That is to say, a righteous screed about suburbia and authenticity,and our intellectual betters (just ask them!) in the “studies” departments, by Lileks, unleashed by the not-to-be-lamented death of Paolo Solari.
You know, it strikes me that these snotty urbaphiles should love the idea of space colonies, at least in the regard of their being planned communities.
Who longs to be a dictator. Anyway, he’s made clear on many occasions that he doesn’t feel constrained by that awful document. People like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi were exactly the power mongers the Founders had in mind when they came up with it.
…of Venezuela:
Apologists for Chavez mentor Fidel Castro blame Cuba’s sixty years of economic problems on the US embargo. If it weren’t for Uncle Sam, they say, Castro would have built a socialist paradise by now.
Venezuela is the test for this talking point. Not only is there no US embargo in Venezuela, but the country also has huge oil reserves. And what does it have? Food and medicine and foreign currency shortages.
There are very real theoretical reasons, based on fundamental human nature, why socialism doesn’t work, and empirically fails everywhere it’s tried. But it’s also human nature to wish it would work, so those ignorant or in denial of those reasons continue to try it. Or to try to defeat human nature by creating the New Soviet Man, at the point of a gun.
Matt Yglesias doesn’t think that property exists, unless it’s his.
This reminds of me the Occumoron who made the crucial (to him, not to anyone sane) distinction between private property and “personal” property.
Charles Cooke dismantles Ezra Klein’s latest pretense at pragmatism:
Tellingly, Klein refers to “Ryan’s unusual ideology.” Unusual? Does Klein mean to suggest that not spending trillions that we don’t have is “unusual”? Does he mean that how America has worked for most of its history — and pretty well, thank you — is “unusual” now that it’s 2013? That notions of community doing things that government should not are “unusual”? I wonder. And what should we make of that “ideology” word? This dismissal is particularly telling, not because Ryan isn’t ideological — he is — but because so is Ezra Klein. So is everyone. Anyone who privileges one value over another (liberty over security, or growth over redistribution, for example) is an ideologue. Anybody who believes in any individual right whatsoever is an ideologue. Anyone who believes in any form of equality is an ideologue. Klein’s reaction betrays an arrogant, rotten worldview — widely shared among his ilk. Are we really expected to buy that doing the opposite of Ryan’s plan isn’t “ideological”? That there’s no ideology behind the status quo? That there’s nothing but reason behind what Klein and his acolytes wish would happen? That Klein’s desired path for America is based on pure analysis?
This conceit of the Left should be based at every opportunity. If there was a non-ideological pragmatic candidate in the last election, it sure wasn’t Barack Obama. Mitt Romney filled that bill much more, which was one of his problems, in fact.
…and its perils.
My respect for Steven Pinker has declined as a result of this episode.
Was he convicted of a thought crime?
How many are there? Randall Munroe is answering the important questions.
No.
Next question?
Over at PJMedia, I say that the Senate should recognize, and perform its constitutional duty, which is not to defer to the White House, regardless of political party or election results.