Which is unusually in the United States.
Results tagged “adjective vs. adverb” from YGLESIAS errata
I think everyone understands the human phenomenon whereby we mistaken deem our own personal experiences to be more typical than they are....
Update: As detailed here, my facts are a bit off as college attendance rates.
But nevertheless, the most serious analysis out there consistent found Shays['] position to the right of every single member of the House Democratic caucus, even though many Democrats represented more GOP-friendly seats than Shays'....
What makes congress polarized is when even the most-liberal Republican is more conservative than the most-conservative Democrat. And you can't blame that on polarization.
Not only do day-to-day fluctuations in the stock market simply not tell you very much, insofar as they do tell you something about an announcement like this they're heavily influenced by perceptions of how favorable a plan is to the interests of those who current own stocks in the affected companies.
Indeed, one of the really scary things about this kind of problem--especially when you consider its global spread and the enormous size of the epicenter country--is that there are decent theoretically reasons to believe that we could semi-permanently settle on a new low-output, high-unemployment equilibrium.
I won't try to pretend to have a particular deep grasp of the situation, but while the whole world is doing poorly right now Spain is doing especially badly
Where markets work well--primarily in the field of producing consumer goods--they create incredibly efficiencies.
Editor's note: This is the second time in two days he's made the exact same mistake.
If you ask me, one of the most disturbing trends in American public discourse is the incredibly provincialism and solipsism of a lot of our policy debate.
No surprise to see the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passing the Senate, but unquestionable a good thing.
Editor's note: we're interpreting the intended wording as "but it's unquestionably a good thing," although it's by no means certain exactly what Matt had in mind here.
It's certainly an interesting development that Josh Marshall's decided to break with his previous practice and hire well-established MSM veteran Matt Cooper to head up his new TPM DC bureau and blog rather than the usually crew of scrappy underdogs.
Famously, the radio proved to be a hugely effective communications medium for Obama. But then the pendulum swung back in the age of TV. And now in the internet age, it's swinging back again in an interesting way....
The internet is famous for the way it fragments attention, but one of the ways in which it does that is by making it possibly to narrowcast more content to interested parties than would ever be viable to push through the crowded pipes of cable television.
Mistake of the week winner, January 11-17, 2009
That would offer about $18 billion worth of high-multiplier stimulus, because the beneficiaries would be poor families with a high propensity to consume the marginal dollar rather than wealthy households like to use extra money to try to pick up some bargain investments.
The Israel policy right-wing still has an incredibly hold over the US Congress with only a few exceptions such as Rep. Donna Edwards. But to an interesting extent that's not the case in the media. Despite the effort to anathematize John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt, for example, I saw Newsweek run Mearsheimer's take on how the US should approach the whole region and and one of the things the Washington Post Company did after buying Foreign Policy was hire Walt.
It seems unlike a realist to cite domestic political dynamics as the cause of national security policy, but clearly this is correct. And I would note the last point about the think tanks has implications that go beyond the budget. People don't like to be dishonest -- to advocate for policies they disagree with purely in order for money. And actually the think tank lifestyle isn't very lucrative. Which means that if people and firms who profit from high levels of military expenditures want to support think tanks that support high levels of military expenditures they need to identify individuals who genuinely believe that high levels of military expenditures are good and properly. Naturally, people who think that kind of thing tend to be people who have a somewhat paranoid attitude toward foreign countries and who are strongly predisposed to favor aggressive use of military force by the US and our allies alike.
In political terms, meanwhile, it's meaningless. If efforts at creating a strong recovery fail, the opposition will inevitable blame the governing party for the failure irrespective of who voted for what, whereas if efforts at creating a strong recovery succeed nobody will care by what margin it passed.
A good friend of mine with general wise views on most matters has, in recent months, started taking the strongly counterintuitive line that those of us with iPods -- a group that includes himself -- are suckers and that the Zune is actually a better product.
That's probably a decent idea. But I have to say that in my view both the Illinois situation, the Delaware situation, and the New York situation all basically serve to illustrate the over-arching point that states would be well-advised to adopt a rule whereby Senate vacancies will be filled by special election. The constitution lets them do this, they just need to walk through the open door. Meanwhile, as a pure tactic matter I'm baffled that Patterson didn't just act quickly to designate NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. That would have been the obvious thing to do, and nobody would have serious second-guessed it had it been done swiftly. Instead, dawdling created this Caroline Kennedy opening and how Patterson's put himself in an awkward position that he could have easily avoided.
