At this point, it seems like things are getting a bit ridiculous. I was kidding yesterday when I suggested that Matt was manipulating the images he posts to his site just to annoy me, but now I'm not so sure.
Results tagged “awkward” from YGLESIAS errata
Adams Morgan. Photo by randomduck.
In this post, Matt embedded the photo caption that he copied from the site he's quoting as the first line in his block quote. It definitely messes with the flow of the post.
My sense is that though having been colonized has done little good for anyone, my sense is that the post-colonial experience of Portugal's former colonies in Africa has been worse than that of the French or British colonies.
The details of roquefort's problem [aside], the key issue is that in a "trade war" like this, everyone loses:...
6. At which point everyone is even more worse off.
...
The we'll have to think of further measures to hurt their producers. And much the same would apply to Japan and Chinese.
It's also clear that our policies don't reward more-effective teachers in a manner that's consistent with the importance of retaining highly-effective teachers to building a highly effective school.
I have mixed feelings about reporting on these kind of findings. On the one hand, I don't actually think that elected officials' future has very much to do with the public's opinion, such as it is, on this kind of question. I think, for example, that Obama's re-election prospects will be based much more on whether or not living standards are increasing in 2012 than on whether or not the policies he pursued in 2009 matched up with at-the-time public opinion. So the politically smart thing to do is more-or-less ignore year-one opinion and just do things that you think will work out in the medium-term (of course the wise and moral thing to do is to also think about the long term) irregardless of the polls. But on the other hand, there's lots of reason to believe that people's beliefs about short-term public opinion do influence how they act so it's important to spread the information around when it points in the right direction.
Editor's note: Grammarians prefer not to use irregardless, as it is a made-up word with the same meaning as regardless.
That's about 4 percent points over what we now think is the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU)....
But to build new infrastructure you machines and so forth and we only have so many on hand.
...
Long story short, whatever topline estimate you could do would be pretty uncertain and would run into trouble when you started thinking about implementing it in a micro sense. To make a long story short, the correct answer is a big number but the real limits probably lie in thick in the weeds rather than up in the clouds in a way that makes calculations very difficult.
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.
I was out at a bar in Geneva back in November and people were allowed to smoke inside and generally being all European.
