From my Twitter feed (8/24-9/7)Sep 7, 2011 at 6:29 PM | |
---|---|
Powered by Keepstream | |
![]() | Perry has a winning message: “He’s lost >1M jobs while he’s been president. I’ve created 1M jobs since I’ve been the gov” http://j.mp/neSrkR |
![]() | |
Sep 7, 2011 at 12:53 PM | |
![]() | RT @dandrezner: Today's edition of "Tom Friedman apparently pays no attention at all to the President of the United State of America" http://t.co/1SYASmW |
A plain blog about politics: Aarrrrgghhhhh!!!!!!! Tom Friedman approvingly quotes a Singaporean diplomat: There will be no painless solution. ‘Sacrifice’ will be needed, and the American people know this. But no American politician ... | |
Sep 7, 2011 at 12:40 PM | |
![]() | Puts lot of stock in Obama holding shaky Dem-leaning states RT @jbouie: http://j.mp/no9T81 Obama at Majority Disapproval; Re-election Likely |
Obama at Majority Disapproval; Re-election Likely 51.5 percent of Americans disapprove of President Obama's job performance. It's still his race to lose. | |
Sep 7, 2011 at 11:06 AM | |
![]() | Good @gregamarx piece on need for horse race coverage during invisible primary http://j.mp/n2EbQY See also me/Sides http://j.mp/qxQeIf (PDF) |
![]() | |
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyha n/poli-sci-journalism.pdf | |
Sep 6, 2011 at 7:57 PM | |
![]() | The problem of scientific corrections: @ivanoransky of Retraction Watch on @onthemedia http://j.mp/ouHP6m Example: http://j.mp/noyScZ |
On The Media - Retraction Watch There's often a really interesting story behind a retraction. That's what Ivan Oransky told us. He's a doctor and journalist and founder, along with Adam Marcus, of a blog called Retraction Watc... | |
![]() | |
Sep 6, 2011 at 5:53 PM | |
![]() | RT @ezraklein: I continue to think motivated skepticism is the most important concept for understand today's policy debates: http://t.co/FMVp5Co |
![]() | |
Sep 6, 2011 at 1:43 PM | |
![]() | Recommended: @mattyglesias on how intraparty conflict legitimizes coverage of "facts" that would otherwise go unreported http://j.mp/os3VHC |
![]() | |
Sep 6, 2011 at 1:18 PM | |
![]() | Under the headline "Math tips for the rest of us," USA Today quotes an expert botching marginal tax rates http://j.mp/r4QfnV |
![]() | |
Sep 6, 2011 at 1:03 PM | |
![]() | The costs of campaign finance reform: "In 2010... non-party outside spending eclipsed party spending" http://j.mp/qHLBHk |
Bessette Pitney Text: Campaign Finance Developments | |
Sep 6, 2011 at 12:40 PM | |
![]() | New from University of Chicago Press: my friend Isaac Reed's "Interpretation and Social Knowledge" (social theory) http://j.mp/pDn4pS |
![]() | |
Sep 6, 2011 at 11:23 AM | |
![]() | .@jonathanchait on the left's magical thinking about the course of the Obama presidency http:/bit.ly/owt8QV (via @dankennedy_nu) |
Sep 4, 2011 at 5:34 PM | |
![]() | Quoted in the WSJ on a new website that lets people make deficit reduction plans http://j.mp/qGXT3X Cool idea, unlikely to resolve anything |
![]() | |
Sep 1, 2011 at 3:20 PM | |
![]() | Per @mattyglesias http://j.mp/mU450Q it's worth reminding everyone that prime-time speeches rarely move numbers http://j.mp/jyZy9n |
![]() | |
| |
Aug 31, 2011 at 7:37 PM | |
![]() | Appropriately subtle RT @jbplainblog: @brendannyhan More on presidential speeches, what they can and cannot do: http://ow.ly/6i0r0 |
![]() | |
Sep 1, 2011 at 2:42 AM | |
![]() | RT @SteveKornacki: This history lesson from Beschloss doesn't make sense -- Reagan '84 as a model for how to win when times are bad? http://t.co/dKmtEfX |
![]() | |
Aug 31, 2011 at 7:26 PM | |
![]() | RT @BradEngle: @pollsandvotes check out this great blog post on key economic and opinion indicators for 2012: http://t.co/5NWlVAC |
![]() | |
Aug 31, 2011 at 7:25 PM | |
![]() | Interesting study: Estimates white Dem would have received ~3% more in '08 RT @SimonJackman: How Does Obama Match-Up? http://t.co/diEke3f |
http://p.ost.im/p/eLwfPm | |
Aug 31, 2011 at 7:10 PM | |
![]() | Not nec.-world where Perry is nom mght be better for GOP (eg worse econ) MT @RameshPonnuru intrade: Perry stronger gen elec cand than Romney |
Aug 31, 2011 at 7:04 PM | |
![]() | Matt Miller is looking for billionaires to fund the implausible dream of a successful 3rd-party centrist pres. campaign http://j.mp/oNJ6tr |
![]() | |
Aug 31, 2011 at 4:10 PM | |
![]() | Fascinating article on campaigns' increasing use of highly targeted online video ads from @benpolitico and @emilyrs http://j.mp/rmvinr |
