Author: Andrew Sullivan

by Chris Bodenner

A notable alternative to Millan's methods:

by Patrick Appel

A reader writes:

Hannaford is conflating a lack of choice in *producers* with a lack of choice in *beverages*.  That's stupid.  It's like saying there's no variety in Jelly Bellys because there's only one producer of Jelly Bellys.  And yet I stand there in front of the "Jelly Belly bar" at my local gourmet grocer's and see 30 or more varieties of Jelly Bellys, and that's with only a single producer and no effective competition within that market segment.  Choices in beverages  range from plain old Coca Cola to high-end sparkling waters to energy drinks to organic teas.  Competition amongst the three major producers is absolutely fierce, yet there's still room for specialty and niche producers to thrive (Jones Soda probably being the most prominent, but having moved to St. Louis a couple of years ago, I've been amazed at the number of local and regional soda producers, such as Fitz's, Dad's, and a variety of other specialty sodas).

There are plenty of problems caused by consolidation of control of a market segment to a few large producers.  We have effectively fewer significant producers of MP3 players than beverage producers, with Apple dominating the segment, Microsoft a distant second, and others that produce a vanishingly small percentage of production.  The cost of iPods has stayed significantly stable because of that.  Soft drinks, on the other hand, come in just about every flavor, form, and packaging option available, at extremely competitive price points.  A lack of choice in the beverage market is clearly not a problem.

Reihan has further criticisms.

by Chris Bodenner

Weigel wonders why Brink Lindsey and Will Wilkinson are both suddenly leaving the libertarian think tank:

[Y]ou have to struggle not to see a political context to this. Lindsey and Wilkinson are among the Cato scholars who most often find common cause with liberals. In 2006, after the GOP lost Congress, Lindsey coined the term "Liberaltarians" to suggest that Libertarians and liberals could work together outside of the conservative movement. Shortly after this, he launched a dinner series where liberals and Libertarians met to discuss big ideas. (Disclosure: I attended some of these dinners.) In 2009 and 2010, as the libertarian movement moved back into the right's fold, Lindsey remained iconoclastic—just last month he penned a rare, biting criticism of The Battle, a book by AEI President Arthur Brooks which argues that economic theory is at the center of a new American culture war.

Did any of this play a role in the departure of Lindsey and Wilkinson? I've asked Lindsey and Wilkinson, and Wilkinson has declined to talk about it, which makes perfect sense. But I'm noticing Libertarians on Twitter starting to deride this move and intimate that Cato is enforcing a sort of orthodoxy. (The title of Wilkinson's kiss-off post, "The Liberaltarian Diaspora," certainly hints at something.)

With Lindsey and Wilkinson out, perhaps there's a chance for Nick Newcomen, the Rand fan who drove 12,000 miles with GPS tracking "pen" to scrawl the message above?  If nothing else, his ideological chops are unassailable.

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

I just wanted to point out that the opinions of Mitt Romney and Harry Reid do not necessarily tell you something about the opinions of Mormons at large on this issue.  There are a lot of factors that can affect people's opinions on these sorts of matters, and in this case I think it is worth noting that Romney and Reid are both trying to win over conservative constituencies that have very particular ideas on this issue. I think you might find much more varied opinions on this among Mormons at large than you will by looking to two politicians and then holding them up as representative of the whole religion.

A good point. If readers know of any prominent Mormons who have voiced support for the Cordoba mosque, please send along. (So far I can't find any statements – either for or against – from Orrin Hatch, the most prominent Mormon politician after Reid and Romney.  But his record on mosques looks good.)

by Patrick Appel

Krauthammer tsk tsks defends of the Park 51 project. Kinsley goes another round:

Constitutional rights are not requirements. We do not all have to carry guns just because the Second Amendment says we are allowed to. Just as we all have the right to build a mosque near Ground Zero, we also all have the right not to build one. We even have a First Amendment right to attempt to persuade other people to give up the exercise of some constitutional right.

Imam Rauf and his followers, however, are not likely to be persuaded by the argument that, even though they had no connection whatever to the events of 9/11, their very presence near Ground Zero is upsetting to the sensitivities of 9/11 survivors and families. It is like telling blacks or Jews that they have every right to move into the neighborhood, but wouldn't they really be happier in some other neighborhood, not too far away, where the neighbors' sensistivities won't be offended? And–as Charles mentioned in both columns and obviously feels is important–the governor will even help you find one. That's how badly people don't want you around.

No offense.

by Patrick Appel

In response to my thoughts on Gary Johnson and Ron Paul, Bernstein asks a couple important questions:

Really, what's striking about the Paul campaign is how little apparent success it had in affecting the Republican Party.  I'm not aware of any Republican nominees in 2010, at least not at the statewide level, who have adopted Paul's unorthodox stances on foreign policy.  It's true that some strains of Tea Partyism seem libertarian, but mostly it's just standard-issue GOP rhetoric, pushing tax cuts and unspecified spending cuts while in practice asking government to keep its hands off their Medicare, their farm subsidies, and certainly their defense contracts.  And, of course, Gary Johnson is going nowhere, at least for now.

If what Appel is saying is that rogue presidential campaigns do have the capacity for changing a political party, even if they don't actually win the nomination, then I entirely agree — and it's a very important and good point.  But in this particular instance, I see no evidence that the real-life Republican party (or anyone else beyond a small but visible group of enthusiasts) are going to become libertarians any time soon. 

by Conor Friedersdorf

Reihan Salam has two interesting posts up, one defending the FDA from a Wall Street Journal editorial [correction: the FDA post is actually Avik Roy], and the other musing on the United States and its ability to retain ultra-rich citizens:

Bashing the rich has a powerful political and emotional appeal for many people. For people on the left, tax exiles are profoundly unattractive figures — economic Benedict Arnolds, to evoke a phrase popular in 2004. I think about this more pragmatically. Plutonomy is baked into advanced economies. Without truly confiscatory taxes — I'm talking about marginal tax rates in the neighborhood of 70 percent or higher — large fortunes will keep growing larger, and the ultrarich will settle in the most congenial environments. The U.S. is a country rich in amenities that Dubai, Doha, and Singapore can't really match. So many of the ultrarich will pay a premium to live here, just as wealthy individuals pay a premium to live in California or Paris. But how big a premium will they pay? And how long will our edge in amenities last? 

It's useful to assume that the answer is not that big and not that long. Because if we're wrong, a trickle of adventure-seeking emigrants could become a cascade of our best and brightest.  

One way to keep our edge in amenities is to take a leftier road and spend more money on high-quality public services. The only wrinkle is that we'd have to fund them out of regressive consumption taxes, to avoid driving away talent. My preference is to take a rightier road, and remake our public sector so that it can offer high-quality services at low cost through the use of competition, for-profit social enterprise, personalization, privatization, and other strategies that don't rely on big increases in public spending.

Read the rest here.

This seems like a good time to mention that the US should make it much easier for the best and brightest in other countries to immigrate here. We're squandering a comparative advantage by failing to do so, and missing out on a generation of scientists, entrepreneurs, engineers, doctors, and others who would contribute enormously to this country if given the opportunity.

by Chris Bodenner

Inspired by the mega-popular Awkward Family Photos, Buzzfeed gets pet specific. Our favorite Portland pet photographer sends us an original, seen above.

by Patrick Appel

Seth Godin reflects on it:

We pay the fear tax every time we spend time or money seeking reassurance. We pay it twice when the act of seeking that reassurance actually makes us more anxious, not less.

(Hat tip: Schneier)