Oh, come on - didn't we just announce our support for boycotting the WND nuts? Some people simply aren't worth talking to, and I'd definitely include the creationists in that category.
Also, I think people should be encouraged to examine "extreme" views in the academy. Defending a position intellectually and adhering to those views years after the fact are two different things entirely.
I'm familiar with Sen's work, but famines aren't a good test case for determining government functionality on a day to day basis. Think of it this way: a famine is such a uniquely disastrous event that politicians are immediately put under immense pressure to respond effectively. When we're not faced with an emergency, however, the public is generally uninterested in the political process.
But yes, democratic politics will always be vulnerable to rent-seeking and corruption. The question is how to limit this vulnerability.
I read plenty of commentators who don't share my views, thank you very much. As far as long form journalism is concerned, however, I'm interested in a publication that is at least sympathetic to conservative ideas.
So you guys would take the New Yorker over any of these other publications? I left it off the list because I'm looking for something a bit more political (for lack of a better word), but maybe I should reconsider . . .
Did you skip all the theology classes in favor of goofy postmodern yo-yos in priest school, Dierkes? Your affection for French deconstructionists has me baffled.
I pretty much agree with all of this. Another reason I'm leaning towards the Standard is their eclecticism; I really can't think of too many other outlets that would publish a (great) cover story on cocktails.
It's pretty startling that two major foreign policy thinkers from wildly divergent schools of thought - Kagan and Andrew Bacevich - both rely on Niebuhr for much of their analysis. I'm not a Niebuhr expert by any means, but I think that you and Bacevich are closer to Niebuhr's original meaning.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Yes, facts do change minds”
No, he actually supported it pretty enthusiastically. The Contentions post I link to above has the relevant excerpts.
On “Creationists on BloggingHeads?”
Oh, come on - didn't we just announce our support for boycotting the WND nuts? Some people simply aren't worth talking to, and I'd definitely include the creationists in that category.
On “I’m not sure if I should care about Bob McDonnell’s thesis”
Also, I think people should be encouraged to examine "extreme" views in the academy. Defending a position intellectually and adhering to those views years after the fact are two different things entirely.
"
Fair enough - I shouldn't have used the phrase "term paper." But I think that the distinction between political documents and academic papers stands.
"
Right. But I don't think your vote should hinge on a decades-old term paper.
On “whither gmail?”
In fact, can we start referring to people who dis gmail as living in a pre-9/1 world?
"
9/1/09 - Never Forget.
"
I feel like I've been unplugged from the Matrix.
On “If I were a progessive . . .”
Consider the nit picked. Thanks!
On “Ted Kennedy on the Rocks”
Nice find - thanks.
On “The welfare state wasn’t designed to be run by status-obsessed assholes”
An admirably concise summation of my views. Well done, sir.
"
I'm familiar with Sen's work, but famines aren't a good test case for determining government functionality on a day to day basis. Think of it this way: a famine is such a uniquely disastrous event that politicians are immediately put under immense pressure to respond effectively. When we're not faced with an emergency, however, the public is generally uninterested in the political process.
But yes, democratic politics will always be vulnerable to rent-seeking and corruption. The question is how to limit this vulnerability.
"
Dan Miller and greginak -
Corporate chieftains may suffer from the same failings as politicians, but they don't run anything as consequential as the United States government.
Also, I find Wilkinson's idea that politics attracts a unique brand of ambitious, status-obsessed people pretty plausible.
On “I’m thinking of subscribing to a magazine . . .”
I read plenty of commentators who don't share my views, thank you very much. As far as long form journalism is concerned, however, I'm interested in a publication that is at least sympathetic to conservative ideas.
"
My roommate already has a subscription; otherwise, I'd definitely add it to the list.
"
jfxgillis -
I'm wading into murky waters here, but doesn't Chronicles have a reputation of playing host to some real nutjobs?
On “Podcast: Conspiracy Nation”
Have at it. And then let me know what you think!
On “I’m thinking of subscribing to a magazine . . .”
Sheldon -
I'm as Kristol-averse as anyone, but you should check out the Weekly Standard articles I link to above - they really do publish some great stuff.
"
Harper's isn't a bad thought, but isn't it a quarterly publication or something?
On “Deep Philosophy Pun of the Day”
I was yanking your chain, but that's actually pretty interesting. I'd definitely be interested in reading more of your thoughts.
On “I’m thinking of subscribing to a magazine . . .”
Dan and Sonny -
So you guys would take the New Yorker over any of these other publications? I left it off the list because I'm looking for something a bit more political (for lack of a better word), but maybe I should reconsider . . .
On “Deep Philosophy Pun of the Day”
Did you skip all the theology classes in favor of goofy postmodern yo-yos in priest school, Dierkes? Your affection for French deconstructionists has me baffled.
On “I’m thinking of subscribing to a magazine . . .”
I pretty much agree with all of this. Another reason I'm leaning towards the Standard is their eclecticism; I really can't think of too many other outlets that would publish a (great) cover story on cocktails.
"
It's a tempting option, to be sure. And I do want the Atlantic to stay in business. But damnit, why are they giving away their articles for free?
On “Kagan doesn’t get it”
It's pretty startling that two major foreign policy thinkers from wildly divergent schools of thought - Kagan and Andrew Bacevich - both rely on Niebuhr for much of their analysis. I'm not a Niebuhr expert by any means, but I think that you and Bacevich are closer to Niebuhr's original meaning.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.