Paul Krugman exerts his selective outrage and blasts Bret Stephens for using nominal incomes when he should have used real incomes. Good point! He also blasts the WSJ attempt at a correction:
[Mr. Stephens] points to an online post he put out admitting, with a minimum of grace, that using nominal incomes was wrong.
Sorry, but that’s not what I — or, if I may speak for my employer, The New York Times — calls a correction.
What, after all, is the purpose of a correction? If you’ve misinformed your readers, the first order of business is to stop misinforming them; the second, so far as possible, to let those who already got the misinformation know that they were misinformed. So you fix the error in the online version of the article, including an acknowledgement of the error; and you put another acknowledgement of the error in a prominent place, so that those who read it the first time are alerted. In the case of Times columnists, this means an embarrassing but necessary statement at the end of your next column.
I think Krugman is right twice here. However, although it seems like only yesterday, it was more than ten years ago that I waited in vain for a correction or clarification from Paul Krugman after this particular Bush-basher which hit Bush yet again for weak job growth (go ahead, savor the irony):
To put it more bluntly: it would be quite a trick to run the biggest budget deficit in the history of the planet, and still end a presidential term with fewer jobs than when you started. And despite yesterday's good news, that's a trick President Bush still seems likely to pull off.
As I said at the time, that statement is only literally correct; the Bush deficits as a percentage of GDP were exceeded by many Japanese and some Reagan deficits. So should a top-notch, front-line economist be tossing around nominal deficits like that, or should he be scaling them relative to GDP?
Tough call! No it's not. Ten years later we still don't see a correction. But we exhaled a long time ago.
SINCE YOU ASK: Per this table, total non-farm employment in January 2001 was 132,469,000; four years later (Jan 2005) that had surged to, well, 132,476,000, eclipsing the inital hurdle by a full 7,000 jobs. Another failed prediction from Krugman.
Do as I say not as I do!
Posted by: boricuafudd | January 20, 2014 at 04:09 PM
TM:
But we exhaled a long time ago
I hope you bought some carbon offsets.
Greetings from Durham. Asking around if people here know a guy named MarkO and folks just kinda look down and start shuffling their feet.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | January 20, 2014 at 04:10 PM
Putting up the Kruggie pinata again? Low hanging fruit.
Posted by: matt | January 20, 2014 at 04:11 PM
It's nice to know you keep such complete Krugfiles.
Posted by: clarice feldman | January 20, 2014 at 04:18 PM
Is he really holding up the NYT's dysfunctional way of burying corrections as the gold standard?
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 20, 2014 at 04:20 PM
Since you ask (2): BLS total nonfarm employment Jan 09 133,631,000; Jan 13 134,839,000; and I can't get TM's numbers from that page at all, seasonal or not, private-only or not.
Posted by: bgates | January 20, 2014 at 04:22 PM
I'm looking at the same table (seasonally adjusted) and am trying to figure out how the administration is +3.246M jobs. I take it that it doesn't differentiate between part time and full time.
Posted by: rich@gmu | January 20, 2014 at 04:37 PM
Meantime, Rich, employment's supposed to be down at the federal level and across all levels of government.
Posted by: bgates | January 20, 2014 at 04:49 PM
Why do I feel like they are pulling a scam, like the 1919 Black Sox
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/20/did-romney-ever-really-believe-he-could-win-the-election/
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2014 at 04:57 PM
the standin from Bananas, chimes in;
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/20/to-help-mitigate-venezuelas-heinous-murder-rate-maduro-wants-to-crack-down-on-soap-operas/
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2014 at 05:05 PM
The TomM fiskings of Krugman are a public service.
Posted by: NKonIPad | January 20, 2014 at 05:24 PM
Why all this Romney talk now? I'd like to pretend he never existed.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 20, 2014 at 05:25 PM
'the beatings will continue, even if morale improves' Ewok on his nub nub jag
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2014 at 05:29 PM
folks just kinda look down and start shuffling their feet.
