“The title of the article is "Earning my Ph.D. ended my marriage." But the article basically was "I state earnestly that earning my Ph.D. contributed to the end of my marriage, but I provide almost no evidence that would be of use to anyone who really wants to understand my situation, and my husband provides no details at all."”
“The slippery slope argument is right in this case. If Congress can stop research on a social science topic because they don't like the results, then they will be tempted to try this in other areas of social science. And they may not limit it to social science. They may try to stop research on global warming or even on evolution.”
calypso50 on Mar 21, 2013 at 09:08:28
“No, no way, republicans would never, ever do that... impossible..
They want liberty and freedom, remember.....
BTW isn't Liberty "University" in the NCAA playoffs? Or is that another school? If it is them, man I hope they get their asses handed to 'em. :>))))”
fredrdr on Mar 21, 2013 at 09:07:26
“Bush II Administration used to block negative research. We don't need science or the truth.”
“Todd is one of the most perceptive political analysts these days. I've been consistently impressed with his political analysis. As for this issue, he is totally right. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is professional, non-partisan, and fully independent. Jack Welch should be ashamed of himself for casting doubt on them. It's unpatriotic to undermine our independent agencies in that manner. And Trump ... anyone who takes him seriously does not understand Trump very well.
It is true that there are some conspiracies. And some lottery tickets are winning tickets. But most lottery tickets are losing tickets and most conspiracy theories are totally false.”
“"I don't need Professor Warren talking, or speaking, or commenting on my votes." Scott, you are quite correct. It is the voters who need Elizabeth Warren to talk about your least popular votes. And you can talk about the ones that are your most popular. By the way, whining about your opponent is rarely a good election year strategy.”
“I agree. I don't like it when main characters act so "out of character." It might have made sense for Dexter to think that his son would be better off in Miami. There were good care-takers such as the nanny and his sister. But he decided to leave his son at precisely the time that his son would have needed him most. He left Harrison with a known killer (even if she was quite likable) and fugitive in a land in which they knew no other person.
And it made no sense that Dexter spared Saxon's life. Dexter's life was in genuine danger if he left Saxon alive because Saxon knew enough to have Dexter convicted of murder. But Dexter spared Saxon anyway and took an unnecessary risk. And Saxon's subsequent actions made no sense. Rather than try to ruin Dexter's life in the same manner that Dexter ruined his life (by revealing criminating evidence), Saxon decides to kill Deb even though Deb was protected by multiple police.
It seems that the writers decided to sacrifice their own characters by having them behave in particularly stupid ways. And they made that sacrifice for what reason? So that they could have a crappy ending to the series?”
“The real reason to "punish Assad" is to prevent the next use of chemical weapons. It is important that we punish Assad and it is also important that we do not get into a war if Assad retaliates. (We cannot state this explicitly because it would encourage retaliation.)
The best way to understand this is to consider the next time that a ruthless ruler wants to use chemical weapons. If we punish Assad now, then this ruler will need to weigh the pros and cons of getting attacked by the US or other countries in response. It is likely (although not guaranteed) that the ruler will not use chemical weapons because it would not be worth the risk of the US attacking. If we do not punish Assad, then the ruler may view a US response as unlikely and may use chemical weapons if he perceives it as helping him maintain power.
It's even worse if we have no response to Assad or to the next time that chemical weapons are used. In that case, ruthless rulers may view the prohibition against chemical weapons as unenforced.”
MrOctober on Sep 2, 2013 at 13:27:35
“Ruthless leaders have already seen what we did to Saddam Hussein. If the power within their own country is deteriorating, they have to deal with defeating the rebels and not worry about what the US might do.”
“I'll start by saying that I like nuance, and this is not the right venue. But so it goes. Cesca is right that supporters of Holt should not have attacked Booker, just as Cesca should not spend effort attacking Sirota and Greenwald. When progressives attack progressives, it detracts from them moving forward on a progressive agenda, and it provides ammunition to the other side. It may be useful in a debate society. It is not useful in politics assuming that progressives care about moving their agenda forward.
Sirota and Greenwald are the far left in the sense that anyone to the left of them is not taken seriously in American politics. But they are hardly the far left by historical standards. And it doesn't serve Cesca well to refer to them as far left.
By supporting Holt, Sirota and Greenwald helped to make the primary race more interesting. This is a good thing. But I agree with Cesca that it would have served progressives poorly if Holt had won the primary and lost the election.”
