1
Science
A Struggle to Balance Wind Energy With Wildlife
Tensions between the White House, the wind energy industry and environmental groups have risen over a new rule allowing wind farms to kill eagles.
2
N.Y. / Region
Facing Suit, New York City Agrees to Remove Mold in Public Housing More Quickly
A planned settlement with the federal government is aimed at helping thousands of tenants suffering from asthma."An entitlement is a guarantee of access to something, such as to welfare benefits, based on established rights or by legislation. A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with a legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are based on concepts of principle ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement.
In a casual sense, the term "entitlement" refers to a notion or belief that one (or oneself) has a right to some particular reward or benefit[1]—if given without deeper legal or principled cause, the term is often given with pejorative connotation (e.g. a "sense of entitlement")."
3
U.S.
Senate Asks C.I.A. to Share Its Report on Interrogations
The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the C.I.A. for an internal study that lawmakers believe is broadly critical of the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation program.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity
The Supreme Court put Sovereign immunity in question
For Bill Clinton.
President Obama does not want to send The Shrub to the Hague as a prisoner.
The precedent would send him next.
4
Fashion & Style
For Women, Hairstyles at the Barbershop
They find a less fussy atmosphere than at the salon, and haircuts with the guys save cash.
5
Sports
Zubrus’s Offense and Brodeur’s Defense Fuel Devils
Dainius Zubrus scored twice and Martin Brodeur posted his third shutout of the season as the Devils beat the Lightning.
6
Thousands Flee From Fighting in South Sudan
As fighting continued in Juba, the capital, the U.N.mission there was providing shelter to civilians but said it could not accommodate all who sought refuge.
7
Science
Video: ScienceTake: Angry Birds
Mockingbirds furiously protect their nests against intruding cowbirds, with mixed results.
8
World
Bomb Explodes Outside Kabul Airport
There were no civilian casualties from a bomb that went off at the northern entrance to Kabul International Airport.
9
10
Health
A Federal Proposal for Paid Family Leave
Two Democrats introduced legislation that would guarantee paid leave to caregivers, among others.
11
Health
Exercise as Potent Medicine
Exercise can be as effective as many frequently prescribed drugs in treating some of the leading killers, including heart disease and diabetes, a new study suggests.
12
World
British Panel Narrows Options for Expanding Airport Capacity
While its shortlist included proposals for Heathrow and Gatwick, the panel did not completely rule out the idea of a new airport.
13
N.Y. / Region
Bankruptcy Court Hearing Examines Mystery at Wine Storage Business
After water poured into the cellars of WineCare Storage during Hurricane Sandy, most of its clients have been unable to get anywhere near their rare and valuable bottles.
14
Sports
Mandela, Self-Declared Yankee, Gets Plaque in Monument Park
The Yankees said they would commemorate Nelson Mandela’s triumphant visit to Yankee Stadium in 1990.
15
Your Money
An Alternative to Giving Up the Car Keys
The number of older drivers on the road is growing, but technology and training could keep them behind the wheel safely for longer.
16
World
Putin Is Expected to Offer Ukraine a Financial Lifeline
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia will meet Tuesday with Ukraine’s embattled president, Viktor F. Yanukovich, but officials said the possibility of Ukraine joining Russia’s customs union would not be discussed.Chronology of Coverage
-
Dec. 19, 2013
Ukrainian officials praise financial aid package from Russia as country’s only hope to prevent economic collapse, although it is signed in defiance of a large and sustained antigovernment protest; Prime Min Mykola Azarov says agreement for Moscow to provide $15 billion in loans and a steep discount on natural gas means financial crisis has been averted.MORE » -
Dec. 18, 2013
Russian Pres Vladimir V Putin says that Russia will provide to Ukraine $15 billion in loans and steep discount on natural gas prices; deal is seen as bold but risky move by Russia, given the political upheaval in Kiev, and sign that Putin, for the moment, has gained upper hand in his diplomatic wrangle with the West over Ukraine.MORE » -
Dec. 17, 2013
Ukrainian nationalist party Svoboda is greatly benefiting from uprising against Pres Viktor Yanukovich's decision not to sign a trade and economic deal with the European Union; party has been criticized in the past by groups that monitor hate speech.MORE » -
Dec. 17, 2013
Vitali Klitschko vacates his World Boxing Council heavyweight title and retires from boxing to concentrate on Ukrainian politics and his role as an opposition leader.MORE » -
Dec. 16, 2013
European Union breaks off talks with Ukraine over far-reaching trade deal that protestors have been demanding for weeks, and top EU official Stefan Fule issues stinging statement all but accusing Pres Viktor F Yanukovich of dissembling during negotiations; Fule says further discussions on agreement will depend on receiving clear signals from Ukraine's government.MORE »
17
Sports
Florida Holds Off Memphis at Garden
Florida jumped ahead but had to hold off Memphis in the closing seconds to win in the Jimmy V Classic.
