SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home &c

JONATHAN CHAIT AUGUST 29, 2011

&c

 -- Some more highlights from Alan Krueger's academic career.

-- Christopher Hitchens asks: "Does the Texas governor believe his idiotic religious rhetoric, or is he just pandering for votes?" I ask: why not both?

-- Alan Krueger's co-author on their most famous paper: "I've subsequently stayed away from the minimum wage literature for a number of reasons. First, it cost me a lot of friends."

-- Inside the mind of Dick Cheney.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 2 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

2 comments

I so love Christopher Hitchens. Saving Steve Jobs' life for a while would be nice, no doubt; but the person we really need a "Manhattan Project" style war on cancer for is CH. The risks of hypocrisy seem forever invisible to the politicized Christians, for whom sufficient proof of faith consists of loud and unambiguous declarations. I am always surprised that more is not heard from sincere religious believers, who have the most to lose if faith becomes a matter of poll-time dogma and lung power. Either the nomination of Perry will doom the Republicans for a while, or his election as President will doom us all. Although I live reasonably close to Canada, I am too old, and too tied down to our five acres in the woods and our chickens to flee there. People used to worry about Goldwater or Reagan; you ain't seen nothing yet. It's show time.

- skahn

August 30, 2011 at 12:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From the David Card feature: "for instance, some of the ones I met at my first job at the University of Chicago, became very angry or disappointed. They thought that in publishing our work we were being traitors to the cause of economics as a whole." Pretty much says it all doesn't it? Apparently the cause of economics (at least as defined by the Chicago School) isn't adherence to objective observation.

- Nari224

August 30, 2011 at 9:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close