We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Does Colin Powell belong in the Repub Party? Of course. All welcome, in my view. I am a Big Tenter. I think of us Conservative/Libertarians as just a part of that Party. Party factions come and go, rise and fall, over time. That's why it works.
BD, you seem to be in that "big is bad" category when it comes to malls. I beg to differ. I will miss the big mall when it is gone just for the simple convenience of having multiple stores in close proximity such that I don't have to drive over hell's half acre to shop. Aesthetics aside (the older ones are generally ugly I'll grant), the "convenience" draws me. When I emerge from the home office cave on Saturday, I don't WANT to have to drive all around the city to achieve satisfaction of my shopping list (especially around Dallas or Houston or even those abominations on the lake, Chicago or Cleveland - I live or have lived all those places)... give me a tightly clustered shopping area/center of stores and restaurants any day.
Agree with that JC. TWISI this anti-mall idiocy has been a lefty cultural assault on a successful, efficient, and very American approach to the distribution of goods and services. With the demise of downtowns (which I attribute to lefty policies soft on crime causing the very white flight to suburbia that they now bemoan as a factor in globalistic warmering...but I digress....) the mall filled that void in an efficient manner. Yes, they can be ugly on the outside but inside is a climate controlled environment that promotes competition, not to mention moderate exercise. Personally, I hate shopping but if I have to I'd much prefer the mall to sitting in traffic or driving/walking across these godawful mega-strip centers that seem to be replacing them.
Joe C: There are multiple things wrong with Chicago, but walking to multiple shopping opportunities is not one if you live in the city neighborhoods. Obama, Daley, Blago. Stroeger, etc. have not destroyed the ingenuity of our marketplace...yet.
Just can't figure out WHY people voted for Obama after all the nonsense with Chgo politics. Duh!
Actually, Krugman didn't come close to saying Bush destroyed our food. He did criticize Bush administration policies for making the food supply less safe during the six years previous to the column, but he spread the blame around, making a few good points along the way. He notes, for example, that American food suppliers want more regulation of food safety, but as long as regulation isn't extended to foreign suppliers they face a problem with competitive foreign undercutting. Frankly, I couldn't find anything crazy in his analysis. A more accurate criticism of Krugman is he proceeds from a completely unproven assumption that the food supply IS less safe. That is a valid criticism.
But Miller's gotcha assertion--that either Martin and Harris are wrong or Krugman is wrong--represents a misreading of the Martin and Harris piece. M&H haven't offered any hard evidence or proof regarding the assumption about food safety either.
On the question of food safety, Martin and Harris say that reliable figures are difficult, if not impossible, to come by. Health experts think the food supply is "probably safer," but that's a far cry from a definitive answer.
Martin and Harris:
"Public health experts cannot give a definitive answer, largely because the historical figures on food-borne illness are spotty. But most of them believe the nationís food supply is markedly safer now than it was 100 years ago, and probably safer than a decade ago."
Clearly, this leaves room for the possibility that Krugman is right. So, why is the Times required to correct the piece written by Krugman 3 years ago, as Miler insists?
Herein lies my real objection to Miller's argument: Miller suggests that this paragraph requires the NY Times to go through every article ever written by any of their columnists and every article ever written by their reporters to "correct" anyone who suggested that there is or might be a problem with food safety. Talk about insane. If this is what's wrong with the NY Times, then I'd suggest that the NY Times is in pretty good shape. The only problem is, apparently, that the Times ownership refuses to cede editorial control of the newspaper to Miller.
Joe Biden is a profoundly inane intellect, coupled to a mouth that has several forward gears, no neutral, and no reverse. When he admits to being outside 'the loop,' one suspects he's referring to his own OODA loop. As Biden himself is fond of pointing out, "there's no telling what Biden will say." I occasionally have to fight a tendency to mental & verbal undiscipline at times, but Biden makes me at 18, drunk on tequila and chasing girls, seem like a stoic. That we elected somebody who is like that sober and at age fifty-something to a senior national leadership position, a heartbeat removed from the Presidency, makes my head hurt. Apparently, it's the one thing which President Obama and I have in common.