Depends on what you mean by "good POTUS." Carter did a lot of deregulation that Reagan took credit for. Carter didn't have the movie-star charisma of Reagan, so he lost the popularity contest, and that difference had a lasting effect.
Time to update Reagan's ten most terrifying words in the English language:
"We're from Silicon Valley and we're here to help you"
A finding pioneered by the now-eliminated EPA Office of Research and Development:
www.epa.gov/air-research...
John Wilkes Booth shot President Abraham Lincoln on this day 161 years ago: Apr. 14, 1865.
But what happened to the other two people in the presidential box with the Lincolns at Ford's Theater that night? Here's a piece I wrote years ago about the tragic lives of Henry Rathbone and Clara Harris.
As much as I was thrilled with the Artemis mission, I have to admit taking much pleasure in knowing how much Trump, Vought, and crowd seethed at the success of a diverse team of government employees and the well-deserved praise they received from *everyone* else.
Continued destruction of EPA's research capabilities. It's clear that this administration wants to know (and wants the American public to know) nothing that distracts from its priorities of enriching itself and its cronies. Too bad if people get sick or die if it stands in the way of profits.
It's never too early if it's true.
We got the bubble-headed bleached-blonde, comes on at five
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsRT...
Terrific words from Kate Marvel:
"In terms of optimism: What is the other option? Is it giving up? Yes, Mr. Trump, you’ve won; yes, Mr. Vought, Project 2025 was a great idea all along? I don’t want to do that. I can’t do that. I think we’re better than that."
A long thread but well worth the time to read through to the end.
@eliothiggins.bsky.social summarizes his article, "Verification, Deliberation, Accountability: A new framework for tackling epistemic collapse and renewing democracy"
Well, duh. Another example of "Specialist believes their specific discipline (religion, law, finance, science, education, technology, journalism...) played the biggest role in shaping the nation." No reason to broadcast this other than for its obvious propaganda purposes.
As a kid I followed Apollo very closely and have read multiple histories of the program. 1: it was an amazing achievement given the capabilities of the day, and 2: it was very much a highly-regimented, military efficiency environment. Seeing today's version is indeed amazing in many different ways.
A Day in May
Quite the change in tone compared to Apollo. It's clear the Apollo astronauts were moved by their experiences, but they were expected to present a much more tough-as-nails tone. It's great to hear today's crew be able and willing to express their "Moon joy"!
This is why Hitler, Stalin, Mao all tried to destroy science - to force science to affirm their worldviews and demands. Vought is no different. Real science is independent of leaders and ideologies and is therefore anathema to them.
Things are moving fast in the energy world thanks to the latest war. I cover a lot of the highlights of the past week in this piece.
Nice article - thanks for sharing.
My take: we realize we're going back to the moon, but this time it's just too much like our everyday experience. If they're using Outlook, I suppose they're also using Teams. Hope they don't miss "go for TLI" because everything froze.
www.theatlantic.com/science/2026...
bsky.app/profile/niki...
The arguments that we "can't" reduce emissions from some sources assumes that we need to maintain our current activities and systems. These are really "won't" arguments: we CAN reduce emissions, but prefer not to if it requires too much change. It's easier to change the planet than to change people.
By who? Implicitly, by most anyone advocating for SAI, reaching back to the 90s. The core arguments that SAI "buys time" or is a "backstop" begin with the assumption that it's too expensive to reduce emissions, implying an economic tradeoff between reductions and SAI.
SAI has long been seen as a way to reduce costs by displacing expensive reductions, absent strong incentives to ensure reductions continue. See Belaia et al, Clim Ch Econ 2021; Aldy and Zeckhauser, South Econ J. 2020. Belaia notes SAI "optimally delays mitigation."
Where to begin?
- Fire Lee Zeldin
- Fire Russ Vought
- Restore EPA
- Restore NOAA
- Protect NCAR
- Halt logging in old-growth forests
- Prevent sea-bed mining
- Support wind energy
- Restore USAID programs
... ♾️
A completely separate flavor of stupidity: no hint that any of these issues were raised.
A couple of comments:
1. SAI *will* slow GHG reductions. Papers show SAI as part of an "optimum" mix, allowing "hard" GHG emissions continue - and they're all hard to those making $
2. We're NOT already geoengineering. We're affecting climate, often with the same mechanisms, but not intentionally.
Congratulations, Ann Marie! Well deserved.👏
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
A truly outstanding message from @vermontgmg.bsky.social - his plenary talk at the American Society for Public Administration. The lessons of Robert Mueller are at the core, but the message is much more profound.
Somehow I just can't see Walter Cronkite reporting this and signing off, "And that's the way it is, Tuesday March third, 2026."
One big reason why is that feds are strongly motivated by their commitment to public service rather than by money, as @donmoyn.bsky.social noted in his post. This is a completely foreign concept to this administration. In fact, they despise the very idea of public service.
An excellent article by @tyrangiel.bsky.social, with an even more excellent phrase that is going directly into my top 10 favorites:
"But with the special joy of someone paid to complicate everything"
It's writing like this that convinces me I'm not a writer...
www.theatlantic.com/magazine/202...
It makes a lot more sense than using ketchup!
Just don't bring in too many personal items or get too comfy in your new office...