Andrew S. Kelly
@askellyphd.bsky.social
Associate Prof. of Public Health at CSU East Bay. Political Scientist studying and teaching health policy. Editorial Board Member/Book Review Editor at the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law. Go O’s.
JFC, Washington Post…
Difficult options (or policy crises) created by his own outlandish, intemperate, unstable, and evidence-free statements and declarations.
Difficult options (or policy crises) created by his own outlandish, intemperate, unstable, and evidence-free statements and declarations.
June 21, 2025 at 3:45 AM
JFC, Washington Post…
Difficult options (or policy crises) created by his own outlandish, intemperate, unstable, and evidence-free statements and declarations.
Difficult options (or policy crises) created by his own outlandish, intemperate, unstable, and evidence-free statements and declarations.
So, evidently, the media is gonna sanewash the crazy, destabilizing, and irresponsible position taking of the president as some sort of broad discussion and policy back-and-forth.
June 21, 2025 at 3:41 AM
So, evidently, the media is gonna sanewash the crazy, destabilizing, and irresponsible position taking of the president as some sort of broad discussion and policy back-and-forth.
Feels like a punitive provider tax on expansion state is a pretty good way to divide your caucus, but....🤷♂️
June 19, 2025 at 10:23 PM
Feels like a punitive provider tax on expansion state is a pretty good way to divide your caucus, but....🤷♂️
The Summer of baseball continues with an Oakland Ballers game (Pioneer League)
June 18, 2025 at 1:48 AM
The Summer of baseball continues with an Oakland Ballers game (Pioneer League)
Just an amazing lede in the second “protest thuggery” story. Real “we’re all trying to find the guy who did this” vibes.
June 15, 2025 at 4:00 PM
Just an amazing lede in the second “protest thuggery” story. Real “we’re all trying to find the guy who did this” vibes.
And here’s how the @sfchronicle.com is framing the top No Kings stories today - notice the smaller font, sub-heading about the peaceful, massive protests.
June 15, 2025 at 3:35 PM
And here’s how the @sfchronicle.com is framing the top No Kings stories today - notice the smaller font, sub-heading about the peaceful, massive protests.
The federal government has mobilized the national guard and the marines, they’re disappearing people off the streets, a sheriff is on video talking about his intentions of violating protesters’ civil rights, but here’s the @sfchronicle.com with “but will the protesters be peaceful?”
June 14, 2025 at 4:40 AM
The federal government has mobilized the national guard and the marines, they’re disappearing people off the streets, a sheriff is on video talking about his intentions of violating protesters’ civil rights, but here’s the @sfchronicle.com with “but will the protesters be peaceful?”
While the country braces for an authoritarian-style military parade for the president's birthday.
June 14, 2025 at 3:52 AM
While the country braces for an authoritarian-style military parade for the president's birthday.
This @latimes.com headline and the notion of “tensions” boiling over, implies “both sides” are to blame, when what we are seeing is an increasingly hostile and authoritarian administration.
It’s also worth noting that who did the tackling is left unsaid, when it was by DHS security and FBI police.
It’s also worth noting that who did the tackling is left unsaid, when it was by DHS security and FBI police.
June 12, 2025 at 10:51 PM
This @latimes.com headline and the notion of “tensions” boiling over, implies “both sides” are to blame, when what we are seeing is an increasingly hostile and authoritarian administration.
It’s also worth noting that who did the tackling is left unsaid, when it was by DHS security and FBI police.
It’s also worth noting that who did the tackling is left unsaid, when it was by DHS security and FBI police.
Hey @washingtonpost.com — Sec. Noem said they were there to liberate LA from its duly elected officials.
Why is the media downplaying or ignoring this shockingly direct statement of this administration’s intentions?
Why is the media downplaying or ignoring this shockingly direct statement of this administration’s intentions?
June 12, 2025 at 8:10 PM
Hey @washingtonpost.com — Sec. Noem said they were there to liberate LA from its duly elected officials.
Why is the media downplaying or ignoring this shockingly direct statement of this administration’s intentions?
Why is the media downplaying or ignoring this shockingly direct statement of this administration’s intentions?
FFS, New York Times.
At least they used the word “forcibly,” but downplaying already.
At least they used the word “forcibly,” but downplaying already.
June 12, 2025 at 7:01 PM
FFS, New York Times.
At least they used the word “forcibly,” but downplaying already.
At least they used the word “forcibly,” but downplaying already.
"immigration issues" -- also known as the potential for visiting fans to be detained and disappeared because of their political beliefs.
June 11, 2025 at 6:11 PM
"immigration issues" -- also known as the potential for visiting fans to be detained and disappeared because of their political beliefs.