Well look on the bright side. At least they do curse under their breath and spit on the sidewalk.
Posted by: Gmax | January 20, 2014 at 05:30 PM
do NOT curse
Sheesh
Posted by: Gmax | January 20, 2014 at 05:31 PM
I would like to blame that on auto correction but that would be a Wendy Davis level use of loose language. (In plain speak, a big fat lie).
Posted by: Gmax | January 20, 2014 at 05:32 PM
I am wondering if it would be possible to care less than me, whatever the frick Paul Krugman Enron consultant has to say on virtually any subject. I would only be interested in him saying "farewell".
Posted by: Gmax | January 20, 2014 at 05:34 PM
Captain Hate,
The point, in my opinion, is to make us unsure of any candidate that we back. As we get closer to the primaries, we will see sutle attacks on every potential candidate.
Are you SURE you want to back Candidate XXX? After all, Mitt Romey didn't think he could win. How do you know Candidate XXX isn't in this for the book contract, TV contract, money, etc.
I am ignoring it all.
I figure I will plant a big garden this spring and ignore most of the analysis. If we are going to see our country crumble, I am going to at least feed my family.
Posted by: Miss Marple | January 20, 2014 at 05:37 PM
Interesting what is common knowledge, versus the truth;
http://fox13now.com/2014/01/20/rare-recording-of-martin-luther-king-jr-talking-about-john-f-kennedy-released/
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2014 at 05:39 PM
CH, with this documentary, I am now firmly convinced that Mittster is going to make a third try at the POTUSey. There's no pretending he doesn't exist unless one wants to ignore the 2016 POTUSey race.
I hope I'm wrong, but unless a non-Christie, non-Mitt person takes hold quickly with those who can raise money, those are the early line favorites.
I know, I've served up a more unpleasant early dinner scenario than eating the salad while watching Best of Bill Belichick Press Conferences!
Posted by: Thomaas Collins | January 20, 2014 at 05:39 PM
CH, with this documentary, I am now firmly convinced that Mittster is going to make a third try at the POTUSey. There's no pretending he doesn't exist unless one wants to ignore the 2016 POTUSey race.
I hope I'm wrong, but unless a non-Christie, non-Mitt person takes hold quickly with those who can raise money, those are the early line favorites.
I know, I've served up a more unpleasant early dinner scenario than eating the salad while watching Best of Bill Belichick Press Conferences!
Posted by: Thomaas Collins | January 20, 2014 at 05:41 PM
James D, I was pretty sure from the get go that Romney wouldn't win; then he teased us for a while by acting like he wanted to defeat the JEF and then ultimately turned into the garbage candidate I was expecting him to be. Reading about all his ups and downs doesn't do much except fill me with a cold bitter rage against the eunuchs in the Republican party that oversee this and say it's the best that can be done.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 20, 2014 at 05:45 PM
There is a picture of Beyonce and Jay Z and their daughter walking towardsthe party for Michelle.
The problem with the photo is that they are not walking towards the White House.
They are walking towards the Treasury Building.
apparently some guests were admitted through the tunnel between Treasury and the White House, said tunnel built as na escape hatch and shelter during WWII. Most of the public doesn't know it exits.
How many people are sneaking into the White House via that tunnel? Why isn't the press monitoring who goes into the Treasury Building?
Posted by: Miss Marple | January 20, 2014 at 05:48 PM
That was difficult enough to read once, TC. These Sugardaddy Big Bucks that are panicking because of Christie's meltdown and screaming "Save us Mitt" are the real problems with the Republican party.
I flat out won't vote for Romney again. Period.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 20, 2014 at 05:49 PM
All those Mittcitement pills I gagged down left a lingering bitter taste. Now I know why.
Posted by: lyle | January 20, 2014 at 05:51 PM
"I can't get TM's numbers from that page at all, seasonal or not, private-only or not."
