Writes Matt Yglesias in "National Democrats' misguided re-embrace of gun control/It costs votes and doesn't produce any gun control" (Slow Boring).
He links to "Drinking Highest Among Educated, Upper-Income Americans" (Gallup, 2015): "Americans of higher socio-economic status... are more likely to participate in activities that may involve drinking such as dining out at restaurants, going on vacation or socializing with coworkers...."
I wonder how Yglesias is doing with this new project. He's put up a very long article, but some of that length is verbosity — really bad verbosity. That second-to-last sentence, above, needlessly trips up the reader: "And while the centrality of booze and guns to people’s social and communal lives is not great for public health, basically everyone understands that with regard to alcohol you have to work within the confines of political reality." I got confused by "is not great." If the "centrality" "is not great," it's supposed to mean the "centrality" is harmful, but it could also mean the "centrality" is not a major factor or not really all that central. And "centrality" is a rather silly subject for that sentence.
Posts
84 comments:
Everything democrats do should cost them votes, in a perfect society.
"Indeed a lot of people like me don’t realize that drinking is much less common among working class people."
Never been to Wisconsin.
Shorter Yglesias: People bothered by AR-15’s don’t live near AR-15’s.
Funny that he wants gun control, not crime reduction.
I look forward to Dems losing votes for pushing gun control — yet again.
If you’re comfortable saying that it’s fine for politicians to be politically pragmatic in their approach to alcohol regulation, but that guns...
makes sense!
Democrats believe that
a) you need to be 'pragmatic' about alcohol regulation
b) need to be draconian about gun regulation
After all!
a) the closest the Constitution comes to saying ANYTHING about alcohol, is in the
21st (not 18th) amendment.. which says:
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
in other words, Feds OUT, States IN!
b) the Constitution EXPLICITLY states:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
so, if you have Two Things
One of which the Constitution says YOU CAN NOT DO... You HAVE TO DO THAT
The Other, the Constitution says NOTHING about... YOU BETTER NOT DO THAT!
"more likely to participate in activities that may involve drinking such as dining out at restaurants, going on vacation or socializing with coworkers" =/= "drinking is much less common among working class people"
The late Scalia laid out the plan and options for federal gun legislation in the Heller decision. Plenty of room for regulation of who can have what kinds of guns and where. Probably going to need some user fees too. Gotta cover costs without raising taxes.
Weapons are not some vice, some self-indulgence. They are fundamental to being a free individual.
The basic needs for survival are food, clothing, shelter and protection. If you are dependent on others for any of these things, you cannot be free and must do as they say.
Which is why Progs are always trying to maneuver the people into a position where they are dependent on the beneficence of the Party to meet these needs.
I think there are more people who favor prohibition than favor banning guns.
Gosh, if only there were some political clue as to why guns and alcohol have different political statuses in America, and if only anyone had ever commented on the relationship between politics and culture.
I'm heartened to see Yglesias have the courage of his convictions to make the move to Substack, and he frequently is willing to put serious effort into thinking things through from a perspective that isn't his own. But there's no evidence of that here, and in general he's not even on par with Andrew Sullivan in that regard, and neither of them are as principled-and-to-hell-with-the-consequences as Glenn Greenwald or Matt Taibbi.
But views in guns, abortion, and financing medical care set the US apart from the rest of the first world.
The right to bear arms is more important than the right to drink. The former defines the fundamental relationship between citizenry and the state. Private citizens own weapons because they are responsible for the defense of themselves and their communities.
And the notion that the working class drink less is silly.
It's a poll.
Ralph L said...
Funny that he wants gun control, not crime reduction.
It's a common view among the gun control crowd that the most common result of gun ownership is that a family member gets shot accidently. They don't see it as a crime issue.
This is a surprisingly smart column for Yglesias. For one thing, his audience doens't care a whit about human rights, so he doesn't bother with the 2nd Amendment issue. He probably won't do much better on consistency/hypocrisy, but that argument is less likely to generate the guffaws that a limited government argument would.
My eyes were glazing over long before the word "centrality".
"Drinking Highest Among Educated, Upper-Income Americans"
Gun ownership highest among educated, upper-income Americans *
18% Household Income < $25,000
32% Household Income $25,000-49,999
42% Household Income $50,000-89,999
44% Household Income $90,000+
* I get the impression that the writer is assuming the opposite.
Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States. More than gun and alcohol deaths combined. So why don't we ban cigarettes?
A bad center fielder is a world of hurt to a team trying to come back... I'm just saying.
He has a valid general point, but apparently doesn't have much experience of the working class. Maybe he grew up in a dry county or in Mormon country, or maybe "drinking" means something different to him, just like the word "liquor" tends to exclude beer. But even there, a lot of bourbon gets sold in working class joints. It was foolish comment, but it does make one think that the "working class" isn't as Irish/German/Northern European as it once was and the neighborhood tavern isn't the big thing it used to be. ... It probably went out of business with the COVID.
Readering said...
"I think there are more people who favor prohibition than favor banning guns."
There ya go. Workin' without tools again.
I disagree. Where are the outspoken organizations promoting universal prohibition?
Blogger Readering said...
"It's a poll."
Get your own blog.
Leftist have to run other peoples lives.
I like the observation that everyone rubs up against alcohol use, so they understand it (they think) in population centers, very few brush up against guns. The amount of guns out here in flyover country would make the leftist crazy(ier). I'm in lots of homes and shops 4to 5 a day. Most proudly display their gleaming gun safes. Yes multiples. But it is the norm. People are not getting shot everyday, kids aren't having gun accidents. Because it is all to day to day pedestrian normal. (gun safes as common as well stocked bars in the same shops and dens.)
Oh. And I neither smoke-anything- nor do I drink. I would never dream of denying those things to someone else. As long as my rights aren't being violated, have at it. I'm a liberal in that regard.
Maybe he wrote that after the fifth brandy Old Fashioned.
Juicebox mafia Matty is a hack no matter the venue. Yep he needs editing. Must be weird to have a so-called profession where your guild has decided to flush all public trust down the toilet yet still sell their wares as if we don’t know they are shit-filled propagandists. This dreck will not restore any luster to journOlism nor win Julio’s retarded nephew any new readers at sub(human)stack.
Death, illness and social dysfunction caused by alcohol - off the charts
Matt Iglesias. As long as we follow Althouse and Althouse follows the secular progressive bubble, however odious, we cannot be accused by lefties of ignorance of their side.
The exposure is mostly valuable in that it reveals their fatuity to us and reinforces the certainty that they don’t know shit about our side.
Alcohol and guns. Right.
I think Democraticals' reach will always exceed their grasp.
If there is a Democratical Senate, there will be calls to outright ban guns.
The active resistance that would follow would increase the calls for gun bans.
And that would increase active resistance.
All those state funerals would make things difficult.
Because of Prohibition, I assume, he thinks gun control and alcohol control can be compared. No, but thanks for trying.
And "centrality", now that you point it out, is a ridiculous subject in that sentence.
It’s weird that about 40,000 people died of alcohol related causes in 2009 yet 60,000 died of H1N1 that year. No big public health campaign. No involvement by Obama in “leading” an effort to address Swine Flu. More deaths than drunk drivers and liver failure and yet not a peep from our bed wetting friends in journOlism at all. I don’t even recall Tim worrying about that pandemic. What a difference a decade makes!
Dalton and harvard, also journolist, atlantic (where he removed all doubt) thinkregress and vox)
"I think there are more people who favor prohibition than favor banning guns.”
Looks like our hall monitor has his talking points.
The left's desire for gun control has always been more about "showing the rubes who's boss" than achieving any kind of safety goals. We deplorables (maybe I should say "us deplorables") know that the possibility of armed resistance serves as a useful deterrent to tyranny. Still, the tree of Liberty ....
"No big public health campaign.”
Were you even alive then?
What Kevin D. Williamson says: Gun control is about status. It's about showing rural people who's boss. If you wanted to limit gun crime, you'd stop and frisk in cities (which is what they did in the 1990s and it worked.)
People fantasizing about using guns in some future civil war are idiots. There have been plenty of civil wars, and they were all horrible. There's some going on right now, if you want to go be in one. Leave my country out of it.
Rusty, learn to scroll.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is too hard for these folks to figure out?
It's about showing rural people who's boss. If you wanted to limit gun crime, you'd stop and frisk young Black men in cities
FTFY
lane ranger.
