Brad DeLong has been running an ongoing series of items on his Web site requesting that economists who signed onto a letter supporting the Bush economic program last year contact him if they are still on board. So far only one of them has contacted him to indicate that they still believed in the President’s economic program. Here’s the original item.

From the “it’s about time” category, news that Tivo has signed a deal with Nielsen (the television ratings people). Last year, we were a “Nielsen family,” and we actually had to write down which shows by hand in a little diary that they sent us. I would have thought that by now you would at least be able to go online and indicate which shows you had watched, but Nielsen hasn’t even come that far. The whole thing was particularly insulting when you consider that we have a Tivo, a digital cable box, and a DVR provided by Time-Warner Cable. Surely we should have been able to just give our consent to someone to let Nielsen know what we were watching. I believe Tivo when they say that all data collected from customers is anonymized and aggregated, and if my viewing habits can actually influence broadcasters to show more of the kinds of shows that I like (instead of regularly cancelling them before sweeps), I’m all for it.

Awhile back, I recommended the Michael Lewis book Moneyball, which described the approach taken by the Oakland A’s to invision a new system for running a major league baseball team. The book is about baseball, but it’s also about surpassing conventional wisdom. Paul DePodesta, the assistant general manager of the A’s, gave a speech to a business audience that describes their approach more succinctly.

I got an invitation to Orkut the other day and finally signed up today, after having lunch with a couple of former coworkers who are members. All things considered, I think Linked In is more my speed.

How many Americans would agree with this statement, made by White House press secretary Scott McClellan in a briefing session?

But we already know that what we have learned on the ground since the war only reconfirms what we knew before the war, that Iraq was a gathering threat and that the decision that the President of the United States made was the right decision.

Brad DeLong: Deficit Coverage: ‘What’s Missing?’

Subversion, the new open source version control system, is finally nearing a 1.0 release. If things go well, in 15 years we won’t be using CVS any more!

Oftentimes I’m disappointed in the real media for not stating things as clearly and succinctly as people do on weblogs. But this editorial from the Star Tribune (from the Twin Cities) does the job when it comes to the “inquiry” the Bush administration is setting up to “investigate” intelligence failures prior to 9/11. Every honest person in this country has the duty to fight the ongoing assertion that it was the CIA’s fault that the threat Iraq posed was vastly exaggerated before we invaded. The fact that the people who once accused the CIA of being too soft on Iraq are now accusing it of the opposite should kill Bush’s chances of another term if nothing else does. This administration thinks we’re all morons, or at least that over half of the voters are morons.

I watched the Super Bowl. I saw the tawdry staged event at the end of half time. I replayed it several times on the Tivo, a few times in slow motion. Needless to say, I was amused rather than offended, and my main reaction was that the whole thing was utterly pathetic. The other night I was watching the local news, where the anchor was made to grovel before the viewing public and beg for forgiveness for transmitting filth into their homes or whatever. Also pathetic. All this is just a lead into this brilliant letter to the editors of the Boston Globe, comparing CBS’ decision to refuse MoveOn.org’s ad about the dangers of the deficit when they were willing to accept the MTV halftime show. It also leaves out the fact that CBS showed plenty of other advocacy ads, advocating not smoking and not using drugs. I agree with the writer that CBS has no clue whatsoever where the line should be.

The Bush administration and its supporters often fall back on the “nobody’s perfect” defense when it comes to estimating how much things cost or what sort of weapons our enemies possess. But it seems odd to me that if inaccuracy is our problem, the margin of error would exist on both sides of the correct answer. Why is it that I never hear about the Bush administration vastly overestimating how much things will cost, or how large the deficit will be? By the same token, can we think of any intelligence failures that kept us from starting a war that politicians wanted to start? I don’t know if you can ever go back in history and find a war-hungry politician that didn’t go to war because the intelligence estimates of an enemy’s strengths or intentions didn’t support bellicosity.