Brad DeLong offers a dissenting voice from the enthusiasm we've been seeing (and voicing ourselves) about Ehrenreich: I agree that Barbara Ehrenreich is a very smart and graceful writer, a keen analyst of American culture and society--she is worth, say, ten of David Brooks. But her brand...
Search Results Found For : "reed"
Former GOP Grand Wiz...er, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott is very concerned about John Edwards. Well, of the 100 people in the Senate Lott is certainly one of them, so let's hear.
Andrew Sullivan argues against quietism with respect to the Federal Marriage Amendment: Orrin Hatch's piece in National Review Online is a depressing read. Hatch was once skeptical of the Musgrave amendment.
It's always nice to see smart people say something I've been saying for years. First, Jacob Levy. A solid lifelong tried-and-true libertarian (something I've always wondered how he might square with his decidedly undogmatic views on multiculturalism and the possibility of group rights, which are far...
Matt Yglesias wonders whether Iranian nukes are actually a problem. The question is worth asking. First problem is the question of instability in the Islamic Republic. Iran is more stable than a.
First question: how many 'reviews' of Bill Clinton's book does the NYT plan on running? We're up to three now, by my count. Second question: How many times does Larry.
From Ralph Nader's campaign site: A semi-literate screed denouncing Michael Moore for fraternizing with Democrats and being fat. Classy.
I don't think most people understand just how colossally the Bush administration has fucked up the North Korea situation. The media story suggests that is has been an intractable problem.
William Saletan makes a feeble attempt to defend the worthless "Kerryisms" column. I particularly like this bit of disingenuousness: Another blogger, Eugene Volokh, gets the joke and doesn't like it. "Another possibility.
The attempts to parse the comments of Administration officials to prove that they didn't technically lie are pointless, because of course the chief basis of the Administration's case was the conflation of Iraq with the "war on terra." Whatever specific claims were made, the strategy...
Warning: The following is long, rambling, inconclusive and pointless. Read at your own risk. Most of you have probably figured out that Rob is the Guns and Scott is the.
Digby asks: "Can somebody explain to me why everyone is assuming that Bush is going to be defeated in the Supreme Court on the Guantanamo and Padilla cases?" And, granted, predicting.