18
Opinion
Is the Safety Net Just Masking Tape?
The case for structural economic reform.Tardy Taper Thoughts
Not dead yet, in case you’re wondering —
just busy with preparations for family travel, and then with travel
itself; this post was written during a layover.
Anyway, a quick note on the old news of the Fed’s mini-taper.
As many have noted, it looks as if the Fed has managed to pull the trick off this time — slowing the rate at which it purchases long-term assets, while simultaneously conveying the message that this did not signal a general hawkish turn, that short rates would remain at zero for a long time.
But why, exactly, is the Fed eager to start exiting the QE business, even as it clearly remains concerned that the economy is too weak? The official statement was uninformative. What one hears is that a fair number of people at the Fed worry that QE is feeding speculative bubbles, as investors search for yield that really isn’t there.
But surely that’s a feature of cheap money in general; the same argument could be used for raising short-term rates despite a weak economy and low inflation. In fact, that’s exactly what has been happening in Sweden, where fear of bubbles has been used to justify monetary tightening that makes no sense at all in terms of either an unemployment or an inflation target.
The point is that the dilemma that supposedly explains the Fed’s attempt to give with one hand what it took away with the other really has nothing to do with the form of monetary policy, and everything to do with the pretty clear evidence that the natural rate of interest is negative, which ties us back to the whole secular stagnation issue.
So why the Fed’s twist? My guess is that it’s ultimately political: that ever-growing balance sheet causes problems with Congress; Republicans hate easy money in general, but a Fed balance sheet of FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS [/Dr. Evil] offers an exceptionally easy target.
And since they do seem to have pulled this one off, I guess this particular act of political self-defense was OK."
" 9 Comments
Anyway, a quick note on the old news of the Fed’s mini-taper.
As many have noted, it looks as if the Fed has managed to pull the trick off this time — slowing the rate at which it purchases long-term assets, while simultaneously conveying the message that this did not signal a general hawkish turn, that short rates would remain at zero for a long time.
But why, exactly, is the Fed eager to start exiting the QE business, even as it clearly remains concerned that the economy is too weak? The official statement was uninformative. What one hears is that a fair number of people at the Fed worry that QE is feeding speculative bubbles, as investors search for yield that really isn’t there.
But surely that’s a feature of cheap money in general; the same argument could be used for raising short-term rates despite a weak economy and low inflation. In fact, that’s exactly what has been happening in Sweden, where fear of bubbles has been used to justify monetary tightening that makes no sense at all in terms of either an unemployment or an inflation target.
The point is that the dilemma that supposedly explains the Fed’s attempt to give with one hand what it took away with the other really has nothing to do with the form of monetary policy, and everything to do with the pretty clear evidence that the natural rate of interest is negative, which ties us back to the whole secular stagnation issue.
So why the Fed’s twist? My guess is that it’s ultimately political: that ever-growing balance sheet causes problems with Congress; Republicans hate easy money in general, but a Fed balance sheet of FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS [/Dr. Evil] offers an exceptionally easy target.
And since they do seem to have pulled this one off, I guess this particular act of political self-defense was OK."
" 9 Comments
Microfoundations and the Parting of the Waters
The blogospheric debate about
microfoundations, saltwater/freshwater and all that has, I think, been
illuminating. Among other things it’s serving almost as an oral history
of What Really Happened – minus the oral part, but not mediated by the
usual slowness and overthinking of formal publication.
And I think the intellectual history is useful, because it gives you some idea of how people came to make the choice of which side to be on. It’s certainly possible to make the case for an eclectic, fairly salty approach on general principles, as Simon Wren-Lewis, Noah Smith, and Nick Rowe do. But the abstract logic gains force when you recall how it actually happened.
Oh, and I was there – not as a participant in the growing macro war, but as a student at the time the great divide was taking place. I felt the seduction of the microfoundations-uber-alles doctrine, but also got to watch as the demand for microfoundations, originally grounded in appeals to empirical power, became free-floating, a dogma to be defended in the teeth of the evidence.
