Stanford Law School Professor and former Wired magazine columnist Larry Lessig said Tuesday that he's considering a bid to take over the late Rep. Tom Lantos' D-Calif.'s  congressional seat.

He's given himself a March 1 deadline to make the decision.

Stanford Law Professor Larry Lessig Explores A Bid for Congress | Threat Level from Wired.com

These independents are younger and better educated than the average American. They are pragmatic, anti-ideological and results-oriented, hostile to both Big Labour and Big Government but quite prepared to see the government take an active role in dealing with problems like global warming.

Over the past decade or so, independents have been forced to act like either “soft” Republicans or “soft” Democrats—reluctant conscripts into one or other of America's armies. But in this election the opposite is happening—more and more partisans are thinking and acting like independents.

A declaration on independents

McCain likes to make common cause with politicians across the aisle from him. They can’t stand this. They prefer someone who fights Democrats to someone who makes deals with Democrats... Perhaps, having engaged with a real enemy who broke his arms and tortured him and sought to destroy him body and mind and soul, he doesn’t see an enemy when he sees a Democrat but rather just another American whose ideas on many things differ from his but with whom he might share some common ground.

Said another way, Conservatives see most of the people in this country as their enemies. 4 years ago the right wing was jumping up and down about a permanent conservative majority. Now they are talking about their party being destroyed... The end of an era... Amazing...

The fact, I think, is that the loudest members of the Republican Party aren't actually in control of it.

Commentary » Blog Archive » Why They Hate McCain

Like much of the nation, New Hampshire is in a frenzy over illegal immigration. In 2005, a police chief from New Ipswich, a sleepy small town near the Massachusetts border, arrested an illegal immigrant, who had pulled over on the side of the road, on the grounds that he was trespassing in New Hampshire. "We're applying a state law to illegal aliens, instead of federal law, because the federal government refuses to enforce its own laws. Someone needed to bring it, so I brought it," the chief told the Concord Monitor. The courts threw out the case, but the police chief became a statewide celebrity.

Phantom Menace: The Pyschology Behind America's Immigration Hysteria

Nose, face, spite.

Changes reportedly made last night in the stimulus package would reduce its effectiveness as stimulus. Although the package includes a reasonably designed tax rebate, the two most targeted and economically effective measures under consideration — a temporary extension of unemployment benefits and a temporary boost in food stamp benefits — were zeroed out, apparently at the insistence of House Republican leaders.

The two respected institutions that have rated stimulus options in recent days — the Congressional Budget Office and Moody’s Economy.com — both give their two highest ratings for effectiveness as stimulus to the two measures that were dropped.

Reported Stimulus Package Would Provide Little Immediate Boost Due to Removal of Most Effective Provisions

Via the Democratic Caucus...

I'm rerecommending this chart because of the data it contains and not because of the conclusions it seeks to have you draw from that data.

The Bush Administration is certainly directly responsible for some of the changes on this list, such as international opinion of the US, and the increases in our budget and trade deficits.

However, in many respects this chart is pure partisan bullshit. The most starkly annoying aspect is the inclusion of US dependence on foreign oil as a percentage of total oil consumption by the party that faught domestic oil exploration in Alaska. You're blaiming your partisan enemy for the inevitable consequences of the policies you advocated. That's as low as it gets.

Many of the items on this list, such as the increase in oil prices and the amount of job creation, are related to aspects of the business cycle or developments in the global economy that aren't the direct responsibility of the Bush administration. Some, such as changes in the cost of insurance and the number of people insured, are more clearly political, but are the fault of a wide array of actors and not just the Presidency. In fact, the Administration did work on the insurance problem.

The things that I like about this chart are political but I don't see them as directly related to Bush. The most important statistic, I think, is the median household income. It dropped. In 8 years, it dropped.

Thats why our economy is contracting. Because in 8 years businesses have become more productive and they have increased their value but the people who live in this country haven't benefited. The only reason they've had more money to spend is because of phony inflation of the price of their homes built upon irresponsible credit mechanisms.

I suspect a lot of the real value is moving overseas. The question is whether American growth is just going to stop until the rest of the world catches up and our workers become competitive again? Thats going to take a long time. And I don't think its a problem that the Democrats are in a position to solve, although I suspect replacing the H1-B program with a permanent residency system would have a substantial impact.

