The Right Wing Noise Machine Creeps Into the MSM

READ THIS POST by Publius on the triangle between the right-wing noise machine of crazies, the MSM refusal to cover it, and the resulting charge that the MSM is bias -- in an ACORN context.

SCOTUS Will Probably Incorporate the 2nd Amendment

SCOTUS will hear the Chicago hand-gun lawsuit. Essentially, the plaintiff argues that Chicago's handgun ban is identical to the ban struck down in Heller....but the problem is that DC is a federal enclave and therefore covered by the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment, you see, is one of the few (8th and 5th grand juries) that has not been incorporated to the states - so it doesn't apply to Chicago. So, McDonald v. Chicago will give SCOTUS the opportunity to incorporate the 2nd Amendment to the States and expand Heller's decision to cities like Chicago.

Boxer-Kerry Cap and Trade Bill

The Senate released its version of climate change legislation today. TNR has a good wrap up of how it differs from the House Bill.

Fillibuster Strategy

This is important to consider in the wake of Finance voting down two public option amendments (via Yglesias and Ezra)

A good question from Ezra Klein:

To my surprise, Schumer readily accepted that analysis. “We don’t have the 60 votes on the floor for the public option,” he agreed. “I will be the first to admit that.” He thought some smart deal making and horse-trading might get them to 60. But they weren’t there yet.

There are two questions here. The first is “60 votes for what?” Do they not have 60 votes in favor of a health-care plan that includes a public option? Or do they not have 60 votes against a filibuster of a health-care plan that includes a public option? If it’s the former, that’s okay: You only need 51. If it’s the latter, that’s a bigger problem. But I’d be interested to hear which Democrats will publicly commit to filibustering Barack Obama’s health-care reform bill. If that’s such a popular position back home, why aren’t more Democrats voicing it loudly?

And to slice the salami even thinner, consider two separate questions. One is if there’s a health care bill on the Senate floor that does not feature a public option and an amendment is brought to the floor to add one, are there 60 votes to break a filibuster and pass the amendment? Another question is whether if you brought a bill to the floor which included a public option, would Democrats filibuster the overall bill? Those are separate things. To say “I’m against such-and-such” is not equivalent to saying “I’m against any bill that includes such-and-such.” Obviously you can’t get 60 people to each get their way on each and every provision of health care. Is Blanche Lincoln so hostile to a public option that she would filibuster a massive health care package she otherwise likes just to avoid it?

Split the Baby - then Get Rid of One Half

(via Ezra) The Notre Dame economics department was apparently in a tussle back in '03 ... split between traditional economists and heterodox scholars. So, UND actually created two departments! One for the mainstream profs, and another for the heterodox profs. Well, Notre Dame just announced that they're dissolving the department of dissidents.

Seems like after the economic debacle of the past year the last thing we need to solidify neoclassical ideology in the field of economics.

Biden Flips on Afghanistan

Michael Crowley has a good, short, piece in TNR on how Joe Biden has gone from Afghani hawk to one of the administration's biggest (devil's advocate) critic on any escalation in Afghanistan.

Dr. Law and Economics: or How Richard Posner Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Keynes

Richard Posner, the uber-author and notorious law and economics 7th Circuit judge, just wrote a good piece for TNR on how he has become a Keynesian in the wake of our economic crisis. Posner is often seen as right-of-center so it's interesting to see him analyize and explain what made Keynes appealing to him. This is one of my favorite critiques of neo-classical economics ... and Posner recognizes it, and because of it is drawn to Keynes:

The dominant conception of economics today, and one that has guided my own academic work in the economics of law, is that economics is the study of rational choice. People are assumed to make rational decisions across the entire range of human choice, including but not limited to market transactions, by employing a form (usually truncated and informal) of cost-benefit analysis. The older view was that economics is the study of the economy, employing whatever assumptions seem realistic and whatever analytical methods come to hand. Keynes wanted to be realistic about decision-making rather than explore how far an economist could get by assuming that people really do base decisions on some approximation to cost-benefit analysis.

The General Theory is full of interesting psychological observations--the word "psychological" is ubiquitous--as when Keynes notes that "during a boom the popular estimation of [risk] is apt to become unusually and imprudently low," while during a bust the "animal spirits" of entrepreneurs droop. He uses such insights without trying to fit them into a model of rational decision-making.

