I'm surprised he didn't have a "Jump to Conclusions" mat made.

Have plenty of eagers lackeys around ready to take the fall to preserve remotely plausible deniability.

Great article.

The gasoline prices have fluctuated drastically over the last 3 years. People right now could still just be waiting out this current "peak", expecting that prices will drop back down towards the 2.50 level.

Regardless, many people are quite stuck with their current transportation/living situation choices. It will be several years before we really see how people respond to these increased prices. The gas consumption could be inelastic but still take a while to kick in(a sort of delayed inelasticity, or maybe this is the very definition of elastic).

Moving is hardly cheap, especially when your McMasion isn't selling. So if the options are to wade into the housing market, potentially "lose" a bunch of equity, and pay your moving costs OR.. just pay another $20 every week and hope for something to change, I think the common choice is going to be pretty clear.

@kdwmson

The modern American model of a city is in no way a result of intense planning. The difference between American cities and European cities is simply that the ones in Europe were largely built before technology allowed for the current levels of sprawl. The same is true of some eastern U.S. cities compared to those on the west coast that were built much later. It makes perfect economic sense for the private sector to build further and further out to satisfy the American demand for its white picket dream. Once we had the highways there's no need for government planning to make it happen, all it took was loose zoning laws. But those highways weren't installed to produce housing growth. They were built to transport troops and evacuate cities in case of nuclear attack.

It takes government planning to counteract that force and some cities (Portland comes to mind) have been successful in implementing such planning. Others have completely ignored the problem (hello Phoenix, hello Houston).

What was the last mass transit system constructed that wasn't the result of massive government planning?

Oh dear.

How crass is it to say that there may have been a bit of Freudian slippage when Karen Hunter announced that she had been "rocked to her core"?

Liz to Kenneth: You turtle-faced goon, I will cut you open like a tauntaun.

If you're referencing the mass-market paperback trade then certainly there is a definite right-leaning guns and glory section of the genre. But those books really have more in common with the old "men's-adventure" genre, they just happen to be set in Space/Cimmeria/Westeros but are hardly different than something from Clancy, Crichton, or Ludlum. Pournelle is certainly one of these authors and there is a strong modern contingent that is doing quite well for itself (Weber, Moon, Ringo, and Drake come to mind). Reactionary political fantasies are played out and conservative philosophies conquer all, like Ayn Rand's work but entertaining. There are some more liberal offerings in this genre subset (Moorcock, Pratchett, Modesitt), but these tend to either focus on anti-heroes or parody the heroic fantasy formula.

(Now reluctantly activating dork snobbery) "Good" science fiction, novels that have a shelf life of more than a decade, tends to have a much more secular-humanist, progressive bent. Not that being progressive is required to write a good sci-fi novel, but rather that sci-fiction is often used to obliquely critique society's taboos.

If you think of science fiction only as escapism then categorizing its authors as generally conservative is potentially fair. If you think of it as social commentary then it's ridiculous. Part of the problem is that "good" science fiction is often "moved" out of its genre: Handmaid's Tale, Slaughterhouse-Five, 1984, War of the Worlds, Frankenstein, etc.

If you are comparing what our government does in the name of freedom and security to what groups of thugs and terrorists do then you've pretty much already made our point for us.

Would you rather be a "suspected terrorist" in whatever unnamed prison we've set up to replace Abu Ghraib or an American captured by Islamic terrorists. Two to three years of torture followed by either possible release or death(if they just decide "forget" they have you in custody) OR ... 4-5 weeks of torture followed by near certain death. We'd all probably choose the U.S. prison experience and hope but the idea that there is any moment of pause when choosing between the two is what is so upsetting.

Why even call him an economist? He served as their spokesman, the "chief economist" label was just lipstick on the pig. Did he do anything the past 3 years besides lie to the press in an effort to pimp the real estate market. Who is going to replace him at the NAR, Ron Popeil?

Given the fireworks this past week over the Refs vs Baron and Stephen, this new study out is basically going to dump kerosene over the whole thing.

White refs call fouls on black players at a statistically significant higher rate.

Black refs call fouls on white player at statistically significant higher rate (though with only half the difference of the white ref/black player situation).

http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/Papers/NBARace.pdf

Given that the majority of players are black and that the majority of refs are white the study's authors jokingly suggest that teams spray-painting their players white could win a few more games every season.

Where is Gilbert Arenas when we need him?

Everybody is obviously free to believe or disbelieve results of the study. But you know who is going to believe and adopt the basic points of the study into their very core?

Odds-makers.

aka Tyler Perry... he would be as authentic a women as the rest of them.