That's cuz TM is probably working from original data and you're working from past chocolate ration summaries as compiled last month by Winston Smith. The Winston Smith numbers now prove that jobs never recovered completely from Jan '01 and Jan '05.
Posted by: Account Deleted | January 20, 2014 at 05:52 PM
I know, CH. I didn't mean for it to appear twice. Typhuspad and I have been in sync recently, but not that time.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | January 20, 2014 at 05:53 PM
you will take your Mittbrand and you will like it.
Posted by: rich@gmu | January 20, 2014 at 06:00 PM
This is too early to have to fall in line behind a candidate for 2016. Every prospective candidate has a job to do which doesn't involve camping out with those hayseeds in Iowa. Enough of this perpetual campaign trash.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 20, 2014 at 06:01 PM
they need to dialup those shock collars, just embarassing how they run from Stay Puft, this is how they are behaving now, will they be putting him on a spit in a month,
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2014 at 06:05 PM
67% means what, tyranny of the majority?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166904/dissatisfied-income-wealth-distribution.aspx
Posted by: well, well wisher. | January 20, 2014 at 06:07 PM
Crosspost:
Frederick and I are back from watching "The Legend of Hercules" and he learned a new word from me after it ended: Camp.
It was fun but if I had made it I would have based it around Heracles 12 labors. The only one dramatized was the first one - killing the Menean Lion. Frederick wanted especially to see Herules cleaning out the Augean Stables:)
Lots of very contrived action in a cartoonish way.
Posted by: Jack is Back | January 20, 2014 at 06:07 PM
Every prospective candidate has a job to do which doesn't involve camping out with those hayseeds in Iowa.
Or making friends with MSNBC.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 20, 2014 at 06:17 PM
Well Iowa gave us the gift of Carter and Obama, do we need another example for enemy action, Reagan rallied in New Hampshire, btw
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2014 at 06:20 PM
" Now I know why."
Quick-study, aren't you?
Posted by: well, well wisher. | January 20, 2014 at 06:20 PM
Leadership should come to those who take tough stands, not those who avoid same'
http://therightscoop.com/sarah-palin-to-obama-stop-playing-the-race-card/
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2014 at 06:23 PM
Matt Walsh has a great piece on the ruin being wreaked by tenured thieves. If anything, he understates the magnitude of the problem faced by the Millenials who are having their future stolen by Professor Featherpasser.
Posted by: Account Deleted | January 20, 2014 at 06:27 PM
Yeah. Much better to be home-schooled by the unschooled.
An excellent metaphor is China's Great Leap Forward. Those home-made foundries were a model of succeess. Pot metal does have it's uses.
Posted by: well, well wisher. | January 20, 2014 at 06:37 PM
What else would a tenured thief say?
Posted by: Account Deleted | January 20, 2014 at 06:40 PM
Pew poll: Obama losing the public on NSA surveillance
Are any R's on this beside Rand Paul?
Posted by: Extraneus | January 20, 2014 at 06:41 PM
Prior to the advent of public schools, most people were home or church schooled.
That system gave us Lincoln, Edison, Longfellow, Washington, and Andrew Carnegie.
It gave us the Renaissance, the Age of Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution.
Having substituted in public schools, I can assure readers that the level of intellectual achievement is not what the teachers' union claims.
Posted by: miss Marple | January 20, 2014 at 06:42 PM
Isn't home schooling significantly more successful than the public extended day care and indoctrination centers?
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 20, 2014 at 06:43 PM
"...a non-Christie, non-Mitt person takes hold quickly with those who can raise money..."
I am hoping that Scott Walker is such a person, but am not particularly confident that he is.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | January 20, 2014 at 06:52 PM
Successful in what sense, Captain?
Posted by: Extraneus | January 20, 2014 at 06:52 PM
"Isn't home schooling significantly more successful..."
