Freddie is the, MAN. But does not qualify as an example of "liberals... championing culture without judgment...."
I'll bet a bizillion dollars that less than .0000000001% of the population has even a remot idea of the identy of Freedie De Boer
2009-02-09 02:09:26
Philp asserts, "...liberals for shamelessly championing of a culture without judgment, ..." Please pleas please explain. Examples would be really really really nice. I'm so tired of bold asserations without facts to back them up. Is every one tring to be Will Wilkinson?
2009-02-08 13:46:56
E.D.
1. You state your beliefs. "I think...'ownership-society'...problematic." "I think...single-family homes...problematic." "I think [ drifting away] from extended-family living...not direction humanity was supposed to move." This unnatural drifting away from the path humans were "supposed to move" create "burdens" that you do not bother to list. You think Gladwell might hold similar views, "at least a little validation" for your positions. Okay, given your spiritual bent this thinking seems in step with other views you have expressed.
2. You don't really know about the sustainability of "homes for every family." You see "multi-generational efforts" as a possible better way of life. But please keep in mind, A. not all famlies live up to you ideal B. not all indivduals will find this "multi-generational" model to their liking.
3. "...we all want everything." Hyperbole, but again consistent with views you have expressed on other postings here.
4. I'm sure you will have objections to the words, but I see you describing dystopia and utopia.
5. So I am forced to ask, who, or perhaps better, what forces are responsible for these perceived ills? The National Association of Home Builders, real estate agents, Chamber of Commerce, The Lolly Pop Guild?
6. What examples from history do you look to and say, "see, this is what I'm talking about." Brook Farm, the Oneida Community, hippie communes, Amish? Perhaps a European, Jeremy Bentham or Robert Owen?
7. Large historical forces brought about the conditions you seem to dislike. Discovery of agriculture, domestication of animals, division of labor, rise of cities, industrialization, and perhaps the most recent development the micro-chip, which brings both macro and micro results with regard to society.
8. I don't think Wilkinson had any of this in mind in his short post on the evils of home ownership and jobs, but you are certainly within your rights to change or expand the subject.
9. I stand by my criticism of the Wilkinson post. He offered no statistics to back up his claim that home ownership hinders the filling of jobs.
10. I don't want everything.
2009-02-07 21:56:05
Andrew S. provides another link of questionable value, "What Was So Wrong With Renting, People?" Andrew links to a Will Wilkinson post at The Week. As Andrew often says, the money quote from W.W.
"Government-subsidized borrowing gave us the housing bubble, precipitated financial Armageddon, helped prompt recession and mass unemployment. But, as the infomercials say, that's not all! By zealously pushing home-ownership, federal housing policy has pinned to the map many now-jobless Americans who otherwise would have moved to find new work."
Wilkinson provides not one fact to prove his assertion, "...would have moved to find work." He sights a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research. The study finds that people are loath to move, give up their homes at a loss, and find it burdensome financially to move but not a single fact, or even one example of some one having the prospect of work in another place but staying put because of home ownership. A shoddy piece of work from Will.
I'm thinking these two examples from Sullivan are just more of the conservative "echo chamber." Will Rush be next to pick up on the glorious life style WalMart affords, and another talking point to disparage home ownership?
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
Philip,
Freddie is the, MAN. But does not qualify as an example of "liberals... championing culture without judgment...."
I'll bet a bizillion dollars that less than .0000000001% of the population has even a remot idea of the identy of Freedie De Boer
Philp asserts, "...liberals for shamelessly championing of a culture without judgment, ..." Please pleas please explain. Examples would be really really really nice. I'm so tired of bold asserations without facts to back them up. Is every one tring to be Will Wilkinson?
E.D.
1. You state your beliefs. "I think...'ownership-society'...problematic." "I think...single-family homes...problematic." "I think [ drifting away] from extended-family living...not direction humanity was supposed to move." This unnatural drifting away from the path humans were "supposed to move" create "burdens" that you do not bother to list. You think Gladwell might hold similar views, "at least a little validation" for your positions. Okay, given your spiritual bent this thinking seems in step with other views you have expressed.
2. You don't really know about the sustainability of "homes for every family." You see "multi-generational efforts" as a possible better way of life. But please keep in mind, A. not all famlies live up to you ideal B. not all indivduals will find this "multi-generational" model to their liking.
3. "...we all want everything." Hyperbole, but again consistent with views you have expressed on other postings here.
4. I'm sure you will have objections to the words, but I see you describing dystopia and utopia.
5. So I am forced to ask, who, or perhaps better, what forces are responsible for these perceived ills? The National Association of Home Builders, real estate agents, Chamber of Commerce, The Lolly Pop Guild?
6. What examples from history do you look to and say, "see, this is what I'm talking about." Brook Farm, the Oneida Community, hippie communes, Amish? Perhaps a European, Jeremy Bentham or Robert Owen?
7. Large historical forces brought about the conditions you seem to dislike. Discovery of agriculture, domestication of animals, division of labor, rise of cities, industrialization, and perhaps the most recent development the micro-chip, which brings both macro and micro results with regard to society.
8. I don't think Wilkinson had any of this in mind in his short post on the evils of home ownership and jobs, but you are certainly within your rights to change or expand the subject.
9. I stand by my criticism of the Wilkinson post. He offered no statistics to back up his claim that home ownership hinders the filling of jobs.
10. I don't want everything.
Andrew S. provides another link of questionable value, "What Was So Wrong With Renting, People?" Andrew links to a Will Wilkinson post at The Week. As Andrew often says, the money quote from W.W.
"Government-subsidized borrowing gave us the housing bubble, precipitated financial Armageddon, helped prompt recession and mass unemployment. But, as the infomercials say, that's not all! By zealously pushing home-ownership, federal housing policy has pinned to the map many now-jobless Americans who otherwise would have moved to find new work."
Wilkinson provides not one fact to prove his assertion, "...would have moved to find work." He sights a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research. The study finds that people are loath to move, give up their homes at a loss, and find it burdensome financially to move but not a single fact, or even one example of some one having the prospect of work in another place but staying put because of home ownership. A shoddy piece of work from Will.
I'm thinking these two examples from Sullivan are just more of the conservative "echo chamber." Will Rush be next to pick up on the glorious life style WalMart affords, and another talking point to disparage home ownership?