Targeted Web ads: The next frontier - POLITICO.com Print View If you're a Republican primary voter living within 100 miles of Ames, Iowa, there's a pretty good chance that Michele Bachmann spent the summer talking to you out of your computer. But only if y... | |
Aug 31, 2011 at 1:20 PM | |
![]() | Classic incumbent w/bad economy message: "election...may end up being a referendum on whose vision of America is better" http://j.mp/mTsHaE |
Aug 31, 2011 at 1:16 PM | |
![]() | A sophisticated, non-magical-thinking critique MT @davidfrum: My answer to Alter's question, what did Obama do wrong? bit.ly/qYUftx |
Aug 30, 2011 at 1:44 AM | |
![]() | RT @smotus: Tom Friedman once again fantasizes about a third party that stands for exactly what Dems already stand for. http://t.co/yMbgrb3 |
Enik Rising: Once more, Mr. Friedman Oh, why do I bother ? As for America, we’ve thrived in recent decades with a credit-consumption-led economy, whereby we maintained a middle class by using more steroids (easy credit, subpr... | |
Aug 29, 2011 at 3:46 PM | |
![]() | More Gore-like coverage of Romney: "his hearty 'Ha! Ha!' sounds ... like someone speaking the sound of laughter" http://t.co/22fag2m |
![]() | |
Aug 29, 2011 at 1:55 PM | |
![]() | Great move by @RWJF_HumanCap (funder of my postdoc) to support the excellent @IncidentalEcon http://j.mp/pFKFUG An academic blog pays off! |
TIE to be funded, in part, by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation | The Incidental Economist I'm very pleased to announce that, beginning September 15th, The Incidental Economist will be supported, in part, by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. This is good news for readers because it ... | |
Aug 29, 2011 at 12:56 PM | |
![]() | Recent episode of @OnPointRadio on the persistence of 9/11 conspiracy theories http://j.mp/otTMRQ |
Aug 29, 2011 at 12:50 PM | |
![]() | RT @DLeonhardt: The WashPost account of zoo animals sensing the earthquake before humans was a myth -- acc. to the WashPost. http://t.co/Kq0seEi |
![]() | |
Aug 28, 2011 at 12:55 PM | |
![]() | My article w/@Student on causal inf w/dynamic soc network data written up in Science: http://j.mp/rfSKxQ (gated). Paper: http://j.mp/mROOg9 |
Science Magazine: Sign In AAAS members activate your FREE subscription to ALL Science content since 1880, as well as ScienceNOW, the SAGE KE Archive and AAASMember.org . | |
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyha n/unfriending.pdf | |
Aug 26, 2011 at 8:47 PM | |
![]() | Sadly, likely to be ineffective as usual RT @nytimes: Vaccine Cleared Again as Autism Culprit http://t.co/hBGZr47 |
![]() | |
Aug 26, 2011 at 1:10 PM | |
![]() | RT @conor64: What if journalists stopped trying to be political insiders? http://t.co/IFNc3hk |
![]() | |
Aug 26, 2011 at 1:06 PM | |
Poor Chris Mooney is not a scientist, so he's not able to explain what's supposedly wrong with Spencer amd Braswell's paper in Remote Sensing (SB11). Instead he criticizes the paper by pointing to other papers that were wrong. Of course, that's no way to judge a scientific paper. Furthermore, his analogy doesn't even work. His supposedly comparable papers were retracted, but SB11 has not been retracted. There's been no move to get it retracted.
Wolfgang Wagner provided a long explanation of why he resigned as Remote Sensing Editor, but his explanation doesn't seem to justify his decision. First of all, Wagner isn't an expert in the field of climate, so his opinion of the paper's accuracy is irrelevant. Wagner acknowledges that the journal's review process worked properly, so he didn't do anything wrong. At this point, it's not clear whether or not SB11 had serious errors. There's lots of back and forth discussion going on.
If Wagner thought there were mistakes in SB11, he should have printed another paper refuting SB11 and also allowed Spencer and Braswell to comment on this refutation. That's how science is supposed to work.
You can find a lot of relevant links giving arguments on all sides at http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/the-spencer-braswell-dessler-papers/
Posted by: David in Cal | September 07, 2011 at 05:23 PM
Although I like Jane Clayson's report about the truthers, I question one point. She asks, "How have these ideas stuck around for so long in the face of all the facts? And what do they say about our country?" IMHO if she wants to know what truther beliefs say about our country, she ought to compare our country with other countries.
