"I did it" - Obama Sworn In For 2nd Term As US President.

[Caliga]

I caught some of Obama's speech in the car earlier.  Sounded good.

[Admiral Yi]

A grad school buddy of mine had a good line.  We were talking about The Economist and he said they still think that ideas matter.

[Sheilbh]

Who the hell is this rambling douche?

It's the poem. I do always think Allen Ginsberg really has a lot to answer for in contemporary American poetry

[jimmy olsen]

It was terrible! 

[Barrister]

Mark Steyn is filling in for Rush Limbaugh today.  That dude is flippin' hilarious.

I pretty frequently disagree with Steyn (a Canadian by the way) but I typically quite enjoy his writings.

[Caliga]

I wonder if Limbaugh took the day off to honor Dr. King.

[CountDeMoney]

Corporate "personhood," as it pertains to elections, is a plutocratic theft of democracy.

Capitalism itself is a failed experiment, amoral and sociopathic, bound always and inexorably to lead to oligarchic exploitation of labor with more and more of the pie being appropriated by an ever shrinking, parasitic overclass. Marx was right. The Bolshies were wrong to try to force it, but capitalism, at least unbounded capitalism, will have to end.

Napoleon said that religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich. I think we need to eradicate the completely false axiom that people have some kind of unlimited right to acquisition without responsibility because religion is starting to crack.

Translation:  The Securities and Exchange Commission needs more Jesuit investigators.

[Ideologue]

Exhibit A of what? I've been moaning about this for ages because I normally agree with them and I get annoyed at American liberal writers

My view of many liberal writers and hosts is that they don't want to persuade, they want to enjoy being right - it's a problem with some lefty campaigners in this country too. The impression I get is that they view conservatives as if they're always operating in bad faith, they're being conned by Fox News and talk radio, or they're deluded. There's not really much respect or tolerance for a different perspective - they're just wrong, and laughably so. They don't make arguments, they make inside jokes.

Don't know what you are watching or who you are listening to.

Exhibit A in the false equivalency argument is that right after Stiglitz published his piece, Paul Krugman criticized it in his blog.  So on one of the biggest economic issues in terms of political valence, the two leading liberal pundits are disgareeing and advancing reasoned arguments.

It helps that the two leading left-wing economic pundits are at the very top of their profession.  The comparison to the fatuous clowns and talentless hacks paraded forth on Fox or CNBC could not be more glaring.  Of course there do exist conservative economists that are at the Stiglitz/Krugman level but tend to be marginalized unless they play to the fantasists gallery.  So Arthur Laffer still gets more air time than Greg Mankiw because the latter betrayed the True Faith by advocating for a carbon tax.

Two things that Krugman has been pointing out that I fully agree with is that (paraphrasing greatly) 1)you can tell who is arguing in at least something reasonably approaching good faith by whether they adjust their theoretical frameworks and recommendations for action in response to actual evidence, and any economists on the right have been avoiding doing this for years now, and 2)the self-righteous "center," and the neutral-to-a-fault media, have been enabling this for a very long time, by framing every disagreement as between two equally valid (and often equally despised) opinions, even when one "opinion" is based on falsities or lies and the other on facts and observable evidence.

Also (apropos of nothing), it wa nice to see Krugman finally join the late 20th century with his posts on automation.  Good job!

A grad school buddy of mine had a good line.  We were talking about The Economist and he said they still think that ideas matter.

Pithy, but can you elaborate?

[derspiess]

I wonder if Limbaugh took the day off to honor Dr. King.

Yes.

[Admiral Yi]

Two things that Krugman has been pointing out that I fully agree with is that (paraphrasing greatly) 1)you can tell who is arguing in at least something reasonably approaching good faith by whether they adjust their theoretical frameworks and recommendations for action in response to actual evidence, and any economists on the right have been avoiding doing this for years now, and 2)the self-righteous "center," and the neutral-to-a-fault media, have been enabling this for a very long time, by framing every disagreement as between two equally valid (and often equally despised) opinions, even when one "opinion" is based on falsities or lies and the other on facts and observable evidence.

Who and what the hell are you talking about?

A grad school buddy of mine had a good line.  We were talking about The Economist and he said they still think that ideas matter.

Pithy, but can you elaborate?

He meant that most media is focused on the horse race/popularity contest aspect of politics, whereas magazines like The Economist actually evaluate policy.

[crazy canuck]

Obama just officially warn in as US President for a second term,

Freudian slip 

[The Minsky Moment]

He meant that most media is focused on the horse race/popularity contest aspect of politics, whereas magazines like The Economist actually evaluate policy.

The Economist is a tweener.  They don't have the access and investigative types to provide effective inside dope but they also are too pithy and lack the horses for serious analytical takes.  They are still pretty good at issue spotting I guess.

[Zanza]

Could the president swear on the Quran or the US Constitution or does it have to be the Bible?

[The Minsky Moment]

Could the president swear on the Quran

I wish he would do that, just to see the reaction. 

[jimmy olsen]

Could the president swear on the Quran or the US Constitution or does it have to be the Bible?

He could.