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/faces00_4thprogress.pdf
Posted by: well, well wisher. | January 20, 2014 at 06:53 PM
I feel a warm, smug glow when I hear people talk about income inequality as a problem that government can and should solve. If they choose to be that stupid, I revel in their whining, puling and caterwauling. I dislike them.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | January 20, 2014 at 06:57 PM
Wealthy GOP donors starting to give up on Christie for 2016?
What will they do if Jeb and Romney are picked off one by one?
Posted by: Extraneus | January 20, 2014 at 06:58 PM
Colleges do a couple of things well, for some. For those who go into technical fields, colleges can provide valuable training. And colleges can also help employers and grad/professional schools sort out who is qualified.
But no question a lot of people who go to college shouldn't, or are only there because of the pathetic state of public secondary education. And many who do go get their minds polluted by ideological and pseudo-intellectual blather.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 20, 2014 at 07:00 PM
Actress Maria Conchito Alonzo Fired from Play For Political Endorsement of Tea Party Candidate
Posted by: Extraneus | January 20, 2014 at 07:04 PM
Homeschoolers score 72 points higher on the SAT.
And;
15 key facts about homeschoolers; almost all of which demonstrate superior performance by home schoolers.
Dana's link?
180 pages most of which show how useless useless Head Start is, none or almost almost none of which that I saw evenmentions homeschooling, and all of which is produced by the Federal government he tells us we can't trust an inch.
At east we agree on that last one.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 20, 2014 at 07:10 PM
Successful in what sense, Captain?
College prep as measured by SAT and ACT tests.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 20, 2014 at 07:12 PM
"That system gave us Lincoln, Edison, Longfellow, Washington, and Andrew Carnegie. It gave us the Renaissance, the Age of Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution."
It also gave us widespread illiteracy and ignorance. I believe that, as a matter of policy, an educated citizenry is a public good that should be publicly (though not exclusively publicly) supported.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | January 20, 2014 at 07:13 PM
Yes, Iggy; that link was so worthless I was afraid it was a virus pit.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 20, 2014 at 07:14 PM
Studies done on homeschooled children show a tendency to perform better later in life, at college and work, and they score better on tests.
What else is there that education is supposed to do?
Oh yeah, homeschoolers avoid indoctrination by the state. There's the rub.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 20, 2014 at 07:15 PM
DOT, you and I agree on Scott Walker. His performance in the crucible of Blue/Purple Wisconsin has proven to me, BRD, that he has had what it takes to be an excellent CEO, and more importantly, to be an excellent POTUS.
In today's political environment, however, there is unfortunately another sine qua non:
That is attracting the substantial financing for a viable presidential campaign against one of the most unworthy candidates in history, but one who has almost unlimited financial support from a wide variety of very rich people at many ends of the political spectrum.
My only question about Scott Walker is whether he wants to fight the fight and, if so, whether he will be able to tap sufficient financing to win the nomination. I pray that does and that he will.
Posted by: Jim Rhoads f/k/a vnjagvet | January 20, 2014 at 07:16 PM
"Students who take these tests are self-selecting, so we don't know if homeschoolers overall are doing better than other students. But all SAT and ACT takers are self-selecting regardless of how they were schooled. However, there is no way to know if homeschoolers are taking these tests at a lower or higher rate than public or private school students.
If broken down by demographics, homeschoolers may not fare so well. Homeschoolers tend to come from higher earning and better educated families, which may account for the higher scores.
Sampling is sometimes done to compare homeschoolers to public school students. Critics point out that successful homeschooling parents may be more likely to allow their children to be tested than less successful homeschoolers."
Can't stop 'cribbing' even for home-schooled. Tainted data fail.
Posted by: well, well wisher. | January 20, 2014 at 07:17 PM
"that he does...
Posted by: Jim Rhoads f/k/a vnjagvet | January 20, 2014 at 07:18 PM
--It also gave us widespread illiteracy and ignorance.--
That was a function largely of a general poverty which no longer exists.
Increasingly public education is generating illiteracy and ignorance.
Why would anyone want the system that gives us the DMV and the IRS educating our children?