So, if you had to choose a beginning, it would be the famous Phelps volume. The papers in that volume all started with two observations, of which the first was that there was overwhelming evidence for some kind of short-run non-neutrality of money. None of the papers in that volume questioned the proposition that nominal shocks had large real effects. You can see why if you look at annual changes in nominal versus real GDP between 1950 and 1970:
Obviously there was a near one-to-one correspondence. Obviously, too,
it was really hard in that era, with its lack of major supply shocks,
to tell a story in which real GDP was driving nominal spending rather
than vice versa. So the Phelps volume began with the stylized fact that
in the short run nominal demand, driven for example by changes in
monetary policy, gets reflected largely in quantities rather than
prices.
But as the papers also observed, it was hard to explain that fact in terms of standard microeconomics: with everyone acting rationally, money should have been neutral even in the short run. Traditional Keynesian analyses simply said that people aren’t completely rational, that they have money illusion – or maybe that contracts are focal points in which nominal wages or prices matter because of salience, even though they should be arbitrary. But these were ex post rationalizations rather than being derived from some kind of fundamentals.
So the Phelps crowd came up with a lovely story: you see, it was all about information. Individuals and firms couldn’t tell, in the very short run, whether a rise in the price they were being offered represented a shock specific to them – people for some reason wanted more of their widgets — or a general change in demand. It was rational to respond to an idiosyncratic rise in demand by producing more, so confusion could explain why short-run aggregate supply seemed upward-sloping.
As Phelps and others (including Milton Friedman, who was thinking along similar lines) realized, this meant that the apparent tradeoff between unemployment and inflation would be unstable: sustained inflation would get built into expectations, and would no longer produce low unemployment. The stagflation of the 70s seemed to confirm this prediction, and brought the microfoundations project immense prestige. Encouraged by all this, freshwater economists gleefully proclaimed Keynes dead, the subject of nothing but “giggles and whispers”.
But here’s the thing: after that initial success, Phelps-Lucas/type microfoundations quickly collapsed both intellectually and empirically. Intellectually, the problem was that rational individuals simply should not have been confused in the way the models demanded; there’s too much information out there, whether in newspapers or in asset prices. You just couldn’t get a Lucas supply curve out of a model looking even vaguely like the real economy.
Empirically, the problem was that slumps last too long. Even if you wave away the information problem, confusion about aggregate versus idiosyncratic shocks can last for quarters, maybe, but not years.
So the truth was that microfoundations in macroeconomics had its moment, but failed utterly at the one thing it was sold, above all, as being able to do – namely, give a better explanation of why nominal shocks have real effects. Time, you might think, to reconsider the project.
And some did. There was a revival of Keynesian thinking in the late 70s and early 80s, albeit one that tried to cram as many microfoundations into the models as possible without being grossly unrealistic.
But many economists had so committed themselves to the idea that Keynes was dead and rationality roolz that they simply dug in deeper. Rationality-based microfoundations must be right; if their microfoundations couldn’t explain why nominal shocks have real effects, then nominal shocks must not have real effects – it’s all real shocks. And so real business cycle theory was born.
So now we have people debating whether models with microfoundations lead to better predictions, both of the future and of policy impacts, than models with ad hoc elements; as Wren-Lewis and Smith say, this is by no means obvious if the microfoundations are wrong, as they often clearly are. But what you want to realize is that this isn’t going to convince the microfoundations crowd. After all, more than thirty years ago they decided that the joy of microfoundations trumped the utter failure of microfounded models to work in practice, and they have now trained successive cohorts of students in this view.
There are, it’s true, some hints of a guilty conscience – as Matt Yglesias points out, there’s the odd tendency of freshwater types to immediately accuse anyone with saltwater ideas of being dishonest. (I’m not a nice guy, but if look at what I said about, say, Cochrane, it was that he was ignorant, not corrupt.)
Oh, and the notion that there had been a convergence of views by 2007, which was then ruptured by the crisis, was a saltwater delusion. People like Olivier Blanchard convinced themselves that the other side was listening; it wasn’t. The hysterical reaction to the notion that fiscal policy is effective at the zero lower bound demonstrated that the freshwater types had never bothered to learn the least thing about how New Keynesian models worked.
So there’s a lot of history here; but the main driver behind this history was, I believe, the inability of many economists to accept the fact that they took a wrong turn."
"December 18, 2013, 11:20 am 199 Comments
And I think the intellectual history is useful, because it gives you some idea of how people came to make the choice of which side to be on. It’s certainly possible to make the case for an eclectic, fairly salty approach on general principles, as Simon Wren-Lewis, Noah Smith, and Nick Rowe do. But the abstract logic gains force when you recall how it actually happened.
