It’s refreshing to have someone ask about the data before they write about it.--Bill Chapman of the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research CenterReported by Carl Zimmer in his Discover blog.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
This sucks. Hmmm, maybe they're the other kind of Hoovers after all.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
A President who was a progressive firebrand would have to declare himself emperor to implement progressive policies in a country where the majority of the Senate is conservative and the Democratic House leadership is also conservative. Progressives now need to focus on Congress: on electing more progressive Senators, and on getting the House Democratic leadership to properly represent the progressive House Democratic majority. It begins to appear that Pelosi has noticed she represents one of the most progressive districts in the USA. Good, that's a start, but let's keep pushing. But, the Senate. The Senate is a problem. We need to focus on the Senate for 2010 (and 2012 and 2014 and...)
What is this? Hope from The Raven? But yes! Krawkkrawkkrawk! W. Bush and his administration were barriers to change. They are gone, and now there is a clear direction for progressive political action. Krawk!
Sunday, February 15, 2009
My first cut says that the changes to the Senate bill will ensure that we have at least 600,000 fewer Americans employed over the next two years.--Krugman, "What the Centrists Have Wrought"Remember, that's just the cuts from a bill that was too small to begin with. The total difference in jobs between doing enough and not doing enough has to be in the millions.
Here's Krugman on the amount of the stimulus:
what’s coming out of the current deliberations is really, really inadequate. I’ve gone through the CBO numbers a bit more carefully; they’re projecting a $2.9 trillion shortfall over the next three years. There’s just no way $780 billion, much of it used unproductively, will do the job."--Krugman, "Happy Stan"Extra bonus snark, on the banking plan:
Question: what happens if you lose vast amounts of other people’s money? Answer: you get a big gift from the federal government — but the president says some very harsh things about you before forking over the cash.--Krugman, "Bailouts for Bunglers"
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
"In a closely watched case involving rendition and torture, a lawyer for the Obama administration seemed to surprise a panel of federal appeals judges on Monday by pressing ahead with an argument for preserving state secrets originally developed by the Bush administration. [NYT]
The Raven is likewise astonished. One may reasonably explain the better-than-nothing stimulus plan by pointing to the conservative majority in the Senate, and perhaps even Geithner's rumored no-oversight gift to the corrupt banks as well. But actions of the Justice Department are entirely actions of the Executive, and there is no door other than the nation's Chief Executive at which they may be set. Now, it is possible that this is strategy: that the Justice Department intends to lose this case. But if that is so, it's a very risky strategy. What if a conservative court grants the defense?
But, croaks the Raven, I don't think that where it's at. It looks to me like a bargain was struck with the criminals of the Bush administration, just like the bargains made with other corrupt dictators who have been forced, finally, to leave office: defend us, let us retire, and we will go quietly. Frankly, I'm astonished. These people have already "left" public life. Unless they are punished, they will return again, or their next generation. I don't want to see another pointless war of aggression, I don't want another great depression, I want my civil rights back, I want all these things for future generations as well. There is also an ethical problem: this is corrupting. If the biggest criminals get off, what reason is there for the rest of us to toe the line? Corruption breeds corruption. And what are we going to do when the Arab/Islamic world decides that, under the Bush doctrines of enforcement of national laws internationally, they can deal out justice against these people within our own borders?