Posted by: Ignatz | January 20, 2014 at 07:18 PM
If I had to make a choice now, I'd be for Scott Walker.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 20, 2014 at 07:18 PM
I posted a HB to Maryrose and a bit of frivolity, but I don't see it. Perhaps there's a time delay.
Posted by: Holly | January 20, 2014 at 07:22 PM
College prep as measured by SAT and ACT tests.
Only a conservative would look at that as the success metric.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 20, 2014 at 07:22 PM
Homeschoolers as a fact do better on standardized tests.
If you have facts which explain that rather than "may" and "possibly" then the only fails is your critique, especially because homeschoolers excel in other categories as well.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 20, 2014 at 07:22 PM
If I had to make a choice now, I'd be for Scott Walker.
Me, too.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 20, 2014 at 07:24 PM
The problem. as Rse, has diagnosed. is the operating system, being installed in these institutions of higher learning, hence you end up with a Klein, and Yglesias, subordinate trolls, and policy makers like Emmanuel, who doesn't have an appreciation of the Hippocratic oath,
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2014 at 07:24 PM
Sheeit. Drs. en masse don't regard the Hippocratic Oath beyond 'do no harm', as they seem to think 'not doing good' fits the spirit of the oath.
The incompetence of medical facilities can be traced to the public education system, by some of limited depth.
Of course only patient care suffers. Billing efficiencies reach great heights of accomplishment.
Posted by: well, well wisher. | January 20, 2014 at 07:28 PM
If he didn't, they wouldn't let him into the Duranty Lounge.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | January 20, 2014 at 07:31 PM
jimmyk,
AFAICT, there's a positive ROI for 40-45% of four year degrees. AA technical credentials have a higher percentage of positive returns but the ROI is much lower than business or STEM. It's about the same as for a BA-Barista who actually finds a job to match his/her degree. That's based upon current differentials.
There are two factors which are going to significantly reduce the differentials in the near future. One is the effect of the pipeline stuffing done in the past ten years. Total degrees awarded have exceeded demand for at least that long. The second is the reduction in the rate of natural growth in population. That one is the real killer and it's the actual driver of the immigration movement. We tend to think of immigrants as producers displacing native producers but they are also consumers with very low total social cost.
Taking on debt to pursue a BA-Barista is not a mark of intelligence.
Posted by: Account Deleted | January 20, 2014 at 07:31 PM
Homeschoolers scores are virtually unaffected by income and they excel in all areas of life at a higher rate including socialization and maturity.
Leftist logic;the state can't be trusted to touch my pot or my emails, but it can be trusted to take my kid for 15 years and fill his head full of crap.
Kinda tells you what they truly value.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 20, 2014 at 07:32 PM
Um, the public schools are ALSO giving us widespread illiteracy and ignorance -- and making us pay through the nose for the privilege.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | January 20, 2014 at 07:35 PM
Takes one to know one.
Not using your "truthbetold" persona tonight? Did the mescaline wear off?
Posted by: Rob Crawford | January 20, 2014 at 07:36 PM
"Increasingly public education is generating illiteracy and ignorance."
I don't disagree at all. It is a good idea that has been corrupted by very bad ideas that originated about a century ago. As for the poverty being a cause of ignorance and illiteracy, I tend to think of it as an effect. In any case, for millions of Americans public education was the way out of all three conditions, and it worked very well for a time.
If you really want to feel depressed, get ahold of an eight grade exam (history, geography, you name it) from, say, 1915 in Lincoln, Nebraska.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | January 20, 2014 at 07:39 PM
"Not using your "truthbetold" persona tonight? Did the mescaline wear off?"
Your recalcitrant idiocy takes all the challenge of a reply. Maybe you should consider some consciousness-altering substance as a substitute for your pov. It could only improve, atp.
Posted by: well, well wisher. | January 20, 2014 at 07:42 PM
Danube,
I am more than willing to go back to public education as it was when I was a child.
That is not what we have.
