqueter or whatever (DeLong likes to toss in a bit of Latin but he has an unfair advantage cause he actually knows what it means).
For example, Brad himself is clearly to the right of Hampshire and even tolerates the evil Larry Summers and, gasp, once said that his choice for President was a banker -- Robert Rubin. This is explained by the fact that the evil banker Robert Rubin once bought him a coffee with extra cream and sugar at the Treasury caffeteria."
-Robert Rutenberg
Back to being me. There are reasons other than corruption which cause people to vote in ways displeasing to Hampshire and Greenwald. Also, they do not condemn the motives of the people they plan to challenge. Knowing they can't tell, they just say they will go by the numbers. Sincere conservatives representing liberal districts can't be distinguished from the tools of K-street. St Peter may or may not have to decide if the targets of accountability now were sincere, but sensible people don't try to read minds.
Now I personally have an objection to Rutenberg who wrote "But it also illuminates a deepening wrinkle for President Obama, whose attempt to build a broad governing coalition — often by tempering some of his more liberal previous positions — has already angered some of his supporters on the left." identifying "liberal" and "on the left." The liberal positions in question are liberal in the sense that Locke, Mill, DeLong, Hayek and Greenwald are liberals.
It appears that only the left thinks that the President is not above the law, that alleged crimes should be investigated if there is overwhelming evidence that the law was broken, that the state secrets privilege (which is not mentioned in the constitution) can be used to refuse to hand over subpoenaed evidence but not to force judges to dismiss cases, that the US can't grab people anywhere in the world (except the USA? I should wait to find out, but it looks like people arrested in the USA have habeas corpus rights again) based on executive fiat and hold them forever without trial and, of course, that the people must nationalize the means of production and grind the rich into hamburger (the last follows logically).
I consider myself a leftist, but I would never dream of claiming that the concept of the rule of law is our exclusivepatremony parentemony.
Now are these the issues Rutenberg had in mind ? Well he referred to an organizatino of which Glenn Greewald and Jane Hampshire are leaders so he should have had them in mind.
I'd guess that the problem with Rutenberg isn't just that he is an insider and eats lunch with insiders (like Brad I guess that is part of the problem) but that he has decided that it would be improper for him to have any views on the merits of positions taken on the issues and, therefore, seems to have decided that it would be improper for him to keep the issues debate in his mind when he writes about politics as team sport and/or celebrity culture.
Atrios also claims that the Stein article is much more accurate. He doesn't speculate as to the role of lunches with incumbent congressmen.
Oh this is embarassing. I went over to Glenn Greenwald's blog looking for his criticisms of Obama from the far left where Hayek meets Orwell and read
I liked the Stein article too and I consider Greenwald to be the Orwell of our times.
I just donated $25 to Accountability Now here.
What is Accountability Now ? Ask Stein
Some of the most prominent names in progressive politics launched a major new organization on Thursday dedicated to pinpointing and aiding primary challenges against incumbent Democrats who are viewed as acting against their constituents' interests... it will actively target, raise funds, poll and campaign for primary challengers to members who are either ethically or politically out-of-touch with their voters
Rutenberg concludes
"The new organization is in many ways the liberal equivalent of the Club for Growth,"
Brad Speculates "I think this is because Rutenberg likes incumbents because he has lunch with them."
I comment.
Yes that makes sense. There is a web based movement featuring two liberal bloggers and so we can assume that an unbiased story won't come from the dead tree establishment MSM where they practically are lobbyists and crooked congressmen but from an unbiased neutral liberal web journal.
Brad, you are inviting parody. The most obvious interpretation of the difference between the slants of Stein's and Rutenberg's articles is that Stein is friendly with Hampshire, Greenwald, move on and that guy Hauser who I don't read every day.
Let's see if I can criticize DeLong as you criticize Rutenberg.
" Brad DeLong's post on accountability Now's plan to support primary challengers against, among others, Democratic congressmen who are to the right of their consitituents is entitled "Trying to reduce the power of K Street." You may not know this but all US conservatives and centrists are on K-street which is very long and has paved over most of Utah.