SF chronicle’s got some weird editorial decisions going on, or a weird algorithm, if on June 7, 2025, this is their lead story:
June 7, 2025 at 10:37 PM
SF chronicle’s got some weird editorial decisions going on, or a weird algorithm, if on June 7, 2025, this is their lead story:
At the corner of 1st and 1st.
June 7, 2025 at 1:19 AM
At the corner of 1st and 1st.
Khanna coming through with the WORST 2024 election hot take: Harris loss because she didn’t embrace RFK Jr., the anti-vax conspiracy theorist.
June 6, 2025 at 1:59 AM
Khanna coming through with the WORST 2024 election hot take: Harris loss because she didn’t embrace RFK Jr., the anti-vax conspiracy theorist.
If your methods class needs an example of a massive clown arguing that correlation is causation, I got you covered:
June 6, 2025 at 12:10 AM
If your methods class needs an example of a massive clown arguing that correlation is causation, I got you covered:
Sixth, the authors refer to research from left-leaning think tanks, but then reference a researcher from George Washington's Milken Institute School of Public health...why frame it as left-leaning think tank?
Fine, do that when you cite Brookings, but not right before citing an academic.
Fine, do that when you cite Brookings, but not right before citing an academic.
June 3, 2025 at 5:02 PM
Sixth, the authors refer to research from left-leaning think tanks, but then reference a researcher from George Washington's Milken Institute School of Public health...why frame it as left-leaning think tank?
Fine, do that when you cite Brookings, but not right before citing an academic.
Fine, do that when you cite Brookings, but not right before citing an academic.
Buried, and I mean buried, in the article is actual evidence from Arkansas and Georgia that work requirements only do harm...but the framing persists of cutting waste, "split" research on outcomes, and "left-leaning" analysis. This is just what happened in Georgia and Arkansas...it's not theoretical
June 3, 2025 at 5:00 PM
Buried, and I mean buried, in the article is actual evidence from Arkansas and Georgia that work requirements only do harm...but the framing persists of cutting waste, "split" research on outcomes, and "left-leaning" analysis. This is just what happened in Georgia and Arkansas...it's not theoretical
Fourth..."Research is split," the authors write, on whether work requirements have their intended effect.
Is it?
The only research presented in this article is research that shows work requirements do nothing but harm.
So why say research is split???? This is super misleading.
Is it?
The only research presented in this article is research that shows work requirements do nothing but harm.
So why say research is split???? This is super misleading.
June 3, 2025 at 4:56 PM
Fourth..."Research is split," the authors write, on whether work requirements have their intended effect.
Is it?
The only research presented in this article is research that shows work requirements do nothing but harm.
So why say research is split???? This is super misleading.
Is it?
The only research presented in this article is research that shows work requirements do nothing but harm.
So why say research is split???? This is super misleading.
Third, it's not until paragraph *13* that there is a clear statement about the actual purpose of work requirements...to cut the number of beneficiaries.
June 3, 2025 at 4:53 PM
Third, it's not until paragraph *13* that there is a clear statement about the actual purpose of work requirements...to cut the number of beneficiaries.
Second, Republicans are not linking work requirements to reducing fraud and abuse.
There is absolutely no evidence of this and none presented in this article. Republicans are asserting this, and these reporters are just repeating the assertions with no evidence or research.
There is absolutely no evidence of this and none presented in this article. Republicans are asserting this, and these reporters are just repeating the assertions with no evidence or research.
June 3, 2025 at 4:52 PM
Second, Republicans are not linking work requirements to reducing fraud and abuse.
There is absolutely no evidence of this and none presented in this article. Republicans are asserting this, and these reporters are just repeating the assertions with no evidence or research.
There is absolutely no evidence of this and none presented in this article. Republicans are asserting this, and these reporters are just repeating the assertions with no evidence or research.
First, the push to cut spending and health care absolutely does NOT reflect a shifting view among Republicans.
The GOP has long had a very narrow sense of who "deserves" benefits. And somehow the authors forget that in 2017 Trump and the GOP tried to cut the ACA's *entire* Medicaid expansion!
The GOP has long had a very narrow sense of who "deserves" benefits. And somehow the authors forget that in 2017 Trump and the GOP tried to cut the ACA's *entire* Medicaid expansion!
June 3, 2025 at 4:49 PM
First, the push to cut spending and health care absolutely does NOT reflect a shifting view among Republicans.
The GOP has long had a very narrow sense of who "deserves" benefits. And somehow the authors forget that in 2017 Trump and the GOP tried to cut the ACA's *entire* Medicaid expansion!
The GOP has long had a very narrow sense of who "deserves" benefits. And somehow the authors forget that in 2017 Trump and the GOP tried to cut the ACA's *entire* Medicaid expansion!