DISQUS

Yes, I think your expectations of Obama were unrealistic. He is not a very good debater, and yet this was his crispest, strongest debate performance. McCain clearly had him on the defensive, and yet Obama made no gaffes -- which is what McCain to back up his assertion that Obama "doesn't understand" foreign policy.

On style, Obama looked cool, calm and collected. McCain seemed pissed off that Obama was chatting up the pretty clerk in front of him in the grocery store checkout line.

BTW, you misspelled Giuliani.

Hmm. It's not that Palin holds Republican views; it's that McCain is trying to package her as this renegade reformer when she manifestly is not. (In the same way that Obama clearly is not, by the way.) He is trying to capitalize on her newness to de-Republicanize the ticket in a year when the brand is badly tarnished. That's the rhetorical debate going on here, and why liberals are making so much noise on the point.

Also, the "don't know" factor you cite is a big one. It's clear that McCain knows precious little more about Palin than you or I do. I agree with you on the "qualifications" point, but usually one element of being "qualified" is that folks have some sense of who you are, what you stand for, and what you believe. All of that is still essentially known about Palin at this point.

Pedestrians have a right to expect that they can cross when they've got the light, or at a stop sign. They cannot do that when bicyclists violate the law. I don't see how complicated it is. I've yet to hear any mass transit-supporter offer to totally do a way with subsidies of any kind to transit. Let's sell off the highways. Offer curb rights on streets. Who knows? Maybe a private market would result in elevated/protected bike paths? Somehow it's always about pouring lots more cash into buses and rail. Not my idea of a good time.

I don't want to live in a world designed to eliminate regrets. The emotion is indivisible from freedom.

It just figures you'd say something like that -- you fluffy, globalist pig!

"Libertarianism in one country"? What the heck is that?

Anonomous, I understand why liberals believe their ideas on economics, regulation, health care, entitlements are better. I'm not suggesting they aren't well-intended. But just as conservatives need to be persuaded on immigration and homosexuality, so do liberals need to be persuaded on these other issues. But that's where we are, back to square one trying to convince other people we've got the best ideas. I don't see the makings of a fusionism there.

Please name one influential liberal thinker who is in favor of free trade, against the panoply of federal regulations, much lower and flatter tax rates, and privatized or vastly reduced entitlement spending. Name one liberal thinker, period, who thinks that. The gulf is yawning.

Liberal: This proposal to slightly slow the growth of Medicare is an outrage!

Libertarian: Medicare shouldn't exist!

Where is the middle ground there, I'm curious. I really, really would like to meet the liberal intelligentsia that wants to limit the welfare state's to helping the truly poor (no Medicare for Bill Gates, thank you) while otherwise letting the market work and forgoing soak-the-rich rhetoric. I could talk to those people. Where are they?

I agree with markfarner that there's some poor wording. More interesting results might have been yielded, perhaps, with a statement such as, "I deserve the money I have."

In case it wasn't clear in my first comment, I agree with your assessment of Jefferson. I was just offering a few point of argument about why Hamilton wasn't quite the brilliant theorist you said. Or, maybe he was "brilliant," but often deeply wrong.

Will, I agree with you on Jefferson's flaws, but Hamilton had severe flaws of his own. First, the problem with his support of a national bank is not just that it was a way of centralizing power but that it was unconstitutional. He believed it was constitutional however because he interpreted the Constitution very broadly. Second, his "Report on Manufacturers" was all about providing tarriff protection to certain "infant industries" in the U.S., so I'm not sure how he's a "free trader." Third, he was on the Federalists who were agitating for war against France. Fourth, he authored the Federalist Papers! While reasonable people can disagree about whether the Constitution represented an improvement over the Articles of Confederation, it's clear that the reason why Hamilton supported it is because it would centralize power and allow for more "energetic" government. So, I think you're wrong on this one.

I think Jefferson's agrarianism is anachronistic at best, but I don't know of any coercive government policy he favored that was aimed at stopping or reversing urbanization.

I agree there is more than enough room for a plethora of approaches to news reporting. To the extent that there is a market for more "viewpoint journalism," I don't have a big problem with it. One major constraint that faces most news gathering operations, however, is their lack of expertise. They know how to present news and information in a compelling, intelligible way. They understand what their audience cares about.

They are good at getting their hands on the experts, and at explaining complex subjects in terms consumers can understand. But very few reporters and editors actually have any training or expertise in, say, economics, urban planning, or foreign policy. People who cover the police department don't really know how a police department should be run. Aiming for objectivity, if nothing else, acts as useful constraint on otherwise unqualified offerings.

I read four newspapers every day -- not on paper, though. I still love reading the papers on paper. There's more serendipity to it, and design choices and news judgment impress themselves on you more in that form. Still, there are times when I'm reading on paper and have the urge to want to click on a phrase in the middle of a sentence where I imagine a hyperlink pointing to more information would be.

Still waiting on your defense of browsing the Craigslist "M4T" listings "just for fun."

Obligatory: 8-)

This is one of those forehead-slapping research results. Individual personality matters in individual happiness? No, duh!

I appreciate the population-wide average impact of social systems on individual happiness, but there's obvious variety within populations, even families, that is accounted for by personality.

On another note, I find it hard to believe, Will, that you are low in conscientiousness especially in relative terms. Perhaps the fact that you regard yourself as *unsconscientious* shows how conscientious you really are!

Aw, you libertarians only vocally oppose FISA because you don't want the gummint listening in when you trade your hedge funds, hook up with your pot dealers and hire call girls.

Also, you resist forcing people to buy health insurance. So, you know, this doesn't really count.