It was the premise of the Politico article that drew me in. It was the claim that politics of 2030 would be shaped by the ghastly presidential election of 2016. There would be big changes to come.
Given the tumult of the times, I don’t doubt that one bit. The contest between The Hillary and The Donald, and all the odd and shifting v*ter alignments and policy preferences around it, is bound to reverberate into the future. It’s something I’ve thought a lot about. I wondered if others were coming to similar conclusions. So I read.
The barefoot one didn’t manage to freeze Mama. Reading this article, I’m not sure whether Colton Harris-Moore is a naive young kid or a crass hustler who’s going to head right straight for trouble again when they release him from prison this summer.
“This Bud’s for you, America.” Another one to read mainly because it’s by George Will, who writes like a barbed angel. The whole business with Budweiser’s temporary name change is as pathetic as it is cynical.
Why are house prices soaring across this Great Land of Budweiser? One guess.
And the thing I think Elias would most like you to know about (and contribute to): a a new movie he’s hoping to complete with a little help from friends.
Currently the site is a mix of the new and old, with navigation not always smooth between its component parts. But then, it’s a work in progress. Just like Elias himself. Just like me. Just like most everything.
I’ll ask Elias to keep me posted as he adds new features.
But this … once again takes “small-space living” to crazy extremes. Only in San Francisco. Or New York City. Or London. Or other places that have become hellholes for normal people.
Kevin Wilmeth comments on my TZP “constitutional carry” piece and gets it exactly right: “The only downside I can see, honestly, is that celebrating a good thing for what it is, isn’t going to help the sort of prag mindset that still can’t distinguish between long-term strategy and true pre-emptive surrender.”
I’ve had a lot of time to think this week and one question runs through my mind: Why is freedom so closely and (for many) irretrievably associated with fighting?
Sure, we do periodically have to defend freedom against tyrants. And defend it more frequently against incremental encroachments and (if I may coin a term) the political encockroaches who so encroach.
But given that the main thing we do with freedom is enjoy it, given that it is, in most of our lives, as lovely and easy a thing as pure air, why the sticky association with strife, battle, bloodshed, anguish, and all things bad?
That doesn’t make freedom sound like much fun at all. Or like anything most people would want to have. Is it just because we’re hardwired to take freedom for granted when it’s not threatened? Is all this emphasis on fighting just because of the times we live in? What?
Why is freedom so closely and (for many) irretrievably associated with fighting? And for that matter, why are so many who claim to be ardent supporters of freedom the very sort of people you’d prefer not to have for your next-door neighbors in any would-be Libertopia?
But speaking of following orders, what the hell kind of government would do this — or even think of ordering thugs to do such a thing??? (Another look at it with more detail. Both stolen from Wendy McElroy.)
And speaking of unsurprising things, why are we always supposed to be so shocked when, generation after generation, war after war, the fedgov perpetrates atrocities upon its own soldiers, then not only denies doing so, but even denies care to the poor saps?
And if you prefer more peaceful thoughts, you can download high-res versions of 19th-century Japanese woodblock prints, courtesy of he-knows-who-he-is in comments.
Finally, I’m not linking because I expect you to care about Nevada or South Carolina caucusaries or primuses. I’m linking it just because the name of Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, always makes me laugh. I mean, is that name straight out of Atlas Shrugged, or what?
Short version: Court orders Apple to develop new software for the fedgov that will compromise every Apple customer’s security. Fedgov lies and says it wants only to crack one terrorist’s phone. Cook responds like a real privacy advocate. This response is neither altruism nor political activism. It is — finally! — a tech company recognizing who actually pays its bills. Among other things.
You and I both know there are a lot of reasons not to vote for Bernie Sanders. But it never occurred to me that fear of burning in hell was one of them. More madness in gender feminism? Or just desperation in Hillaryland?
Per jed in comments: If anyone had any doubt that big-city police are mostly nothing but armed gangsters (not that you actually had such): the woman who pulled over a cop for speeding gets doxed by his union pals.
I wasn’t sure they’d ever do it: The Free State Project now has the 20,000 pledgers it said it needed for critical political mass. I wonder whether they’ve checked to see if all those pledges are current and good. I know I withdrew mine around the time they started the move prematurely. The FSP is an intriguing effort that’s made waves. More power to it and all its people. How well they can stand against the rising tide of “socialism” is anyone’s guess.
Resist the VAT or any other national sales tax. Always and forever. (I’ll never understand those for whom “tax reform” means “more taxes.” Or those who believe that the income tax will magically go away when some new tax is imposed. Do they not know how government works?)
I know some will object that this little “flash story” is too optimistic. Okay. Still a beautiful, hopeful piece, though. (H/T MJR)
And this, dropped into comments by TSO, really is too optimistic. Or swimming too hopelessly against the tide. It also uses technology (provided by industrialization) to decry industrialization. Nevertheless, some truth there.