Based on the current state of public education, I favor home schooling or parochial and private schools.
Posted by: miss Marple | January 20, 2014 at 07:43 PM
'takes the challenge out of a reply' Edit button?
Posted by: well, well wisher. | January 20, 2014 at 07:44 PM
Take Greg Grandin, please, as a trained chimp in Carlos Slim's menagerie, he sent up a furtive squirrel, when clearly his own research would suggest anyone with Obama's politics would be sent packing anywhere else,
http://history.fas.nyu.edu/object/greggrandin
the Harper's essay that peter linked, is instructive, he trumpets the likes of Che Guevara, the Argentine zampolit, who ended up quite dead in the Bolivian jungle,one of the later iterations, who married an American,
wanted to be 'like Che' and the Guatemalan army obliged.
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2014 at 07:44 PM
hence you end up with a Klein, and Yglesias
That's more a reflection of the WaPo's warped standards than of the educational system.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 20, 2014 at 07:45 PM
Posted it three times, still don't see it. Sigh. If they show up later, I apologize for the repeats.
Posted by: Holly | January 20, 2014 at 07:47 PM
I believe that, as a matter of policy, an educated citizenry is a public good that should be publicly (though not exclusively publicly) supported.
That doesn't mean it should be publicly provided, of course. As others have pointed out, a generation or more ago public schools did a decent job, but they are beyond salvaging and should be replaced by a voucher system.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 20, 2014 at 07:48 PM
Clarice
This is what you had to say on March 7 2007
"Former CIA head Tenet, who insisted the Department of Justice investigate a routine referral for reasons which are still unclear but seem to be pique and revenge?"
Last week you told everyone to believe that the CIA did not really want or expect an investigation.
And you turned to a book endorsed by Tenet as proof.
Clarice, what story are you going with this week?
Posted by: Truthbetold | January 20, 2014 at 07:49 PM
Why would I want to emulate a failure like you?
Posted by: Rob Crawford | January 20, 2014 at 07:52 PM
Oh, look! Like someone rang a bell!
Posted by: Rob Crawford | January 20, 2014 at 07:53 PM
Take David Remnick, Princeton' 80, I found his books on post soviet russia, interesting although sometimes a little overdone, although very informative, but 'the Bridge' was a good doorstop,
and that was pretty much what it was good for, since it actually failed to tell us who Obama was,
his latest offering is somewhat less prolix, but equally useless,
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2014 at 07:55 PM
"Based on the current state of public education, I favor home schooling or parochial and private schools."
Ditto. Those for whom those aren't options are doomed, and things are not going to get better.
Six of my twelve years of schooling through high school were in public schools. I am grateful to this day for the quality of schooling I received at them, which I would be hard put to distinguish from that at the private schools I attended. Challenging schoolwork, rigorously taught, rigorously examined and rigorously graded. No indoctrination of any kind except in the greatness of our country, which we and all of our parents took for granted.
Posted by: Danube on iPad | January 20, 2014 at 07:56 PM
Bagehot, like Luce is doing capoiera, in the great beyond,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/magazine-publishes-retracts-cartoon-implying-jewish-control-american-government_774904.html
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2014 at 08:00 PM
"Why would I want to emulate a failure like you?"
I dunno. Maybe failure or success are relative notions, beyond your acumen of home-schooliness. I suggested a different nerve-pathway but it's fine if you continue in that rut. You seem to enjoy the trench.
Posted by: well, well wisher. | January 20, 2014 at 08:00 PM
Category error, seems rife in many places;
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/misreading-obama-9739
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2014 at 08:01 PM
I suspect that the 2014 elections are going to significantly change the conditions on the ground for the 2016 presidential campaign. I think that it is way too soon to count anyone out (or in), particularly on the right side of the spectrum. If the Senate goes Republican and the House gets even more solid, being perceived as a "moderate" who can get along with the Dems may not be so important anymore.
