Poll stat coverage

An edifying post on "statistical tie" versus "margin of error" from the Washington Monthly blog. Bluefishcanoe, this sounds right, right?

Katrina spills

In a recent op-ed for the Washington Post Charles Krauthammer argues for increased oil-drilling because, in part, "The United States has the highest technology to ensure the safest drilling." This may be true, but it does not follow that our technology is safe enough. Krauthammer continues, "Compare the Niger Delta to the Gulf of Mexico, where deep-sea U.S. oil rigs withstood Hurricanes Katrina and Rita without a single undersea well suffering a significant spill." This is a pretty strong statement to make without any references, and it turns out it is simply false. Katrina resulted in the largest oil-spill since the Exxon Valdez (ref). This is the age of the internet, why can't the Post make its opinion makers include references in their pieces? Just one hyperlink dudes? At best this practice would prevent blowhards like Krauthammer from just making shit up to support their cases, and at worst we could locate the sources of these insidious falsehoods.

Oh well

It strikes me that the Bush administration as a "lame duck" administration is a slightly more decent one. They batted away that absurd gas tax holiday, oppose the farm bill in its current incarnation, and have come clean with government reports on global warming. Of course many manifestations of their misguided ideologies are still offensive to me (taxes, Iran, GI bill, etc.).

I think an attractive hypothesis is that this new-found decency is due to the fact they are no longer running for anything, and as such, can simply govern. To me, the most comprehensive explanation for their policies in the past is that they believed all policy was political; an idea proffered by John Dilulio, Scott McClellan, and others. So without all the political calculations nowadays, they are left to approach issues with reason and honesty.

HRC

One of my pals, a two-time W voter (???!!??), has since switched allegiances to Obama and company. His wonderful reversal has been fascinating to watch, although I think I've only caught the tail-end of it, and is a credit to his good sense. He still adheres to certain conservative opinions but does so honestly and with reason. Anyway he's taken to calling Hillary R. Clinton, Hillary "Republican" Clinton, and swears he will abstain from voting if it comes down to her V. McCain.

I have done my best to maintain support for her should she somehow gain the nomination but her recent irresponsibly bellicose comments about Iran and ill-conceived gas-tax holiday have sadly made her nickname all too apt. Like woe. On the gas tax thing: it seems almost unanimous that this it is a terrible idea and TPM thinks it might even further enrich the bogeyman oil companies.

McCain on Iraq

What would he do without Joe? link

Behavioral Economists

The more I hear about "behavioral economics" the more I like it. From what I can tell, the field basically replaces the highly problematic premise that individuals are rational actors with simple experimentation. It's like, er, making economics less a philosophy, and more a science. Here's a review of big-time guy Dan Ariely's recent book, "Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions" in the New Yorker. Also, I've heard Obama could do for behavioral economics what Reagan did for supply-siders. Not sure where I heard that but here's an article in the The New Republic about Obama and the field.

wow

I know it's pretty easy to find wingunttery that's bizarre but this struck me as particularly special-- from the National Review, on Obama's "political origins" or uh, his parents (??):

And yet, all of my mixed race, black/white classmates throughout my youth, some of whom I am still in contact with, were the product of very culturally specific unions. They were always the offspring of a white mother, (in my circles, she was usually Jewish, but elsewhere not necessarily) and usually a highly educated black father. And how had these two come together at a time when it was neither natural nor easy for such relationships to flourish? Always through politics. No, not the young Republicans. Usually the Communist Youth League. Or maybe a different arm of the CPUSA. But, for a white woman to marry a black man in 1958, or 60, there was almost inevitably a connection to explicit Communist politics.

And later:

Time for some investigative journalism about the Obama family's background, now that his chances of being president have increased so much.

Oh my lord!

I think living outside of New England has made me even more loyal to it. This fuels my distaste for Mitt Romney who has taken to trashing my beloved Massachusetts on his campaign. What a loser...

Nice name, William

Gen. William Odom's piece in today's Washington Post struck me as some of the most lucid public opining on the US' presence in Iraq. There's not a lot new in there, but if you find yourself in a casual conversation about the debacle (which I know sounds gross) you might want to draw heavily from this. I could be wrong though.