To repeat an earlier request, how should we think about the marginal vs. average environmental cost of flying commercially? The marginal environmental cost seems low (a little extra jet fuel for the extra weight), but the average cost is probably fairly high.
Why do you call yourself a libertarian instead of a neo-conservative? You are a former leftist who has converted to the right but still hold many sympathies toward leftist beliefs. You were for the war, and still believe in an interventionist foreign policy. If you were jewish you would be the definition of a neo-con and yet you call yourself a libertarian. Every post about libertarianism starts off with a disclaimer about how your not of those libertarians, but rather one who beliefs remarkably like a neo-conservative.
Is the reason that neo-conservatism is too linked to Zionist war monger by the left to have any real descriptive power? or is it a holdover from your days as a leftist that you don't want to be called conservative?
At what point will high gas prices cause people to remove and sell their catalytic converter for cash and better fuel economy?
Oh, gasoline consumption for the last 4 weeks available is down 2.6% from last year. That's 30% more than the drop back in march when driving plummeted 4.3%. Can you say recession? And declining productivity?
KevDog - There's just something about libertarians who voted for Bush that people really, really, really don't like. It's a combination of two political demographics its fashionable to hate these days, and if you can argue they're even contradictory, it's all the more fun for people.
How about the economics of defense procurement and private contractors? That's one area of government-private sector interaction that seems particularly tricky these days.
Or maybe your take on the environmental costs of economic development and the increasing talk of Malthusian catastrophes from the recent surge in oil and food prices.
Yes, but Vail is the best. As for a thread, how does Mugabe pay off all his thugs and cronies? The economy of Zimbabwe is wrecked. Where does he get the money (real money, hard currency) or fuel or food, etc., to pay these people? From his Swiss bank account crammed with the money he looted from his country?
What is it about you that seems to piss so many people off?
That she thinks.
Admittedly, I disagree with her on a few points, but the very fact that she thinks rather than just accepts what she's fed pisses the majority of sheeple off.
Want a topic: Beer or Wine... which goes better with a steak?
I'm talkin' about a place where the beer flows like wine. Where beautiful women instinctively flock like the salmon of Capistrano. I'm talkin' about a little place called Aspen.
Then you really don't know what a neoconservative really is, nonymous.
Belief in promoting democracy abroad through the exercise of American influence is a belief that has its roots in Wilsonianism (some argue Trotskyism). Democrat Scoop Jackson was another inspiration, and lots of neoconservatives were members of leftist organizations in their youth. Conservative foreign policy previously had deep ties to isolationism and nativism - the Republicans who deeply opposed the League of Nation and foreign policy activism in the 1920s and the America Firsters who were first skeptical of NATO, the UN and collective defense in the 1940s - the paleoconservatives who today would be identified with the foreign policy of Pat Buchanan.
I'm extremely curious why people are so dead set on labeling others or themselves with some kind of one-word all encompassing term. I thought everyone used their reasons, and passions to arrive at conclusions. The conclusions determining any terms to be used. Apparently though everyone wants to shout liberal, neo-con, conservative, leftist, classical liberal, libertarian, hard right, Christian right, communist.... see the point? This isn't taxonomy where we fit into politics, or thoughts in general, does not have to be neat. It only has to fit the Law of Non-contradiction. Even on that I suspect there is room for contradictory (it may only be apparent) thoughts and behavior.
vail is completely artificial, ie, it is a planned creation of what someone things a ski town should look like. the scenery isn't all that great either.
aspen is so absurdly pretentious that it's a parody of itself. the scenery is everything it should be, however.
telluride's scenery is superb. weeeee for box canyons. telluride is also, in my opinion, a real place to live. honorable mentions in this category go to breckenridge and steamboat springs.
I'm extremely curious why people are so dead set on labeling others or themselves with some kind of one-word all encompassing term.
Why they do it to others: Ease. One doesn't have to worry about how 50000 people think, one has only to worry about how 10-13 different groups think.
They also do it as a method of dismissal. If I were as weak to think all feminist ideas were wrong (personal opinion: most, but not all) then I could dismiss someone's argument by labeling them a feminist. However, you will more often see it being done by feminists by labeling someone "misogynistic" ;)
Do it to themselves: Group identity and group think. The mistaken belief that truth is determined by number of subscribers.
