DISQUS

Certainly if I were going to ban books I'd go right ahead and become a petty aesthetic tyrant. I've never cared for Anne Tyler. Right behind would be chick lit (Devil Wears Prada, etc) and anything marketed as "young adult"—grow up already and deal with some real prose.

Then I would set my sights on general woo: The Secret, Chopra, The Dancing Wu Li Masters. Bad pop nonfiction like Louise Brizendine's The Female Brain and anything by Naomi Klein.

Oh, and Crime and Punishment. One of my all-time most-hated. "Without God anything is permitted" my a**.

It’s not the 70’s anymore with big government Democrats trying to fix every problem with a new government program, Socialism is dead, Democrats are not Communists in disguise, and not all government programs are evil.

In general I agree with your post, but with universal healthcare one of the main obsessions of this campaign season, I have to disagree with this statement. Democrats are actually willing to say they don't support Obama's proposal because it doesn't force people to do something they don't want to do. Meanwhile, I don't see Democrats lining up to do anything at all about the obscene and ruinous war on drugs or the militarization of police. If they were actually willing to come out and be pro-legalization, I might reconsider, but as things stand they just are not that "socially liberal"—where do most Democrats stand on prostitution? Gambling? Raw milk? Selling organs? Assisted suicide? Seat belt laws? Trans fats? Gay marriage? &tc. They barely even want to admit they are pro-choice anymore.

Your last sentence is spot-on. I wasn't expecting to find a diatribe about the housing crisis framing a book review, and I never thought I'd see Obama accused of being a crypto-libertarian because he doesn't want to force everyone to buy health insurance. He really takes this to a new level--zero respect for individual freedom.

I'd like to see more information on the middle study he mentions, of children of "secular parents" attributing creation to God. I can only assume that children of secular parents /= children who have never had anyone tell them about God, because it would be pretty hard to find such children. And does secular parents mean non-fundamentalist, non-religious, or actually atheist? Just seems like maybe this is only showing that children are more credulous than adults.

Will, thanks for this post, those figures are staggering.

The more I read of this exchange, the more amazed I am at how much I really, really do not want children, at least for a very long time. My life would be completely different, and significantly worse, if I had had a child when the opportunity arose. I would be living with my parents, working retail or maybe clerical, and I would be stuck in a tiny room with a noisy sticky 18 month old every night. I would never be alone, I would never get to read or relax. And that's if I had had a kid after graduating college!

Instead I have a career I love, I support myself, and get to enjoy reading your blog posts in wonderful, peaceful privacy.

Other commenters who think there are currently limitations on life after having children but these can somehow be removed, either through men helping out more or government intervention or whatever--none of these things can give you back your own life, to have all to yourself, without an intruder on your time and space that you may end up not even liking all that much.

Brian has mentioned a couple times as well that his next book is going to be about this. As someone who really enjoyed The Myth of the Rational Voter, but will most likely remain childless, I am eagerly awaiting reading his full-length argument.

Vote LibraryThing