My impression is that truther beliefs are stronger in many other countries. E.g., the truther book L'Effroyable imposture sustained a number 1 bestseller position in France for six of seven weeks immediately after its launch, sold 164,100 copies in the first year, and a total of 300,000 up to date. It has since been translated into 28 languages (as of 2006), according to wikipedia.
Perhaps the greatest degree of truther belief is among Muslims. E.g., see http://m911t.blogspot.com/ and http://www.mujca.com/ and http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/13/associate-nyc-mosque-imam-calls-attacks-inside-job/ and http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-04/huffington-post-muslims-believe-911-be-inside-job-how-could-so-many-muslims-be-so-wrong
Instead of asking what's wrong with America, maybe Jane Clayson should ask what's wrong with Muslims.
Posted by: David in Cal | September 07, 2011 at 06:12 PM
USA Today has made a stealth correction, so their article now correctly says,
"A hefty raise might not be as big as it looks. Extra money could bump you into the next tax bracket, which means you’ll pay a higher tax rate on earnings above a certain threshold. Relax: Your earnings below that threshold are still taxed at the previous, lower tax rate."
Also, a commenter pointed out that a few people could wind up poorer if they earn more because their marginal tax rate is over 100%. See http://mises.org/daily/3822
Posted by: David in Cal | September 07, 2011 at 07:42 PM
Enik Rising says Democrats have been pushing "an agenda of spending cuts, tax increases, and investment in infrastructure and education." Spending cuts???
Federal spending was around $3 trillion per year at the end of George Bush's second term. In just 3 years, Obama and the Dems in Congress have raised the federal spending level by a trillion dollars, to around $4 trillion per year. They passed an $830 billion "stimulus" (which didn't stimulate). They spent money on Cash for Clunkers, bailouts of banks and insurance companies, loans to clean energy, purchases of automobile companies, etc. etc. They passed health "reform" that will require much more federal spending in the future.
Today's news says Obama will call for another $300 billion of "stimulus". Some of it will be tax cuts, but most of the additional $300 billion will be more spending increases.
How Rising can identify the Dems as pushing spending cuts is beyond me.
Posted by: David in Cal | September 07, 2011 at 11:33 PM
Some time ago this site linked to an article by Chris Mooney observing that those with stronger scientific backgrounds are more likely to be global warming skeptics. Mooney sought some psychological explanation. Actually the reason for the difference is that skeptics' discussions are generally more scientific than warmists' discussions.
E.g., Mooney's "proof" that SB11 is a bad paper is to reference some other bad papers -- papers that have little or nothing to do with SB11. Another attack on SB11 writen by 3 scientists is essentially ad hominem. It claims that Spencer has "a history of making serious technical errors". The authors allege that SB11 has "serious flaws", but they don't identify a single supposed flaw.
OTOH this skeptical post supporting SB11 (or more precisely criticizing a paper that SB11 critcizes) addresses the appropriateness of alternative data sources, calculates the slope and r squared of various linear fits and looks at other scientific aspects.
Posted by: David in Cal | September 08, 2011 at 03:28 PM
Yes, Obama has used the word "sacrifice", but has he ever proposed and promoted real sacrifice? Megan McArdle at the Atlantic says "No":
As MuniLass said over Twitter,
Obama: "Here's the deal: I take credit for the new spending now; you take credit for making politically unpopular cuts later."
This is becoming a signature move for Obama. As far as I can recall, he has never taken the risk of proposing anything even potentially unpopular; even with something like health care, he let Congress take the lead. Eh voila--anything you like in the plan is a product of his wise leadership, while anything unfortunate is, y'know, the not-perfect stuff he had to sign in order to get Americans health care.
-------------------------------------------
But it's hard for Obama to call for altruism on the part of Congressional Republicans when he wasn't willing to take the manly risk of saying out loud what taxes he'll raise or spending he'll cut. The speech may have appeased his base. But I doubt it did much to advance either of what were clearly his twin goals here: enacting policy, and wooing independents.
Posted by: David in Cal | September 09, 2011 at 10:48 AM
Ezra Klein thinks Republicans' position re stimulus is inconcsistent, thus must be explained psychologically. Actually, their position is consistent with their beliefs. Klein overlooks the difference between increased spending and decreased taxes.
Although a given amount of additional government spending adds the same amount to the deficit as the same amount of tax cuts, conservatives see these as different. Conservatives see government spending as a drag on the economy -- leeches. That's why Rep Ryan, e.g., supported a tax cut as a stimulus, but opposed a spending increase.
Posted by: David in Cal | September 09, 2011 at 10:30 PM