Midnight Son on Aug 19, 2013 at 14:52:40
“It is unlikely that any of the Democratic candidates would have lost to Lonegan. This is something that Cesca conveniently left out of his immature and disrespectful rant. NJ is not a "socially conservative" state. We're not a place where "Tea Party conservatives" have appeal. We haven't sent a Republican to the Senate since Clifford Case, who's seat was filled by Bill Bradley in 1977. Case wasn't a "Tea Party Republican" either.
To date, I think this is the worst blog entry I've ever read from Cesca. Not only it is mean spirited, but it's completely divorced from reality as well. I wonder why.”
“If your goal is to prove that pundits on the left are sometimes as unbalanced as pundits on the right, you have succeeded. Even though I agree with Krugman that we should focus much more on job creation, the long term deficit is serious, and we need to address it soon. We cannot wait for the national debt to lead a crisis. If and when the debt becomes a crisis, the Congress is likely to make matters much worse.”
PartOfTheSolution on Feb 2, 2013 at 15:21:43
“So sorry that economics 101 is so far over your little head.”
Christopher Nagy on Feb 2, 2013 at 15:05:31
“The first step to fixing the long term deficit problem is to fix unemployment.”
OldWhiteMale on Feb 2, 2013 at 14:55:03
“You address the debt with surpluses, not jobs. Do you see any surpluses around that everybody else have missed?”
ErnestineBass on Feb 2, 2013 at 14:45:01
“Putting people back to work would 1) increase tax revenue, and 2) reduce the amount the federal government currently spends on SNAP and unemployment benefits.
“I think it would be better phrased as "George Stephanopolous's problem with bad judgment." He is showing remarkably bad judgment when he invites Ann Coulter to be a commentator on his show. Ann Coulter does not express her opinions in a serious manner. Rather, she expresses opinions in a vile manner because that is the way she earns her living.
Admittedly, she tones down her bile on 'This week" as a condition of her being on the show. But this is hardly an excuse for inviting her to be on the show.”
“The adjective "serious" would be more appropriate if it were further modified to "acts as though he is being serious" or "is treated as though he is serious" or possibly just "has a serious demeanor when he discusses his policies." Unfortunately, "serious" is not a good description of his policies and budgets, which are better phrased as "deliberately misleading", and "very bad for long term economics in the U.S."
Ryan's approach to politics is an interesting contrast with Romney. Ryan provides the policy details that appeal to his supporters while omitting all of the important difficult choices that would need to be a part of a policy. Romney is an empty suit who prefers to give no information if he can get away with it (and he has been extremely successful so far.) In the first few days, Ryan looks very foolish in trying to adopt Romney's style, but perhaps he will learn the skill of saying absolutely nothing while running away from that which he believes.
On Ryan's behalf, he did a pretty good job of changing his beliefs extremely quickly with respect to his philosophical idol, Ayn Rand. Three years ago, he was singing her praises (as captured on Youtube). Now he is totally prepared to throw her under the bus and describes her only as a youthful dalliance of his.”
“Howard, you clearly have a much more positive opinion of Rush Limbaugh than he deserves. One of the reasons that America has suffered over the past years is that our national politics is broken. Rush Limbaugh has spent 25 years doing his very best to break it. He deserves some of the credit for it being broken.
He has worked hard to poison the political environment. He has done his best to take a polarized electorate and make it much more polarized. He has successfully convinced conservative Americans that liberals are bad people even though it is he who has continually acted in bad faith. He has spent much of his 25 years successfully spreading disinformation. And why did he do all of this? It's not because he is a patriot. It's because he wanted to be rich and successful and famous, and this was his path. He is now very rich and very successful and very influential, and America is much worse off for all of his efforts.”
olebroad1 on Aug 8, 2012 at 13:34:04
“If there wern't so many on the right who are gullible and willing to hang on his every word, he would be NOTHING!! I guess I have been fortunate, I have never met a person who 'listens' to Rush.....
F & F”
sfsunst on Aug 8, 2012 at 01:53:08
“Hit the nail on the head dead on. F/F”
Gary Lange on Aug 8, 2012 at 01:39:42
“i agree. Rush has chosen his path. Howard, I read your articles and watch you on television. Maybe its time to let go of Rush. There are some people who can not be saved. They refuse to listen. They close their eyes to the truth. Rush has nothing but hate now. A rage inside of him built on years and years of distortion of reality. He believes his lies to be the truth. So Howard, listen to your fans. Continue to fight the good fight. And as for the United States... We are just going through a transition into the 21th century. The world has grown up and no longer needs a caretaker. May the USA lead the world into the future.”
Pastapharian on Aug 8, 2012 at 01:36:16
“so true! F&F #8!”