Posted by: boatbuilder | January 20, 2014 at 08:07 PM
jimmyk;
I disagree strongly. There used to be something called a well rounded man or woman. These were a lot of our businesspeople, leaders, decision makers, etc.
Of course we need the specialists, but we are living in the age of specialization. People are so wrapped up in their specialties they know little else in many cases.
They don't teach history or self reliance or history and lit or business light or those other courses that round the character and mind. We have monetized education.
The educrats come up with their pseudo scientific systems. The marketers study every angle using Goebbels and Skinner and focus groups. Name a group and the range of knowledge and technique within that discipline these days is very demanding. It is information overload sometimes. Even farming is pretty demanding these days.
There is very little big picture thinking these days. That's one the generalists did pretty well.
Posted by: matt | January 20, 2014 at 08:08 PM
Remember the time Seahawk's Richard Sherman was punched in the face?
I had forgot about this.
Posted by: JiB (in Typhus hell) | January 20, 2014 at 08:08 PM
is this the link
http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/matt-vespa/remember-time-seahawks-richard-sherman-was-punched-face
Posted by: rich@gmu | January 20, 2014 at 08:15 PM
Levin has a good rejoinder,
http://therightscoop.com/boom-mark-levin-hits-obama-right-between-the-eyes-on-not-letting-his-son-play-football/
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2014 at 08:17 PM
matt-
Maybe a bit too narrow and too wide. Most general ed programs require a few history classes to graduate (and thankfully I've never had to deal with a douchebag like dana). I had to take one last semester. Also, think about the sort of general, broad based program of political science.
The issue at least from my view is that not only are many students who have no idea what the end game and before they realize it they pile up 20K in debt (easy to do with 2 years of goofing off at a decent state school).
DrJ-
sent you an email.
Posted by: rich@gmu | January 20, 2014 at 08:22 PM
see if I can make this english
>>>is that not only are many students who have no idea what<<<
is that many students have no idea what the end game is.
Posted by: rich@gmu | January 20, 2014 at 08:24 PM
Education for the masses.
http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/fourth-grader-parents-letter-outrage-islam-taught-local-public-school/
"Last December, I picked up my daughter, who is in fourth grade, from school. As soon as she got in the car, she proclaimed, “Allah is great,” and then said it in Arabic"
Posted by: pagar | January 20, 2014 at 08:25 PM
He went to school at Durham, hit, but I don't think he lives there
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/01/19/liberal-host-melissa-harris-perry-mispronounces-marine-corps-motto-semper-fee-95346#comment-1209338036
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2014 at 08:26 PM
Matt: "I disagree strongly"
Not sure what you're disagreeing with. I agree with you about the value of learning history etc., but I was speaking about current reality, not about what ought to be. Colleges aren't producing big picture thinking.
Also, there's nothing about learning technical skills that precludes being well-rounded. Physics majors still have to take courses in humanities and social sciences. The problem is that those courses often aren't very good.
Posted by: jimmyk on iPhone | January 20, 2014 at 08:26 PM
TC,
No way Mitt will run in 2016. Mark my words.
Neil Cavuto on Fox Business just completely decimated Chris Christie followed by the republican who ran for Gov in NY finishing the job. I was a little surprised, frankly. If Cavuto is right, Christie is way past done.
It's gonna be Scott Walker. I'm sure of it. (Do not forget, I was certain it would be Rick Perry in 2012, so don't doubt me.)
Posted by: Jane-Rebel Alliance1 | January 20, 2014 at 08:27 PM
Creighton is dusting Villanova by thirty midway through the second half.
Posted by: Captain Hate on the iPad | January 20, 2014 at 08:33 PM
What evidence did they present, Jane, not the Zimmer matter.
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2014 at 08:33 PM
Not to doubt my friend TC, whom I respect a great deal, but Romney running again makes zero sense. With my unerring powers of prognostication, that should make it a lock that he does.
Posted by: Captain Hate on the iPad | January 20, 2014 at 08:37 PM