If you really want a deep look into 'group identity' pick up "The Lucifer Principle" and "The Global Brain" by Howard Bloom.
Is it true that female promiscuity brings the price of sex way down (which on average benefits men), while sending the cost of marriage sky-high (regarded by some as detrimental to women’s interests)?
I am still laughing at Megan's post about feminism the other day. Here is Megan, an educated, thin attractive, young American white woman, one of the most privileged species of humans in the history of mankind, telling the world that she "understands privilege" and how those who benefit from it don't always see it. Really Megan?
Actually, John, you've listed six characteristics which mark Ms Megan as a ready target for discrimination by way too many people.....perhaps you've never been in a postion to observe such behavior......
"Actually, John, you've listed six characteristics which mark Ms Megan as a ready target for discrimination by way too many people.....perhaps you've never been in a postion to observe such behavior......"
I have been in a position to see people who meet such descriptions use their looks and connections to get over and keep from being held accountable for their failures too many times. Not that Megan would do that. I don't know her well enough to say. But certainly someone who has those characteristics is about as privileged as anyone can be in this society. If you don't believe me, I would suggest you paint yourself black or gain 60 pounds and see how your life changes.
Is it true that female promiscuity brings the price of sex way down (which on average benefits men),
It benefits men in the personal short term but it is to the detriment of society/culture.
One must realize that the bulk of "advancement" is done by riding the coattails of men who were successful.. men standing on the backs of the greater number of failures... all of those men who did so in the quest to be seen worthy enough to earn sex from women. Men kill themselves to earn sex and society advances due to it. Women don't.. they take time off for babies and take less demanding jobs, etc. When the price of sex declines, so does the rate of advancement in a society.
Why is the US a superpower compared to the world? Our strong puritanical background vs the rather liberal Europe. We advanced faster under our sexual restraint vs Europeans who advanced slower due to less sexual restraint. I'm sure someone will point out the Middle East, but recognize that they started several centuries behind Europe and eventually America (by being from Europe). More American males became drop-to-their-death workaholics to earn sex vs European males who demanded 6 week vacations.
How's that for politically incorrect?
while sending the cost of marriage sky-high (regarded by some as detrimental to women’s interests)?
Actually, it's not the availability of sex that does the majority of the damage in that department. Again contrasting Europe to America, marriage rates were similar in both areas. Marriage rates started to drop as divorce became more anti-male, more easily obtainable, and less socially derided. Marriage is, and pretty much always has been, for the benefit of the woman (to keep her and her children safe and provided for). The more men have to pay for the privilege of having a wife, the less likely they are to do so.
And on another note:
Actually, John, you've listed six characteristics which mark Ms Megan as a ready target for discrimination by way too many people.....
Yes, but he didn't list the 3 characteristics required make a person target for discrimination from their own government: Straight, White, and Male.
I wonder what would have been more detrimental to Megan's success in life and career so far: had she been born black and gained 60 pounds, or had she publicly proclaimed anti-feminist ideology?
When I say "the cost of marriage" I don't mean financial cost of supporting a family, but how much a woman needs to offer in terms of attractiveness (in all sort of ways: beauty, youth, education, affluence) to marry a desirable male? If you accept a premise that men have stronger sexual drive, while what women really want is love and marriage, it is possible to model male-female relationship as an exchange in which women provide sexual services, and men provide marriage services. According to that view, I think it is logical for a legal system to penilazie the man for marriage break-up.
Since Fareed Zakaria will probably show up at some point in the proceedings do you agree with his new thesis that the next century will bring a significant decline in American economic and cultural influence. If you agree do you think this will be a positive, neutral, or negative development?
John, I've actually (very briefly) been about fifty pounds heavier than I am now, and no, I didn't like it. You are assuming that I was excluding myself from "people". I'm well aware that I occupy an extremely privileged place in society; my point, rather, is that even when you know you're in a privileged place, many of the ways in which that privilege operates are invisible to you. To me. To anyone in such a place. Including, yes, white males.
Yes, it is an interesting post. And you can really understand the concept of "Pandora's Box"
Do women want to return to a system of social restrictions on their sexuality and removal from the masculine role? Oh hell no.
Do men want to give up the ease of gaining sex and instead work their asses off, and possibly fail, in the quest to gain enough "status" to earn sex? Oh hell no.