If just two percent of gun owners aren't having it and organize a real resistance there is absolutely nothing the fedgov.org can do. It would outgun every armed alphabet agency in the US. And no lefty mouth breathers the 82nd Airborn , the Navy Seals, or any other armed service are not coming to the aid of the government. So no. Any " gun control" talk is just that. Gun owners now control that narrative. The regulations won't be obeyed, the tax will not be paid. We will decide what is reasonable.
It’s easier for the right to move left on economics than it is for the left to move right on cultural issues, which is why Democrats got spanked in this election up and down the ballot.
So why don't we ban cigarettes?
How'd that work when we tried it with alcohol?
Cigarette smuggling and street vendors already exist.
Anyone remember the Adam Carolla bit (and book) Rich Man, Poor Man where he outlines things the very rich and the very poor both do (like have outdoor furniture)? Add "excessive drinking".
People fantasizing about using guns in some future civil war are idiots. There have been plenty of civil wars, and they were all horrible. There's some going on right now, if you want to go be in one. Leave my country out of it.
"There is no need for war. There is always surrender."
Last summer I ran into the situation several times, where when bonding with another guy, at some point in the conversation, one of us would pop out our picket gun (you all have pocket guns, don’t you?), and show it to the other. Maybe exchange them for a couple minutes (which is apparently illegal in WA a couple of hours away, since there was no government background check first). And the second would reciprocate. Then, maybe share truck guns. That’s rural MT. Everyone owns guns. They are ubiquitous. And yes, more common really than drinking, esp drinking hard liquor. Beer though doesn’t count. Except for some of our religious communities (Amish, Mennonites, etc).
In normal years, a couple times a year, there will be a table set up on weekends in the grocery store right by the donuts in the bakery, and on the table will be a nice gun displayed - typically a scoped hunting rifle. The couple of guys sitting behind the table are raffling it, and other prizes, off for some good cause. VFW does it at least once a year. That is also where the Trap Club sells their yearly memberships ($20). That is mostly where I shoot, so I always kick into their lottery. Besides, they point out that only members are covered at the range by their insurance. Except, of course, none of this happened last summer due to COVID-19. No wonder the range was looking pretty ratty by the end of the summer.
A bit over a decade ago, step-son, DIL and two kids stayed at the ranch 5 miles down river from our house, where he had spent his summers growing up. (Explains a lot of this to several of you - they live by Tucson). Hearing gunshots in the distance, she runs out on the porch and starts screaming about there being young kids present. On the porch in the middle of an almost half section farm, amidst other half and quarter section farms along the river. While possibly occurring on one of the nearby farms, it was more likely coming fro the National Forest several miles away (where the rule is that you cannot shoot w/I 100 ft of roads or campgrounds, which means that they are > 99,9% free fire zones).
I don’t know when or whether her husband ever explained to her how badly she embarrassed him there. That farm was where he learned to shoot, at a range they have set up in the lower forest, right by the river. And no doubt he remembers when his parents gave their four kids each a bunny for Easter. After the novelty wore off, they were released. It was supposed to be safe, because they were all supposed to be the same sex. Whoop. When Dad saw them popping up here and there in the fields, he had Mom (my partner) take the kids inside (to spare the girls). At which time, sitting on that very same porch, he and his father eliminated their rabbit problem, claiming to have shot over a hundred of the little buggers in a little over an hour.
Oh, and the two of them are “educators” (and thus Bidenbots) living in the Tucson area. Which explains things, at least to our resident Tucsonians. Except that she may be coming around now, after losing their flock of maybe 20 chickens to coyotes a couple years ago. His guns are hidden in the garage. I think that it is one of these out of sight, out of mind, sort of thing for her. She doesn’t have to deal with the cognitive dissonance of being rabidly anti gun, while having guns in the house, if she never sees them. Leftists.
---And "centrality" is a rather silly subject for that sentence. [AA]
Exactly right. That is the glaring weakness in its construction. Why make "centrality" the subject when the activities, or the attitudes toward those activities, are what Yglesias seems to be trying to discuss?
There are other poorly written sentences in the excerpt you quote. Do we "stomach" "transcendent questions of conscience"?
Bad writing usually reflects bad thinking. Of that he has too plentiful a supply.
Gun Control used to be big with the law-and-order right. Especially against notion of armed African-Americans.
People fantasizing about using guns in some future civil war are idiots.
If there is a future civil war, what do you fantasize using?
