Steve Novick, who darn near beat Jeff Merkley in the Democrat primary for U.S. Senate (and who I said all along would have given Gordon Smith more trouble in the general election than Merkley) is going to substitute for Marc Abrams tomorrow on Kremer & Abrams (KXL AM 750 from 9:00-11:00.)
If you watched the Novick/Merkley race, you saw Novick become something of a phenomenon. A very different kind of candidate, to be sure. I think he will be great on the radio, because he's unabashed in his lefty views and willing to talk/argue/disagree without taking things personally.
Hope you tune in. It's webcast at kxl.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Novick was a heck of a lot better than Bojack. Bojack is really limited in what he knows about. Once you get him beyond Portland city gov't stuff, he is just out of his league.
He just reverts to the most simplistic and annoying DailyKos stuff - no value added at all. That stuff no doubt suffices at Lewis & Clark, where calling George Bush a chimp is considered insightful, but he can't hang when he can be challenged openly and can't ban commenters.
So I thought Novick was good. Especially for a first time with you. I look forward to seeing how he is when he has a few shows under his belt.
"He just reverts to the most simplistic and annoying DailyKos stuff - no value added at all. That stuff no doubt suffices at Lewis & Clark, where calling George Bush a chimp is considered insightful, but he can't hang when he can be challenged openly and can't ban commenters."
+++
LOL. So true.
He is the biggest reason Lewis and Clark's reputation is going downhill fast.
After Ward Churchill stunk up Univ Colorado's rep, they had to take action. How long L&C?
If anything, Jack is (marginally) to the right of most of the LC law professors. And he isn't anything close to Ward Churchill, that comparison is silly.
That said, his fixation with Palin is more than a little creepy and his hatred of all things Bush has transformed from thoughtful indignation into kneejerk scapegoating.
Take a lesson from Jack's behavior (something he hasn't learned yet).
Don't blow him out of proportion, you'll only weaken the legitimate criticisms about him.
Speaking of his fixation with Palin, he's at it again about the pregnancy conspriracies. In any event, its entertaining to see how someone purportedly smart enough to be a college law professor can be such an incredible idiot.
Rob, in an early segment of the show you claimed that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was actually cheaper than 10 years of continued monitoring (which you pegged at $700 Billion).
Did you pull that figure out of thin air? And do you have any idea how expensive Dubya's debacle has become? Assuming you aren't clueless as to the continuing costs of the Iraq War II, then all i can figure is that your math skills stink.
Thom:
Thanks for listening to the show, but you didn't listen very carefully. Far from pulling it out of thin air, when I mentioned the cost of containment I directly attributed it to my former advisor in the economics department at University of Chicago.
And I didn't say that the war was cheaper than containment, I said containment was expensive too. I said I thought I remembered the number they calculated to be 700 billion.
Looking at the study nowhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=889882
I remembered it about right. $700 billion was the upper range of the estimate of the cost of containment.
People talk about the cost of the war as if the cost of containment would have been zero. It wasn't. That is my point.
Far from "thin air," I not only cited my source when I said this on my show, but I remembered the number about right!
Ouch, Rob. You're right. I didn't take any notes. I already found the Chicago
"you didn't listen very carefully" R. Kremer
I already found the Chicago study and yes, you chose to cite only the upper end of their estimate (which includes the actual costs of containment PLUS another domestic terrorist attack AND a future invasion).
Unfortunately for your view that invading Iraq was a fiscally responsible thing to do, the authors of your study revised it later and refute your premise.
"The Iraq intervention has proved to be much costlier for the United States than our baseline estimate for the cost of containment (roughly 300 billon 2003 dollars) and at least as costly as the most pessimistic containment scenario we considered..." [Source]
How about the comparative costs in human lives and the resultant blow-back? Were not the 90's sanctions a form of containment? If so, they weren't w/out their own costs, particularly in human lives; yet how much should we value our own complicity, when their leader chose resistance to political pressure?
What I fail to understand is why we didn't just carefully target Saddam w/ surgical strikes? Reagan certainly put the fear of ___ into Khadaffi. I mean, why do we have Special Ops at all? Unless fear of political failure, Oliver North style, played a factor, I can only assume it's really been more about finding a more culturally suitable base of operations in the Middle East, among Sunis rather than the complications inherent in sustaining the one we still have in Saudi. That and containment of Iran, but now we've got to worry about containing Pakistan.
Where does it end? When we tank our economy Soviet-style? Oh wait, what's that knocking at the door? The tax man cometh.
Post a Comment