I liken it to the current tragedy of 'making sure our kids are happy'... *sniff*sniff* Who gives a crap? What IS important is making sure your kids become good adults, and sometimes that requires quite a bit of unhappiness!
What will it take to return to how it once was?
In history (you think this is the first time "feminism" existed?) such civilizations never recovered. They either economically collapsed upon themselves and fragmented or were overtaken by another society, stronger and on the advancement due to strictly enforced gender roles. It's happened much faster in history than in current society. The reason, I believe, is that the majority of the "power nations" did so at roughly the same time while the concept of 'conquest by war' really came under international pressure to stop.
The end result will be the same, however. In America we will become Mexican and Europe will become Islamic. On what basis can I make these predictions? Breeding rates. Traditional women (Muslims and Hispanics) make more babies. Feminized women don't even produce enough children to sustain population. The US population would be shrinking were it not due to Hispanics (mostly) and other recent immigrants. Within a while the dominant culture will vote their beliefs into place and this "women's equality" stuff will be history. It will likely happen in 200-400 years in Europe, and has a small chance of not happening in the US due to the possibility of cultural assimilation.
Europe will be rather secure and advance quickly once overtaken to become the new superpower. As God shalt not be questioned (yep, like our old puritanical beliefs) they will climb to the top quickly as generations of men do their role and advance that society. Here in America, the Hispanic culture is bound by tradition rather than religion, and as such will see the next round of feminism (and thereby cultural slowdown) much quicker than Europe.
The big questions for the future is the Orient. Due to their.. well whatever the polite term for xenophobia is.. they don't have another culture "waiting in the wings" to replace them after their population crashes. Japan will be the test case. In the next 40 years Japan's population will shrink to 75% of it's current level, and decline even more rapidly after that. It will be interesting to watch what happens to all the social programs as the retiree to worker ratio approaches 1:1.
Why is the US a superpower compared to the world? Our strong puritanical background vs the rather liberal Europe. We advanced faster under our sexual restraint vs Europeans who advanced slower due to less sexual restraint. I'm sure someone will point out the Middle East, but recognize that they started several centuries behind Europe and eventually America (by being from Europe). More American males became drop-to-their-death workaholics to earn sex vs European males who demanded 6 week vacations.
I would have thought Europe's heritage of tribalism, yielding two world wars with consequent extensive destruction of population and infrastructure, would have factored in there somewhere.
(Ignoring the missed-movie-quote aspect for a moment) Indeed, because being compared to a feathered, brainless nothing is sooooo much more flattering than being compared to the queen of the migratory fish, eh?
One of the commonplaces of thinking for yourself is that you find that none of the ideological templates fit with what you observe - unless you bend the observations. So why to people acquire one or other of these ideologies?
I would have thought Europe's heritage of tribalism, yielding two world wars with consequent extensive destruction of population and infrastructure, would have factored in there somewhere.
Never said that our puritanical background was the ONLY factor, just that it is the largest.
Request for Post: DC Statehood. Okay, not really. Eradicating the residential population of DC (see below):
I'm in favor of splitting DC, the municipality, into one or two cities that would be in Maryland and/or Virginia. The concept of DC as a government district suggests to me that the only institutions that should have addresses there are, well, government, and that DC should not have residents, schools, retrograde gun laws, or a mayor.
If it's not obvious, I'm not suggesting anyone move-- so much of the District is residentially zoned I wouldn't tinker with that, but the lines on the map would change, or maybe DC would become a mapless entity that mostly serves to give addresses to the government buildings. I guess the residents on Pennsylvania Ave and at the US Naval Observatory should be excepted, since they are government servants in their sleep and furthermore they don't lack for representation in government.
I can see a lot of issues with making the change, naturally, and I think that race would arise as one of the biggest. However, it solves the representation problem, and it puts more government between the Feds and the "city" of DC, or rather, more distance, which in this case is a good thing.
There would probably still need to be a virtual city of DC to service the muni-level but government-property police (unless they set up a foot patrol out of the JE Hoover Bldg), and to arrange for utilities which whould be provided by VA and MD-based entities.
Obviously this is a crackpot idea, but *how* crackpot?
The choice of Pajama versus RaiseCain is far better than W versus Kerry, eh?
Blech. Telluride is better.
