Am I the only person who mourned the passing of Colleen Donaghy (Elaine Strich), Jack’s mother, on 30 Rock? What a great old broad her character was.
I can only imagine the jokes the poor woman had to hear. No disability, no health insurance. Very sad.
It’s official: Elizabeth Warren on the banking committee. Thank you, Jesus.
37 of them, in Philadelphia. And I guarantee you they’ve already signed agreements with more charter schools.
Science Writer and author Jennifer Ouellette welcomes physicist Jim Kakalios – author of THE PHYSICS OF SUPERHEROES and THE AMAZING STORY OF QUANTUM MECHANICS. They talk about his experiences with Hollywood consulting, his love for comic books and using them to communicate science, with loads of fun concrete examples.
Tomorrow 5pm slt – Virtually Speaking Science Science Writer and author Jennifer Ouellette welcomes physicist Jim Kakalios – author of THE PHYSICS OF SUPERHEROES and THE AMAZING STORY OF QUANTUM MECHANICS. They talk about his experiences with Hollywood consulting, his love for comic books and using them to communicate science, with loads of fun concrete examples. Questions to @JenLucPiquant
They apologize for allowing a political assassination while at the same time pretending it’s not their fault. Classy!
The review, published on Wednesday, found RUC officers proposed Mr Finucane, 39, be killed, said they passed information to his killers and failed to stop the attack and then obstructed the murder investigation.
• There were extensive “leaks” of security force information to the UDA and other loyalist paramilitary groups.
• There was a failure by the authorities to act on threat intelligence.
• Employees of the State and State agents played “key roles” in the murder.
• There was a failure to investigate and arrest key members of the West Belfast UDA over a long period of time.
• There was a wider “relentless attempt to defeat the ends of justice” after the murder had taken place.
Sir Desmond found that “senior Army officers deliberately lied to criminal investigators” and that RUC Special Branch “were responsible for seriously obstructing the investigation”.
It also found that an Army intelligence unit, the FRU, “bears a degree” of responsibility because one of their agents, Brian Nelson, was involved in selecting targets.
However, it concluded that Nelson did not provide his handlers with details of the plot against Mr Finucane.
It found that MI5 received intelligence two months before the killing that Mr Finucane was under threat but that no steps were taken to protect him.
From trying to make sense of Politico. Silly Jared! Politico never makes sense:
Reading this Politico piece about how to get the economy growing in earnest again, I was struck by how out of sync the conventional/DC story is compared to what I and other growth analysts think is going on (h/t: DS).
Here’s the agenda:
…tax reform that goes way beyond individuals and rates; much deeper Social Security and Medicare changes than currently envisioned; quick movement on trade agreements, including a proposed one with Europe; an energy policy that exploits the oil and gas boom; and allowing foreign-born students with science expertise to stay here and start businesses.
Do this and there could be not an economic recovery — but a boom, many argue.
Really? I gotta say, I don’t see it. In fact, pretty much everything on that list is a) conventional wisdom in DC and b) largely a distraction from where I think the evidence is actually pointing, as I’ll stress in a moment. To be clear, raising more tax revenues and slowing health care costs are critical in terms of getting our long-term debt situation under control, and immigration reform that provides a path for folks here to stay is also a great idea. A domestic energy boom is already underway and trade agreements do squat for growth (which doesn’t mean they’re not worth it—but their growth potential is hugely overhyped).
What’s holding back growth is inattention to the need for stimulus in the near term in an economy where monetary policy is at least partially hamstrung (zero lower bound), premature fiscal contraction (premature contraculation?), too much income and wealth inequality, and, over the longer term, the lack of a deep investment agenda in public goods, including education and worker training.
As I’ve pointed out several times, the Obama administration left the Bush political appointees in place at the EPA, to the point where the people who were trying to do their jobs were calling the agency “Bush 3.” I’d hate to think he actually chose officials who do something this stupid, but who knows?
Many of us believe the wars to come won’t be fought over oil, they’ll be fought over water. From ProPublica:
Federal officials have given energy and mining companies permission to pollute aquifers in more than 1,500 places across the country, releasing toxic material into underground reservoirs that help supply more than half of the nation’s drinking water.
In many cases, the Environmental Protection Agency has granted these so-called aquifer exemptions in Western states now stricken by drought and increasingly desperate for water.
EPA records show that portions of at least 100 drinking water aquifers have been written off because exemptions have allowed them to be used as dumping grounds.
“You are sacrificing these aquifers,” said Mark Williams, a hydrologist at the University of Colorado and a member of a National Science Foundation team studying the effects of energy development on the environment. “By definition, you are putting pollution into them. … If you are looking 50 to 100 years down the road, this is not a good way to go.”
As part of an investigation into the threat to water supplies from underground injection of waste, ProPublica set out to identify which aquifers have been polluted.
We found the EPA has not even kept track of exactly how many exemptions it has issued, where they are, or whom they might affect.
What records the agency was able to supply under the Freedom of Information Act show that exemptions are often issued in apparent conflict with the EPA’s mandate to protect waters that may be used for drinking.
Though hundreds of exemptions are for lower-quality water of questionable use, many allow grantees to contaminate water so pure it would barely need filtration, or that is treatable using modern technology.
The EPA is only supposed to issue exemptions if aquifers are too remote, too dirty, or too deep to supply affordable drinking water. Applicants must persuade the government that the water is not being used as drinking water and that it never will be.