Oh, and I was there – not as a participant in the growing macro war, but as a student at the time the great divide was taking place. I felt the seduction of the microfoundations-uber-alles doctrine, but also got to watch as the demand for microfoundations, originally grounded in appeals to empirical power, became free-floating, a dogma to be defended in the teeth of the evidence.
So, if you had to choose a beginning, it would be the famous Phelps volume. The papers in that volume all started with two observations, of which the first was that there was overwhelming evidence for some kind of short-run non-neutrality of money. None of the papers in that volume questioned the proposition that nominal shocks had large real effects. You can see why if you look at annual changes in nominal versus real GDP between 1950 and 1970:
But as the papers also observed, it was hard to explain that fact in terms of standard microeconomics: with everyone acting rationally, money should have been neutral even in the short run. Traditional Keynesian analyses simply said that people aren’t completely rational, that they have money illusion – or maybe that contracts are focal points in which nominal wages or prices matter because of salience, even though they should be arbitrary. But these were ex post rationalizations rather than being derived from some kind of fundamentals.
So the Phelps crowd came up with a lovely story: you see, it was all about information. Individuals and firms couldn’t tell, in the very short run, whether a rise in the price they were being offered represented a shock specific to them – people for some reason wanted more of their widgets — or a general change in demand. It was rational to respond to an idiosyncratic rise in demand by producing more, so confusion could explain why short-run aggregate supply seemed upward-sloping.
As Phelps and others (including Milton Friedman, who was thinking along similar lines) realized, this meant that the apparent tradeoff between unemployment and inflation would be unstable: sustained inflation would get built into expectations, and would no longer produce low unemployment. The stagflation of the 70s seemed to confirm this prediction, and brought the microfoundations project immense prestige. Encouraged by all this, freshwater economists gleefully proclaimed Keynes dead, the subject of nothing but “giggles and whispers”.
But here’s the thing: after that initial success, Phelps-Lucas/type microfoundations quickly collapsed both intellectually and empirically. Intellectually, the problem was that rational individuals simply should not have been confused in the way the models demanded; there’s too much information out there, whether in newspapers or in asset prices. You just couldn’t get a Lucas supply curve out of a model looking even vaguely like the real economy.
Empirically, the problem was that slumps last too long. Even if you wave away the information problem, confusion about aggregate versus idiosyncratic shocks can last for quarters, maybe, but not years.
So the truth was that microfoundations in macroeconomics had its moment, but failed utterly at the one thing it was sold, above all, as being able to do – namely, give a better explanation of why nominal shocks have real effects. Time, you might think, to reconsider the project.
And some did. There was a revival of Keynesian thinking in the late 70s and early 80s, albeit one that tried to cram as many microfoundations into the models as possible without being grossly unrealistic.
But many economists had so committed themselves to the idea that Keynes was dead and rationality roolz that they simply dug in deeper. Rationality-based microfoundations must be right; if their microfoundations couldn’t explain why nominal shocks have real effects, then nominal shocks must not have real effects – it’s all real shocks. And so real business cycle theory was born.
So now we have people debating whether models with microfoundations lead to better predictions, both of the future and of policy impacts, than models with ad hoc elements; as Wren-Lewis and Smith say, this is by no means obvious if the microfoundations are wrong, as they often clearly are. But what you want to realize is that this isn’t going to convince the microfoundations crowd. After all, more than thirty years ago they decided that the joy of microfoundations trumped the utter failure of microfounded models to work in practice, and they have now trained successive cohorts of students in this view.
There are, it’s true, some hints of a guilty conscience – as Matt Yglesias points out, there’s the odd tendency of freshwater types to immediately accuse anyone with saltwater ideas of being dishonest. (I’m not a nice guy, but if look at what I said about, say, Cochrane, it was that he was ignorant, not corrupt.)
Oh, and the notion that there had been a convergence of views by 2007, which was then ruptured by the crisis, was a saltwater delusion. People like Olivier Blanchard convinced themselves that the other side was listening; it wasn’t. The hysterical reaction to the notion that fiscal policy is effective at the zero lower bound demonstrated that the freshwater types had never bothered to learn the least thing about how New Keynesian models worked.
So there’s a lot of history here; but the main driver behind this history was, I believe, the inability of many economists to accept the fact that they took a wrong turn."