There is no need to argue that the only reason anyone has views to the right of Hampshire is that he or she is bought off by K-Street. Ipsit quos loqueter or whatever (DeLong likes to toss in a bit of Latin but he has an unfair advantage cause he actually knows what it means).
For example, Brad himself is clearly to the right of Hampshire and even tolerates the evil Larry Summers and, gasp, once said that his choice for President was a banker -- Robert Rubin. This is explained by the fact that the evil banker Robert Rubin once bought him a coffee
-Robert Rutenberg
Back to being me. There are reasons other than corruption which cause people to vote in ways displeasing to Hampshire and Greenwald. Also, they do not condemn the motives of the people they plan to challenge. Knowing they can't tell, they just say they will go by the numbers. Sincere conservatives representing liberal districts can't be distinguished from the tools of K-street. St Peter may or may not have to decide if the targets of accountability now were sincere, but sensible people don't try to read minds.
Now I personally have an objection to Rutenberg who wrote "But it also illuminates a deepening wrinkle for President Obama, whose attempt to build a broad governing coalition — often by tempering some of his more liberal previous positions — has already angered some of his supporters on the left." identifying "liberal" and "on the left." The liberal positions in question are liberal in the sense that Locke, Mill, DeLong, Hayek and Greenwald are liberals.
It appears that only the left thinks that the President is not above the law, that alleged crimes should be investigated if there is overwhelming evidence that the law was broken, that the state secrets privilege (which is not mentioned in the constitution) can be used to refuse to hand over subpoenaed evidence but not to force judges to dismiss cases, that the US can't grab people anywhere in the world (except the USA? I should wait to find out, but it looks like people arrested in the USA have habeas corpus rights again) based on executive fiat and hold them forever without trial and, of course, that the people must nationalize the means of production and grind the rich into hamburger (the last follows logically).
I consider myself a leftist, but I would never dream of claiming that the concept of the rule of law is our exclusive
Now are these the issues Rutenberg had in mind ? Well he referred to an organizatino of which Glenn Greewald and Jane Hampshire are leaders so he should have had them in mind.
I'd guess that the problem with Rutenberg isn't just that he is an insider and eats lunch with insiders (like Brad I guess that is part of the problem) but that he has decided that it would be improper for him to have any views on the merits of positions taken on the issues and, therefore, seems to have decided that it would be improper for him to keep the issues debate in his mind when he writes about politics as team sport and/or celebrity culture.
Atrios also claims that the Stein article is much more accurate. He doesn't speculate as to the role of lunches with incumbent congressmen.
Oh this is embarassing. I went over to Glenn Greenwald's blog looking for his criticisms of Obama from the far left where Hayek meets Orwell and read
UPDATE II: On an unrelated note, The New York Times today has an article on the launch of Accountability Now. As is always true with articles of this sort, one cannot control how the message is conveyed. There are many terms employed by the article ("liberal" and "left" and "progressive" and "centrist") that aren't accurate in terms of describing the central goal of the organization, but, for purposes of an article like that, the basic theme is correct enough.
I liked the Stein article too and I consider Greenwald to be the Orwell of our times.
I just donated $25 to Accountability Now here.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The Jet Set
Newt Gingrich just can't get over his obsession with airplanes. About 23 hours ago, he complained that Nancy Pelosi is flying in a government jet.
Yes I know it hurts Newt but you aren't speaker anymore.
This is the man who, according to Tom DeLay in his book "No Retreat No Surrender", "told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One."
Yep the man cares about planes. Also he has seen the border of bizarre from the other side.
It's really sad. I propose we give Newt a ride in the Speaker's jet to help him get over his obsession.
Newt Gingrich just can't get over his obsession with airplanes. About 23 hours ago, he complained that Nancy Pelosi is flying in a government jet.
Speaker Pelosi standing up to applaud the private jet line while she flies around in a government jet at taxpayer expense verges on bizarre
Yes I know it hurts Newt but you aren't speaker anymore.
This is the man who, according to Tom DeLay in his book "No Retreat No Surrender", "told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One."
Yep the man cares about planes. Also he has seen the border of bizarre from the other side.
It's really sad. I propose we give Newt a ride in the Speaker's jet to help him get over his obsession.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)