The Placebo Response

This article in Wired on the renewed interest in researching the placebo effect is fascinating. Apparently more and more drugs have been booted out of Phase II research because they're losing to placebos - it's a worldwide phenomenon. So because it's unlikely that we're making worse drugs - it looks like people are actually responding better to placebos! So, big Pharma is looking into how it can harness the healing power of the placebo. It's very interesting.

The irony is that post-1997 when drug companies were allowed to engage in direct marketing (i.e. TV commercials for restless-leg syndrom .... "Hey, I didn't know I had RLS! I should go ask my doctor about getting that drug!") I'm sure many people have developed physical conditions based on psychological responses to advertising, and so now the new drugs Pharma developed aren't doing as well as the psychological response to the placebo treatment - a psychological ailment and psychological treatment.

There Are No GOP Moderates

EJ is on point - and hit on something Yglesias points out nearly every day - and that is this: there are zero "Moderate" Republicans in Congress (well, maybe Olympia Snowe) and therefore the term "moderate" and "centrist" have no meaning. All of the moderate GOP'ers were thrown out of office last cycle, so only "true" Republicans remain. Unfortunately Congress can be a bunch of pansies, and instead of making sure that their policies are actually smart, they'd rather cover their tush by making it "bipartisan" to spread the blame in case the effort fails (ironically, in some cases compromising on ideals makes a bill more likely to fail!). Therefore, they need "centrists" to get on board .... the problem?...you guessed it: there are no moderates left. So, all the "real" Republicans get labled "moderate" and get their ideas thrown into the mix (giving them - the minority party who lost the election and who is at odds with non-southern public opinion - a disproportionate power in negotiations) simply in the name of "bipartisanship."

Suggestion: lets forget about who signs onto bills and whether they "reached out" or made it a "bipartisanly bad bill" ... and just enact policies ... if they work, we'll vote for you, if not - hit the road, Jack.

Missile Defense Was Wrongheaded and Obama Did the Right Thing

Read Fred Kaplan on Obama's Decision to remove anti-missile defense systems in Czeck Republic and Poland. He's on the mark. It's been my (hardly qualified) opinion for a long time that ICBM defense systems were pretty silly ... and especially a bad priority when it costs us Russia's help in containing actual threats (i.e. Iranian proliferation and the possibility of smuggling suit-cased sized bombs).

Toon

Last Piece of the Puzzle

(via Congress Daily) "Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus released his mark this morning for an $856 billion healthcare overhaul. Republicans working with Baucus to create a bipartisan package did not sign on. The mark is similar to a proposal Baucus released over the Labor Day weekend that creates a co-op system of health insurance to compete with private insurers. It also expands Medicaid to those earning 133 percent over the poverty line and mandates that individuals acquire healthcare coverage while providing tax credits to help those earning as much as 400 percent of the poverty level. One change from the earlier proposal is the addition of a medical malpractice provision expressing a "sense of the Senate" that encourages states to undertake pilot projects to improve the litigation system."

Nate Silver has a good post at 538 (Baucus' Mark Draws Enthusiastic Support from Max Baucus) And Ezra expands:

Max Baucus will release the Chairman's Mark -- the official first draft of his bill -- later today. But things are not going according to plan. He's got a bill full of the compromises meant to attract Republican support, but no Republican support. Not even Olympia Snowe, at this point, has committed to backing the bill.

Meanwhile, the framework has conceded enough to the GOP that it's also losing Democratic support, including that of Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Finance Committee's Health Care Subcommittee. And Rockefeller says that four to six Democrats on the committee feel similarly. Baucus is thus caught between a rock and a hard place. The absence of any Republican support makes it hard for him to justify his compromises. And his compromises make it hard for the Democrats on the committee to support his bill.

Ayn Rand is Screwing Up the World ... Still

MUST READ: I never got too many specifics on what Ayn Rand's philosophy was - aside from that she was influential to the supply-siders in the GOP. But this TNR piece by Jonathan Chiat reviewing a new biography on Rand is extraordinary. Personally, I realized how the Rand - Anti-Rand schism is a fight I've been debating with conservatives since before I was able to define the debate (i.e. since before today). Especially in the context of the healthcare debate - and under a progressive President - it's essential to understand why certain arguments just don't work on the Right....and it's because they're operating on a separate, Randian, world view complete with its own values, terminology, and blind faith in empirically false ideals.

Toon