To repeat an earlier request, how should we think about the marginal vs. average environmental cost of flying commercially? The marginal environmental cost seems low (a little extra jet fuel for the extra weight), but the average cost is probably fairly high.
Why do you call yourself a libertarian instead of a neo-conservative? You are a former leftist who has converted to the right but still hold many sympathies toward leftist beliefs. You were for the war, and still believe in an interventionist foreign policy. If you were jewish you would be the definition of a neo-con and yet you call yourself a libertarian. Every post about libertarianism starts off with a disclaimer about how your not of those libertarians, but rather one who beliefs remarkably like a neo-conservative.
Is the reason that neo-conservatism is too linked to Zionist war monger by the left to have any real descriptive power? or is it a holdover from your days as a leftist that you don't want to be called conservative?
What is it about you that seems to piss so many people off?
At what point will high gas prices cause people to remove and sell their catalytic converter for cash and better fuel economy?
Oh, gasoline consumption for the last 4 weeks available is down 2.6% from last year. That's 30% more than the drop back in march when driving plummeted 4.3%. Can you say recession? And declining productivity?
KevDog - There's just something about libertarians who voted for Bush that people really, really, really don't like. It's a combination of two political demographics its fashionable to hate these days, and if you can argue they're even contradictory, it's all the more fun for people.
How about the economics of defense procurement and private contractors? That's one area of government-private sector interaction that seems particularly tricky these days.
Or maybe your take on the environmental costs of economic development and the increasing talk of Malthusian catastrophes from the recent surge in oil and food prices.
"Blech. Telluride is better."
Yes, but Vail is the best. As for a thread, how does Mugabe pay off all his thugs and cronies? The economy of Zimbabwe is wrecked. Where does he get the money (real money, hard currency) or fuel or food, etc., to pay these people? From his Swiss bank account crammed with the money he looted from his country?
What kind of neocon has "sympathies for leftist beliefs."
I rather thought the definition of a neocon was someone almost pathologically opposed to the smallest whiff of leftism.
That she thinks.
Admittedly, I disagree with her on a few points, but the very fact that she thinks rather than just accepts what she's fed pisses the majority of sheeple off.
Want a topic: Beer or Wine... which goes better with a steak?
I'm talkin' about a place where the beer flows like wine. Where beautiful women instinctively flock like the salmon of Capistrano. I'm talkin' about a little place called Aspen.
Then you really don't know what a neoconservative really is, nonymous.
Belief in promoting democracy abroad through the exercise of American influence is a belief that has its roots in Wilsonianism (some argue Trotskyism). Democrat Scoop Jackson was another inspiration, and lots of neoconservatives were members of leftist organizations in their youth. Conservative foreign policy previously had deep ties to isolationism and nativism - the Republicans who deeply opposed the League of Nation and foreign policy activism in the 1920s and the America Firsters who were first skeptical of NATO, the UN and collective defense in the 1940s - the paleoconservatives who today would be identified with the foreign policy of Pat Buchanan.
I'm extremely curious why people are so dead set on labeling others or themselves with some kind of one-word all encompassing term. I thought everyone used their reasons, and passions to arrive at conclusions. The conclusions determining any terms to be used. Apparently though everyone wants to shout liberal, neo-con, conservative, leftist, classical liberal, libertarian, hard right, Christian right, communist.... see the point? This isn't taxonomy where we fit into politics, or thoughts in general, does not have to be neat. It only has to fit the Law of Non-contradiction. Even on that I suspect there is room for contradictory (it may only be apparent) thoughts and behavior.
"Where beautiful women instinctively flock like the salmon of Capistrano."
I think you mean swallows of Capistrano. Yeah, there's nothing a beautiful woman likes more than being compared to a fish.
Thanks for the pre-holiday laugh, though.
shoulda mentioned it sooner... we coulda had a welcome wagon at the airport. should be a nice weekend to be here.
Claudius, he's quoting Dumb and Dumber.
Claudius,
You've got to see Dumb and Dumber. That lines is one of the fantastic malapropisms from the movie, which takes place in Aspen.
vail is completely artificial, ie, it is a planned creation of what someone things a ski town should look like. the scenery isn't all that great either.
aspen is so absurdly pretentious that it's a parody of itself. the scenery is everything it should be, however.
telluride's scenery is superb. weeeee for box canyons. telluride is also, in my opinion, a real place to live. honorable mentions in this category go to breckenridge and steamboat springs.
to summarize: telluride > aspen > vail
Sorry, didn't realize it was a movie quote. Never saw that one.