"December 18, 2013, 11:20 am 199 Comments
The Non-death Non-spiral
The glums of October, when the launch of
healthcare.gov turned into a debacle, convinced many — in fact, just
about all — conservatives that Obamacare was doomed, doomed, doomed. But
the IT side is working much better — not as well as it should, but it’s
getting there, and enrollment is rising fast.
So what’s a doomsayer to say? You could reconsider in the light of the evidence, but it’s virtually a defining characteristic of modern conservatism that you don’t do that sort of thing. So now prophecies of doom rest on predictions of a “death spiral” in which young, healthy Americans don’t sign up, leading to high premiums, leading to further dropouts, etc..
It’s not going to happen, even though the people who have signed up so far do tilt older. This was expected, by the way — the same thing happened in Massachusetts.
The point is that while the death spiral story sounds good, especially if you’re rooting for failure, you have to do the numbers. And they don’t work, as Sarah Kliff reports. Even if the young sign up at only half the rate of the rest, rates will go only a few percent higher.
Why? As the study Kliff cites explains, the key point is that while Obamacare does impose community rating — no discrimination based on medical history — it doesn’t eliminate age-based rating; it just limits the range of age-based variation in premiums. So while young enrollees are, to some extent, subsidizing their elders, it’s not nearly as big a deal as people imagine.
In short, the age profile of enrollees is interesting, but not a reason for either glee or nail-biting anxiety."
So what’s a doomsayer to say? You could reconsider in the light of the evidence, but it’s virtually a defining characteristic of modern conservatism that you don’t do that sort of thing. So now prophecies of doom rest on predictions of a “death spiral” in which young, healthy Americans don’t sign up, leading to high premiums, leading to further dropouts, etc..
It’s not going to happen, even though the people who have signed up so far do tilt older. This was expected, by the way — the same thing happened in Massachusetts.
The point is that while the death spiral story sounds good, especially if you’re rooting for failure, you have to do the numbers. And they don’t work, as Sarah Kliff reports. Even if the young sign up at only half the rate of the rest, rates will go only a few percent higher.
Why? As the study Kliff cites explains, the key point is that while Obamacare does impose community rating — no discrimination based on medical history — it doesn’t eliminate age-based rating; it just limits the range of age-based variation in premiums. So while young enrollees are, to some extent, subsidizing their elders, it’s not nearly as big a deal as people imagine.
In short, the age profile of enrollees is interesting, but not a reason for either glee or nail-biting anxiety."
19
Real Estate
A Flurry of New Activity at a Harlem Crossroads
At the neglected intersection of East 125th Street and Park Avenue, new signs of life are appearing.
20
Health
A Gap in the Affordable Care Act
The flawed implementation of pediatric dental care under the new health law could leave millions of young patients without access, experts warn.
1
Science
Video: ScienceTake: Angry Birds
Mockingbirds furiously protect their nests against intruding cowbirds, with mixed results.
2
3
Technology
Wireless Speakers Let Music Roam Free
Newer wireless models deliver sound that can satisfy a demanding listener, from relatively small packages.
4
Opinion
Employers Shouldn't Care About Credit Histories
Elizabeth Warren gets that people with poor credit histories are not necessarily poor job prospects.
5
Sports
Florida Holds Off Memphis at Garden
Florida jumped ahead but had to hold off Memphis in the closing seconds to win in the Jimmy V Classic.
6
Magazine
Video: Holiday Feast: Goose
Sam Sifton shows how to make a goose fit any wintertime special occasion.
7
Business Day
Barclays to End Sponsorship of London Bike Program
The British bank Barclays is ending its sponsorship in 2015 of a bike-rental program in London that inspired a similar bike-sharing program — Citi Bike — in New York.The Three Stooges Do Westminster
A couple of weeks ago
I tried to get at what’s wrong with the latest tactic of the austerians
in terms of a classic Three Stooges scene. Curly is seen banging his
head against the wall; when Moe asks why, he replies, “Because it feels
so good when I stop.”
As Simon Wren-Lewis tries to explain, this is exactly the basis of the Cameron government’s triumphalism now that UK GDP is growing again.
The basic fact of UK economic performance since the financial crisis is that it has been terrible — in fact, as the NIESR documents, GDP performance has been substantially worse than during the Great Depression:
The only reason Britain isn’t suffering terrifyingly high
unemployment is the fact that, for reasons not clear, productivity has
collapsed, so that the shrunken economy is still employing a lot of
people.
Now, however, the economy is finally growing. Why?