Except that's not how they were referred.
Phasers.
Phasers
When they become available, they will be added to the gun collections.
And Democrats will scream about people having “space weapons” on our streets.
Gun Control used to be big with the law-and-order right. Especially against notion of armed African-Americans.
LOL. Nice try Readering. It was Democrats who created explicitly racist gun laws in the south and in deep blue metro areas like Chicago. This was done, and the accompanying political push for gun control, was to keep black Americans from fighting back against their racist policies. There’s a reason Harriet Tubman was a Republican and carried a pistol conducting on the Underground Railroad. If it wasn’t for revisionism you progs wouldn’t admit any history at all.
John Lynch:
Are there no conditions you would resist up to and including armed resistance?
Or are you just a pussy?
2 types of democrats:
1) Lets punish and crush the opposition
2) Lets attempt to understand them so we can trick them later.
Readering said...
Gun Control used to be big with the law-and-order right. Especially against notion of armed African-Americans.
Friendly advice:
You misspelled Democrats.
Plenty of average people can write well. Plenty of above average people can write well.
There are also many people of all levels of intelligence who write poorly.
Matt is an average person who writes poorly. That anyone reads his drivel reflects poorly on the readers’ choices.
I look forward to the day when we can buy ammo in the grocery store, just like we can with alcohol.
“I think Democraticals' reach will always exceed their grasp.
If there is a Democratical Senate, there will be calls to outright ban guns.
The active resistance that would follow would increase the calls for gun bans.
And that would increase active resistance.”
That is where the civil war, if there is ever going to be one, is going to be started. The Democrats will ultimately try to take guns away from normal gun owning Americans, and they will resist. That is what happened in 1775, which is part of why we have a 2nd Amdt. The left in this country is trying to whitewash away that this country was founded in response to attempts by our British overlords to disarm us. The right knows their (real) history, and not the fake, 1619 Project fake history, being peddled in the larger school districts.
The top Dems, the ones running their party, know the real score, and know that they can only go so far before the rubes with their guns start shooting back. This country is based on a transgenerational social contract. That was shredded this election by their stealing the election, by dumping millions of illegal ballots into being counted in several key states around the country. Biden has promised to impose draconian gun control, and to put Bobby Beto Boy O’Roarke in charge of it. Let’s just see how well it goes when they try to make Modern Sporting Rifles, apparently half of all long guns sold every year in this country, illegal. Weapons of War? You bet. The Colonial militias had arms every bit as good as the British soldiers who were trying to disarm them. Better sometimes — the British were not only faced with smooth bore muskets, like they carried, but also by rifles, with significantly longer ranges, which allowed sniping, esp at British officers, from a much greater distance.
Wasn't alcohol (wine) the demise of Alexander the Great?
Gun Control used to be big with the law-and-order right. Especially against notion of armed African-Americans.
The NRA (the oldest civil rights organization in existence) has advocated for Black gun ownership from the very beginning.
I stopped at Enrique.
I don’t think that the Dems, the left, realize how dangerous what they just did, if they are successful, was. As I said above, our transgenerational social contract was shredded by them this year, with their industrial level election fraud. They have very possibly put a senile old corrupt grifter, who can’t put together a complete sentence, even reading a teleprompter, into the White House. He didn’t really campaign - because he couldn’t. And now, with that “mandate”, they want to come and take our guns away from us starting with those most useful in resisting their authoritarian power grab? Good luck with that. Ain’t gonna happen.
It would be interesting to write a conspiracy theory that the entire point of globalism was to secretly enforce prohibition on the working class. "We must offshore jobs and import illegal aliens until the working class is too poor to afford alcohol."
I think it a less plausible conspiracy theory than the one that welfare programs and urban policy were expressly designed to destroy the lives of black Americans...
Moderate drinking is better than pot smoking for gun or rifle control.
“ I look forward to the day when we can buy ammo in the grocery store, just like we can with alcohol”
You still can, in rural MT. Or if not at the grocery store, at least at the local gas station/convenience stores, along with bait, hooks, worms, and hunting/fishing licenses. The problem is that the only ammo that it makes sense for them to carry are small boxes of the standard hunting calibers. That and .22 LR. It’s just not cost effective for them to carry more selection. They are selling mostly to the tourists, and everyone else knows who around has much better selection, and better prices. You pretty well expect that the stores selling guns, have decent inventory for most of the calibers for the guns they sell - most years.
