I’ve been missing the cheerful, upbeat, smiling Obama of 2008. Looks as if he’s back.
Obama has looked tired much of this campaign. Well, he’s entitled; as Van Jones said, Obama has to run the country while Romney doesn’t have to run anything but his mouth.
Still, I’ve been missing the cheerful, upbeat, smiling, passionate, righteously angry Obama of 2008. Looks as if he’s back:
“We tried out ideas; they worked. We tried their ideas; they didn’t work.”
“They’re betting on cynicism; I’m betting on you.”
“The future will never have as many lobbyists as the status quo.”
Author: Mark Kleiman
Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out.
Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken)
When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist
Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993)
Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989)
View all posts by Mark Kleiman
2 thoughts on “Closing argument”
I would like to see Mark address the criticism leveled at his positions in the Great-Nate-Silver Debate:
Here’s the update I posted yesterday to the post Gelman links to:
Update Andrew Gelman points out, reasonably, that a 2:1 proposition sometimes comes in on the short side. So if all “too close to call” means is that the outcome isn’t certain, then yes: the election is too close to call. But it isn’t a toss-up. That’s the point I way trying to make below.
Comments are closed.