Paper or plastic?
Why they do it to others: Ease. One doesn't have to worry about how 50000 people think, one has only to worry about how 10-13 different groups think.
They also do it as a method of dismissal. If I were as weak to think all feminist ideas were wrong (personal opinion: most, but not all) then I could dismiss someone's argument by labeling them a feminist. However, you will more often see it being done by feminists by labeling someone "misogynistic" ;)
Do it to themselves: Group identity and group think. The mistaken belief that truth is determined by number of subscribers.
If you really want a deep look into 'group identity' pick up "The Lucifer Principle" and "The Global Brain" by Howard Bloom.
Telluride rocks. Do they still have the brewpub in the old Rio Grande Southern depot? How's the tiramisu at the Powder House these days?
What's with all the sluts nowadays?
Is it true that female promiscuity brings the price of sex way down (which on average benefits men), while sending the cost of marriage sky-high (regarded by some as detrimental to women’s interests)?
I am still laughing at Megan's post about feminism the other day. Here is Megan, an educated, thin attractive, young American white woman, one of the most privileged species of humans in the history of mankind, telling the world that she "understands privilege" and how those who benefit from it don't always see it. Really Megan?
Actually, John, you've listed six characteristics which mark Ms Megan as a ready target for discrimination by way too many people.....perhaps you've never been in a postion to observe such behavior......
"Actually, John, you've listed six characteristics which mark Ms Megan as a ready target for discrimination by way too many people.....perhaps you've never been in a postion to observe such behavior......"
I have been in a position to see people who meet such descriptions use their looks and connections to get over and keep from being held accountable for their failures too many times. Not that Megan would do that. I don't know her well enough to say. But certainly someone who has those characteristics is about as privileged as anyone can be in this society. If you don't believe me, I would suggest you paint yourself black or gain 60 pounds and see how your life changes.
It benefits men in the personal short term but it is to the detriment of society/culture.
One must realize that the bulk of "advancement" is done by riding the coattails of men who were successful.. men standing on the backs of the greater number of failures... all of those men who did so in the quest to be seen worthy enough to earn sex from women. Men kill themselves to earn sex and society advances due to it. Women don't.. they take time off for babies and take less demanding jobs, etc. When the price of sex declines, so does the rate of advancement in a society.
Why is the US a superpower compared to the world? Our strong puritanical background vs the rather liberal Europe. We advanced faster under our sexual restraint vs Europeans who advanced slower due to less sexual restraint. I'm sure someone will point out the Middle East, but recognize that they started several centuries behind Europe and eventually America (by being from Europe). More American males became drop-to-their-death workaholics to earn sex vs European males who demanded 6 week vacations.
How's that for politically incorrect?
Actually, it's not the availability of sex that does the majority of the damage in that department. Again contrasting Europe to America, marriage rates were similar in both areas. Marriage rates started to drop as divorce became more anti-male, more easily obtainable, and less socially derided. Marriage is, and pretty much always has been, for the benefit of the woman (to keep her and her children safe and provided for). The more men have to pay for the privilege of having a wife, the less likely they are to do so.
And on another note:
Yes, but he didn't list the 3 characteristics required make a person target for discrimination from their own government: Straight, White, and Male.
I wonder what would have been more detrimental to Megan's success in life and career so far: had she been born black and gained 60 pounds, or had she publicly proclaimed anti-feminist ideology?
When I say "the cost of marriage" I don't mean financial cost of supporting a family, but how much a woman needs to offer in terms of attractiveness (in all sort of ways: beauty, youth, education, affluence) to marry a desirable male? If you accept a premise that men have stronger sexual drive, while what women really want is love and marriage, it is possible to model male-female relationship as an exchange in which women provide sexual services, and men provide marriage services. According to that view, I think it is logical for a legal system to penilazie the man for marriage break-up.
Since Fareed Zakaria will probably show up at some point in the proceedings do you agree with his new thesis that the next century will bring a significant decline in American economic and cultural influence. If you agree do you think this will be a positive, neutral, or negative development?
Demonspawn:
Interesting post.