This year was different, due to the record high demand for ammunition around the country. Bought a 7.5” barrel .300 Blackout AR-15 pistol from one of the stores in town. And ultimately a pistol brace, that can act like a stock, for it from them too. Plus a couple boxes of ammunition at the same time. Took it to the range. It was a blast to shoot, even before adding the pistol brace. Shot up the two boxes (20 rounds each), and went back for more. Whoops. Six months earlier (before the ChiCom Flu arrived), when I was doing my research. .300 Blackout was available in bulk, for decent prices. I found it, a couple boxes here and there, in larger cities. But not enough to let me shoot the gun much more. And I have the parts to build another one, but won’t, until I have a readily available supply of ammo to feed it.
"Americans of higher socio-economic status... are more likely to participate in activities that may involve drinking such as dining out at restaurants, going on vacation or socializing with coworkers....".
Yes, and they are more likely to go skiing, so they must have more broken legs. And probably more facial hair, since that would keep them warm on the slopes. I think we can also infer that their thigh muscles must be stronger, but their upper arms are likely flabby, and their noses are prone to running. Am I a journalist yet? I could go on.
By coincidence, yesterday I was reading Biden's page about his plans for guns. Lots of talk about banning and requiring registration, but also things like "Prioritize prosecution of straw purchasers." As if that's easy or no one has wanted to stop that before. They refer to it as the "boyfriend loophole". It will be a good look, prosecuting young women who are either naive or being manipulated by a thug boyfriend.
A Republican submitted a bill that increased the punishment for straw purchases (for both the buyer and the one receiving the gun) to the House two years ago. It went nowhere.
Cigarette smuggling and street vendors already exist.
Eric Garner found out the punishment for street vending.
Readering...."Gun Control used to be big with the law-and-order right. Especially against notion of armed African-Americans."
I think you misspelled Democrats there.
Defeated Confederate Democrats used the tactic of gun control to keep blacks unarmed in the immediate post-Civil War South, and Democrats in the 20th century used gun control for similar ends.
Gun control laws were originally promulgated by Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of blacks.
This allowed the Democratic policy of slavery to proceed with fewer bumps and, after the Civil War, allowed the Democratic Ku Klux Klan to menace and murder black Americans with little resistance.
(Contrary to what illiterates believe, the KKK was an outgrowth of the Democratic Party, with overlapping membership rolls. The Klan was to the Democrats what the American Civil Liberties Union is today: Not every Democrat is an ACLU’er, but every ACLU’er is a Democrat. Same with the Klan.)
In 1640, the very first gun control law ever enacted on these shores was passed in Virginia. It provided that blacks – even freemen – could not own guns.
That pesky second amendment.
Good thing the founders had some common sense and foresight.
I cannot imagine today's class of politicians writing anything close.
DBQ, good for you. The lies the leftists try to spread here are very annoying.
And props to all the others who pointed out the lie after I rad all the comments. The liar complained about "ad hominem" insults, like "stupid." "Liar" is not an insult, just an observation.
“ Yes, and they are more likely to go skiing, so they must have more broken legs. And probably more facial hair, since that would keep them warm on the slopes. I think we can also infer that their thigh muscles must be stronger, but their upper arms are likely flabby, and their noses are prone to running. Am I a journalist yet? I could go on.”
To be fair, facial hair can be a problem skiing. Skied (often a lot) for better than a half a century, and most of that was wearing a mustache. And on cold windy days, it was liable to freeze. Backcountry skiing, or flat tracking on cross country is a different story. It is the speed, combined probably a runny nose, that ultimately results in the frozen facial hair. And that can be a pain in the rear.
But yes, my thigh and calf muscles were very strong (in college most of us on the ski team were lifting more weight with our legs than many on the football team). And my upper body not so much. Which was always funny because my partner always liked big chests and arms on guys, but she, herself, carried most of her musculature in her legs, having gone through college on a dance scholarship, and aerobically walked 3-4 hours a day for exercise for most of the years since then. I was probably her only serious boyfriend who had stronger legs than she did, even the big Swede she was married to who could literally throw around railroad ties.
RK,
"Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a government agency.".