Well, partly because economies do tend to grow unless you keep banging their heads against a wall. And that’s more or less what has happened in Britain. Wren-Lewis uses the OBR numbers; here, telling more or less the same story, is what you get from the IMF Fiscal Monitor. What I plot below is the change in the cyclically adjusted primary balance — a measure of the extent to which fiscal policy is being tightened.
You don’t want to think of these as precise numbers, since the
cyclical adjustment relies on highly uncertain estimates of potential
GDP (it depends on why you think productivity collapsed). But the basic
picture is surely right: Cameron/Osborne imposed a lot of austerity in
their first two years, then let up substantially. In effect, they spent a
while banging Britain’s head against the wall, and are now claiming
vindication, because it feels good when they stop.
Politically, this may well work. We’ve long known from US evidence that elections depend on the recent growth rate, not longer-term performance; in fact, an “optimal control” strategy if a president wants to win reelection is to push the economy into a pointless slump during his first two years, then engineer a fast recovery going into the next election. Cameron may have lucked into pursuing effectively the same strategy.
But none of this political analysis should distract us from the economic point that claims that recent growth vindicates austerity are deeply stupid."
As Simon Wren-Lewis tries to explain, this is exactly the basis of the Cameron government’s triumphalism now that UK GDP is growing again.
The basic fact of UK economic performance since the financial crisis is that it has been terrible — in fact, as the NIESR documents, GDP performance has been substantially worse than during the Great Depression:
Now, however, the economy is finally growing. Why?
Well, partly because economies do tend to grow unless you keep banging their heads against a wall. And that’s more or less what has happened in Britain. Wren-Lewis uses the OBR numbers; here, telling more or less the same story, is what you get from the IMF Fiscal Monitor. What I plot below is the change in the cyclically adjusted primary balance — a measure of the extent to which fiscal policy is being tightened.
Politically, this may well work. We’ve long known from US evidence that elections depend on the recent growth rate, not longer-term performance; in fact, an “optimal control” strategy if a president wants to win reelection is to push the economy into a pointless slump during his first two years, then engineer a fast recovery going into the next election. Cameron may have lucked into pursuing effectively the same strategy.
But none of this political analysis should distract us from the economic point that claims that recent growth vindicates austerity are deeply stupid."
8
Business Day
Walmart Names New Head of Foreign Operations
David Cheesewright is taking over the post that Doug McMillon is leaving to become the retailer’s chief executive.
9
Technology
H.P. Tying More Big-Business Systems Together
The Silicon Valley giant is embracing the notion that different types of business computing systems are merging into one tightly integrated computing engine.
10
Sports
Delving Into Brain Injuries With the N.F.L.’s Money
The National Institutes of Health has decided part of a grant from the N.F.L. to study brain injuries will go to two groups studying chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or C.T.E., in living patients.
11
N.Y. / Region
Bloomberg Focuses on Rest (as in Rest of the World)
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg will take much of his City Hall team with him as he creates a consulting group to help him reshape cities around the globe.
12
Opinion
Saudi Arabia Will Go It Alone
The West’s policies toward Iran and Syria pose a threat to the entire Middle East. We can’t stand idly by.Islam is a threat to itself and to the world in general.
It will not be suppressed by the force of arms.
Pop culture may do the job.
13
Home & Garden
Kitchen Islands and Carts
The perfect choice has style, function and “gnarly” wheels, a restaurateur says.
14
Real Estate
Beechhurst: Stepping Out of Whitestone’s Shadow
A 70-block waterfront enclave in the northeast corner of Whitestone, Queens, with a storied history, a strong sense of community and an abundance of beaches.
15
U.S.
George Hambrick, 91, Leader in Dermatology, Dies
Dr. Hambrick founded the American Skin Association in 1987 with two colleagues and was its president from its inception to his death.
16
Health
Ask Well: Benefits of Swimming
The health effects of swimming are similar to those of land-based aerobic activities like jogging, walking or bicycling — with some notable differences.
17
Opinion
Signs of Baby Steps on Stanching Wasteful Flaring of Natural Gas
Signs of progress on wasteful, warming flaring of natural gas in America’s Bakken oil patch.
18
U.S.
When Private Firms Run Schools, Financial Secrecy Is Allowed
The boundary between public and private becomes blurred when schools contract out their management duties to private companies, which can make the ensuring of financial accountability a serious challenge.
19
Sports
Golson Back With Irish Football Team
Quarterback Everett Golson, who was suspended for the fall semester for what he termed “poor judgment on a test,” was readmitted to Notre Dame.
20
Magazine
No comments:
Post a Comment