The controls are almost as famous as the Konami Code or idkfa. Space bar = fire, arrows are direction, one is thrust. Game after link.
Archives for 2011
Newt’s Quiet Day – Staffers Dynamite His Campaign To Obscure Their Bad Bet And Free Themselves For Perry Or Others
There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.
Newton Leroy Gingrich (2011)
Any American would be proud to honor service to our country. We generally agree with Rich Galen’s take on why the wheels came off. You may have noticed on Twitter my one quibble is over whose fault. Unless we learn something dramatically new, we believe (a) the staff deluded themselves into thinking they could impose a campaign structure on Newt; (b) blaming everything on Callista is not only inaccurate but shows lack of class; and (c) the mass exodus a CYA drama queen move.
Long time readers know our cant. He was Clinton’s coeval partner in one other respect: both congenitally undisciplined. It’s apparent within 15 minutes meeting him.
Anyone who has worked in his environment or reported on it knows this to be true. It was so in the late 1980s. In 1993-94. When he got fired in 1998. And 2011. To be ‘long time staffers’ and suddenly ‘discover’ this character facet in June 2011? Either mentally handicapped or venally dishonest.
Rick Tyler of insane press release fame has been on Newt’s payroll for 10 years. You make that call.
Why We’re In Deeper Trouble Than Even Justin Wolfers Thinks (Long)
Justin Wolfers offers sobering empirical analysis to support his 4 conclusions:
1. The slump began in late 2006. And indeed, we were hardly enjoying good times through early 2006.
2. It’s a big slump, and GDP per capita fell by over 7 percent.
3. We remain a long way below the previous peak.
4. It’s going to take a long while to return to where we were back in 2006. Most forecasters are expecting GDP to grow by around 3 percent, implying per-capita growth closer to two percent. At those rates, average incomes in 2013 will (finally!) be back around the levels of 2006.
He has some nice charts. Check ’em out.
Unfortunately, both he and the Fed think that the last few years are essentially cyclical — i.e., connected to and integrated with economic behavior and welfare/consumption before and to come. Things are grim to be sure, but we’ll get back (in 2013, go team). If only it were so.
Wolfers is optimistic about 2013 because his return data point, 2006, is actually itself a bubble popping high point. Don’t look down, it’s a long, long way to fall.
For the Stiftung, our economic narrative is thus: (a) the First Tech/Telecom Bubble (1994-2001); (b) the National Security Boom (2001-present); (c) Tax Cut -Redistribution (2001-present); (d) the Second Real Estate Bubble (2002-2007); and (e) the bailouts/USG and Fed subsidies (2008-present). Bernanke all but assured in recent appearances that money will continue to be free – as in close to zero % cost of borrowing. Under normal circumstances, if we were in a cyclical moment, the Fed would not only watch out for but want to see inflation. On cue, a Second Tech Bubble is getting ready for its close up.
Our predicament is not related to normative, linear macro-economic narratives. But because we collectively don’t realize that, the U.S. continues to make illusory and dangerously erroneous choices along an inflated baseline curve. Our real welfare curve is an order of magnitude smaller. It’s highly unlikely the U.S. will hit Wolfers’ mark in 2013 because there’s literally no there, there.
To be blunt, many of the jobs vaporized since 2008 are not coming back. Those few that do will be significantly reduced. People really haven’t internalized any of this yet.
Shadowboxing For The Title
Medvedev sent his special envoy to meet with rebels in Benghazi. Putin, as all here recall, was and remains vocally critical of the NATO operation. The younger man makes an interesting gesture, adding to uncertain buzz in Moscow. Not only calling Khadaffi to leave, Medvedev then (gratuitously) declared Russia will not shelter him.
NATO in a way may be forcing Medvedev’s hand. Attack helicopters, missile spotters and SAS shooters in Libya are a bit astray from a UN humanitarian mandate. Much as Putin predicted. Libya’s a political football match that many gladly would see wrapped up soon. Medvedev’s in for a penny, in for a pound, wrapping himself around the G-8 declaration.
Both Putin and Medvedev mostly continue campaigning for 2012 via mime: Putin’s photo ops usually target older and less educated demographics, showing outdoor hardihood or feats of daring. Medvedev apparently likes to sound like a lawyer and embraces high tech.
Even a year ago many assumed Medvedev still would be Putin’s poodle. No longer. Now, Medvedev wears a “Russia’s Commander In Chief” jacket. (The CiC can fire the Prime Minster – subtle, no?). He then forced one of Putin’s proteges out of running a rich company. Successfully. And now they’ve split on Libya.
So how do people who will really decide things make up their minds? The officials, oligarchs and power players within the political-economic sphere? (The ‘people’ will be presented with a decision to ratify). Who’s really up? Down? No one knows. Everyone’s guessing. And everyone’s lying.
The tandem (as they’re called) even have different scripts for the nomination of McFaul to be the new ambassador. For one side, McFaul is shallow, duplicitous and his lack of any previous diplomatic training a sign of contempt. He signals that Washington plans more ram and cram policies (Oh Lord, if they only knew!). The other side sees the ambassador as a great opportunity for Russia. Moscow would have direct contact with Obama and the White House staff, bypassing the slow, wooden, unimaginative State Department (per the script).
Care to share? What’s your take?
‘The Most Divisive Word In Britain’? (Hint: It’s Not Blair)
Words have the power we invest in them. This one, almost a decade old and celebrated in the finest episodes of Doctor Who (in our opinion), is causing a bit of a stir. Aside from centuries of class division supported by social complexes ranging from accents to red bricks, one little word summons potential unseemliness.
Maybe some of our friends across the pond can sort it out. Here it is.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- …
- 29
- Next Page »