-Kim du Toit (if memory serves)
Funny that folks here are rabid to point out that many Democrats were once racist, but terrified to admit the corollary, that many Democrats were once on the law-and-order right. The two positions often went together. When Republicans started to be associated with both racism and law-and-order, many folks changed party allegiance. Me, I was too young for that, so when I came of age the transformation was getting close to complete.
I much admire honest Abe, but that does not mean I want to be a Republican today. I most admire the Father of My Country (I know, slavery), but that does not mean I want to be a Federalist today.
Wait what? Lower class people don’t drink? Bull.Shit. My working class, largely Hispanic, midsize city in Texas can’t go a single weekend without a clutch of morons getting drunk and stabbing each other over insults or a woman. Or driving a car through someone’s fence and into their living room. Or beating their girlfriends’ toddlers when they won’t stop crying. Or flipping a two decade old car full of unrestrained children off the freeway. Anecdotes are not data, and I know where I live is particularly crummy, but come on. We’re not alone in this.
When Republicans started to be associated with both racism and law-and-order, many folks changed party allegiance.
Another lie. Maybe you could read Clarence Thomas' "My Grandfather's Son," a story of self help and bootstraps, as rare as those are among Democrats.
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...Wait what? Lower class people don’t drink? Bull.Shit.
I think he means that WE, lower class schlubs, don't drink correctly or with the taste and elan that the upper classes drink. Deplorables drink beer (not artesian crafted beer, just Pabst or Bud in cans...gasp), screw top wine and cheap hootch..you know...crap you can buy at the grocery store or a corner liquor store. We also drink outside, siting on stumps and spitting tobbaccy into the dirt or screaming at a football game.
Real people, like the author, drink real drinks with their pinkies gracefully elevated. Manhattans, single malt scotch, mai tais, mojitios martinis (shaken not stirred), brandy in crystal snifters, fine wines from France. They drink at exclusive cocktail parties wearing Great Gatsby type fashions or at expensive restaurants where they wouldn't be caught dead serving a hamburger or rack of pork ribs. Sipping their drinks in the delusion that they are the ones who are real and everyone else are just pretending to be real and that we all envy them.
Ah...if only we could be like those educated upper class Americans. /s
😉
Current ideas of right and left don't apply that well to 19th century America. The Republican/Democrat split cut across what we think of now as right and left. How you voted depended on geography, ethnicity, race, and religion and people with very different opinions voted for the same party. Economic leftists might have views that we now regard as rightist, and indeed, very few people thought like today's left. So, please, the name-and-shame stuff doesn't really work.
ambiguous attachment in grammar is pretty common; truly yglesias is not great but he's pretty ordinary in this. you know which meaning is most likely for that sentence in isolation and you certainly know what he intendend in context.
There is no 2nd Amendment right to booze... there IS A SECOND AMENDMENT TO GUNS.
And the 2nd says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
No other right in the Bill Of Rights says that. Just the second one.
End of discussion about this 'pragmatic' view hokie stuff.
I was just looking at gun safes this afternoon, while picking up some sighting targets, as I don't won a safe. More advanced planning than anything with the future possibility of grandkids. My guns are free range in the house now, as our kids are out of the house. I'm sitting in the TV room with the bar now (watching ghost shows), and have a Star 9mm, a Walther .22, an M-1 carbine, a .45 Colt ACP, an M-1 carbine, and an STG-58, and between the calibers, over 1000 rounds. I was smart and really bought boatloads of ammo last year, when I could get 900 rounds of Malaysian .308 for like $300 bucks, and a 1080 round case of 1980s Korean.30 carbine ammo. The ammo selection at the store today looked like a toilet paper aisle during the panic buying spree. I kind of works for me, cause most hunters can't find ammo for extended range sessions and hunting, so I usually have half the 100 -200 yard ranges to myself. Will try to get out Friday PM, as the weather in PA looks good.
Matt Yglesias was one of the earliest bloggers to leave independent blogging to suckle at the corporate/activist teat. I guess he’s a little rusty without an editor. Matt Taibbi is doing so well he’s hired an editor and webmaster. I’ve subscribed to Taibbi and Greenwald’s substsck, and would gladly subscribe to an althouse one. Think I’ll pass on Yglesias.
Which place in the Constitution guarantees a right to alcoholic drinks, parallel to the 2A guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms?
Yglesias has always been very lame, nice to see he isn't changing in his new gig.
Post a Comment