Reaganite60 on Aug 8, 2012 at 01:32:53
“bla bla bla bla your drivel is nauseating”
efffox on Aug 8, 2012 at 01:14:28
“Well said. F/F”
FearlessFraz on Aug 8, 2012 at 01:13:22
“Fanned and FAV'D!”
bennettsurf on Aug 8, 2012 at 00:47:54
“Howard needs to prove to Rush he opposes Obama's foreign defeatism and endorses Romney's "can do" American attitude.”
craig asia on Aug 8, 2012 at 00:46:10
“Nice comment. My thoughts exactly. F/F.”
theprez21 on Aug 8, 2012 at 00:34:43
“I think Howard understands that Rush is a carnival barker who has risen from a shock DJ (like Glen Beck btw) to a media empire. Contraversy sells. I personally know one shock radio host who is totally different off the air. Maybe Howard knows that Rush can be rational off the air.”
IfIonlyknew on Aug 8, 2012 at 00:33:34
“Well said Jim.... f&f”
shyter on Aug 8, 2012 at 00:31:47
“Some think Rush is Hitler's illegitimate child from his liaison with the devil's daughter.”
“The most striking aspect of this intolerance is that the choice to have children is one of the most significant choices of one's life. Given its significance, it is really valuable if the decision is made in a thoughtful manner. Every person's decision (if made thoughtfully) should be respected.
Even with our improved tolerance on many issues, we remain very intolerant on many other issues, and probably always will. For example, I am intolerant of people who express very stupid opinions, which means that I am intolerant of most people (sometimes including myself.)”
Apr 9, 2009 at 16:07:32
“There are good reasons to discourage smoking and to be concerned about the very bad effects of smoking on health. But it is not true that a decrease in smoking will lead to government saving's in healthcare. There is no need for proponents of good health to lie about this issue.
At the same time, it would be unconscionable to favor increased smoking on economic grounds, and no one is doing so.”
imfedup on Apr 10, 2009 at 07:47:13
“Did you read the article? $96 billion in direct healthcare costs and $97 billion in lost productivity. How do you read that and maintain that a decrease in smoking will not lead to government savings in healthcare?”
“First of all, even if you take into account the 30% decline in assets, Harvard Management Company has had a 10.5% rate of return for 11 years. It's a good rate of return. So, cut them some slack.
Second it is usually a bad idea to take the word of a fired employee over everyone else. It makes for bad, (albeit, exciting) reporting. This employee was not a "whistle blower" in the way the word is usually used. According to the article, she was someone who seriously disagreed with the HMC investment policy (perhaps for good reasons), and then went over the head of her boss directly to Larry Summers, making what might have been perceived by her boss as inflammatory comments. Such employees often get fired. The fact that she could settle out of court for an undisclosed amount means nothing, although it is surprising that there was not a non-disclosure clause.”
stateMachine on Apr 5, 2009 at 12:23:16
“"According to the article, she was someone who seriously disagreed with the HMC investment policy (perhaps for good reasons), and then went over the head of her boss directly to Larry Summers, making what might have been perceived by her boss as inflammatory comments. Such employees" ARE WHISTLEBLOWERS
The Yoga pose you are practicing in this post is known as bending over backwards”
“I suspect that Jindal's major problem was caused because he listened to Republican political consultants. They told him to be "folksy" (leading him to channel Mr. Rogers), give personal anecdotes (leading him to lie about his role in Katrina), and to strongly oppose the role of government in helping Americans (making him look foolish and hypocritical). Perhaps he should have first made sure that the consultants wanted him to succeed.”
I usually disagree with you; but I find you interesting and thoughtful. I am a pragmatist, slightly to the left of center. I highly respect Obama, and think that he may be the perfect President for these very troubled times. I think that the stimulus package is perhaps the best that our government would agree on, and so supported it.
Despite what Cesca says, you are not in the same category as Hannity or Limbaugh, and that is much to your credit. Hannity has transformed himself over the last decade from someone who was sometimes thoughtful into a disturbed individual, with strong paranoid tendencies. Limbaugh is someone who only believes that which confirms his very deep prejudices and is spreading malicious lies on a daily basis. He seems to care only about himself and his desire for self-aggrandizement.
Thoughtful opposition such as yours often leads to improved political outcomes. So, I have no quarrel with you. In fact, I encourage you to keep up the good work.”
nowprogressive on Feb 21, 2009 at 11:56:40
“Joe isn't in the same category as Limbaugh and Hannity. But he often uses "socialism" to derisively label rather than debate. That was Cesca's point.”