The Legacy of George W Bush's Presidency

possibly noteworthy wrote:
And for what? There is no real benefit, the naysayers argue. Bottled water is less stringently regulated than tap water. Tests over the past several decades have shown that bottled water is about as good as tap water; some samples test worse, with contaminants that exceed Safe Drinking Water Act standards. Better taste? When blindfolded, taste testers can't typically tell which sample is from a bottle and which is from the tap

Censors are always asserting that the thing they wish the censor has no real value anyway. They are usually wrong. Having just spent two weeks in Europe the assertion that tap water is "about as good as bottled water" is almost as laughable as the idea that you can get carbonated water from a tap. But why do Americans drink bottled water? Its convenient.

At home you don't have to bother filling bottles yourself, you don't have to keep track of the bottles after you are finished, and you can keep it in the fridge where it will be cold when you need it. And when you pop into a convenience store or use a drink machine you are generally presented with a collection of high calorie drinks and a few disgusting diet beverages with artificial sweeteners that don't quite taste right, as well as bottled water. While I deeply wish beverage manufacturors would market prepackaged zero calorie drinks that were genuinely tasty, like unsweet tea or crystal lite, they simply don't. I have to assume most Americans don't want such things. For the rest of us there is bottled water.

Americans would be better off if they drank more bottled water, instead of the myriad kinds of bottled corn syrup they instead injest, which surely cannot be better for the environment. Is it really the case that water bottles out number Coke bottles in our nations land fills? Impossible! This country has a serious obesity problem, and I'll admit my personal contribution to it. Ending that starts with a reduction in caloritic intake.

But I'm sure environmentalists will soon start admonishing me for drinking bottled water (ignoring those who drink bottled Coke), just as they have admonished me for driving a Ford Explorer (ignoring those who drive sports cars) and before that they admonished me for using a cell phone (ignoring the impact of overhead telephone wires). These are people who rejoice in the opportunity to tell you off for engaging in a behavior that they disapprove of, particularly if that behavior is new or high tech. They are like the church ladies of a prior generation. Punk rock made them liberal but didn't quell their taste for self-aggrandizing social control.

Instead of organizing armies to fight the popularity of bottled water why don't these people advocate that water bottling companies use bio-degradable bottles?

RE: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Inverted Quarantine'

1. Obama beat Hillary among women voters 35 to 30 percent.
2. Amid record Democratic turnout, as many people under 30 showed up to caucus as those over 65.
3. Sixty percent of the GOP electorate in Iowa were born-again Christians.
4. Rudy Giuliani finished with a mere 4,013 votes, in sixth place, with less than half of the support of Ron Paul.

Maybe he's not so Ready after all.

Everyone is talking about Huckabee. His honest expressions of faith I think have wider appeal than his actual evangelical policy stances. But is this a fluke or does this guy really have a chance of becoming the nominee? I'm been assuming the former, anyone disagree?

Iowa By the Numbers

possibly noteworthy wrote:
The last several slides are new to this briefing.

David M. Walker, comptroller general of the United States, at the 2008 Economic Forecast Forum:

The federal government is on a “burning platform,” and the status quo way of doing business is unacceptable.

• Faster Economic Growth Can Help, but It Cannot Solve the Problem

Are the candidates confronting this issue? Mostly they seem to ramble on about "coverage."

This graph of per capita health care spend versus life expectancy offers some hope. The reason our health care system is fucked up is that health care isn't like cars or houses. You don't have the option of cheap healthcare, in the way that you can buy a cheap car. The difference in terms of the quality of your life is far more substantial, and so the market can't set sane prices. You can't negotiate a good price if you can't walk away from the table.

Per Capita Spending and Life Expectancy

Since late summer, the US Federal Reserve has been attempting to manage the slow-moving financial crisis triggered by the collapse of the US housing bubble.

At the start, the Fed assumed that it was facing a first-mode crisis -- a mere liquidity crisis -- and that the principal cure would be to ensure the liquidity of fundamentally solvent institutions.

But the Fed has shifted over the past two months toward policies aimed at a second-mode crisis -- more significant monetary loosening, despite the risks of higher inflation, extra moral hazard and unjust redistribution.

As Fed Vice Chair Don Kohn recently put it: "We should not hold the economy hostage to teach a small segment of the population a lesson."

No policymakers are yet considering the possibility that the financial crisis might turn out to be in the third mode.

This is a scariest thing I've read in the past few months.

Three cures for three crises | Brad DeLong, in the Taipei Times