John, I've actually (very briefly) been about fifty pounds heavier than I am now, and no, I didn't like it. You are assuming that I was excluding myself from "people". I'm well aware that I occupy an extremely privileged place in society; my point, rather, is that even when you know you're in a privileged place, many of the ways in which that privilege operates are invisible to you. To me. To anyone in such a place. Including, yes, white males.
Yes, it is an interesting post. And you can really understand the concept of "Pandora's Box"
Do women want to return to a system of social restrictions on their sexuality and removal from the masculine role? Oh hell no.
Do men want to give up the ease of gaining sex and instead work their asses off, and possibly fail, in the quest to gain enough "status" to earn sex? Oh hell no.
I liken it to the current tragedy of 'making sure our kids are happy'... *sniff*sniff* Who gives a crap? What IS important is making sure your kids become good adults, and sometimes that requires quite a bit of unhappiness!
What will it take to return to how it once was?
In history (you think this is the first time "feminism" existed?) such civilizations never recovered. They either economically collapsed upon themselves and fragmented or were overtaken by another society, stronger and on the advancement due to strictly enforced gender roles. It's happened much faster in history than in current society. The reason, I believe, is that the majority of the "power nations" did so at roughly the same time while the concept of 'conquest by war' really came under international pressure to stop.
The end result will be the same, however. In America we will become Mexican and Europe will become Islamic. On what basis can I make these predictions? Breeding rates. Traditional women (Muslims and Hispanics) make more babies. Feminized women don't even produce enough children to sustain population. The US population would be shrinking were it not due to Hispanics (mostly) and other recent immigrants. Within a while the dominant culture will vote their beliefs into place and this "women's equality" stuff will be history. It will likely happen in 200-400 years in Europe, and has a small chance of not happening in the US due to the possibility of cultural assimilation.
Europe will be rather secure and advance quickly once overtaken to become the new superpower. As God shalt not be questioned (yep, like our old puritanical beliefs) they will climb to the top quickly as generations of men do their role and advance that society. Here in America, the Hispanic culture is bound by tradition rather than religion, and as such will see the next round of feminism (and thereby cultural slowdown) much quicker than Europe.
The big questions for the future is the Orient. Due to their.. well whatever the polite term for xenophobia is.. they don't have another culture "waiting in the wings" to replace them after their population crashes. Japan will be the test case. In the next 40 years Japan's population will shrink to 75% of it's current level, and decline even more rapidly after that. It will be interesting to watch what happens to all the social programs as the retiree to worker ratio approaches 1:1.
These are going to be very interesting times.
Ahhh California.... Nice!
Where the beer flows like wine!
(both quote of the previously mentioned movie)
Have fun in Aspen.... It is great having a sister and brother-in-law there. Much better place to visit than my other siblings.
Why is the US a superpower compared to the world? Our strong puritanical background vs the rather liberal Europe. We advanced faster under our sexual restraint vs Europeans who advanced slower due to less sexual restraint. I'm sure someone will point out the Middle East, but recognize that they started several centuries behind Europe and eventually America (by being from Europe). More American males became drop-to-their-death workaholics to earn sex vs European males who demanded 6 week vacations.
I would have thought Europe's heritage of tribalism, yielding two world wars with consequent extensive destruction of population and infrastructure, would have factored in there somewhere.
Sexual Surrogacy
Claudius,
(Ignoring the missed-movie-quote aspect for a moment) Indeed, because being compared to a feathered, brainless nothing is sooooo much more flattering than being compared to the queen of the migratory fish, eh?
One of the commonplaces of thinking for yourself is that you find that none of the ideological templates fit with what you observe - unless you bend the observations. So why to people acquire one or other of these ideologies?
I'd enjoy a more detailed post about the statistical problems with rape surveys that you mentioned recently.
What is it about you that seems to piss so many people off?
Honestly, I think it's that she tries to be nice. That makes pissy people pissier.
Megan--
Have you blogged any about the Fairness Doctrine and its possible return? I'd like to hear you riff on that sometime.
Never said that our puritanical background was the ONLY factor, just that it is the largest.
Request for Post: DC Statehood. Okay, not really. Eradicating the residential population of DC (see below):
I'm in favor of splitting DC, the municipality, into one or two cities that would be in Maryland and/or Virginia. The concept of DC as a government district suggests to me that the only institutions that should have addresses there are, well, government, and that DC should not have residents, schools, retrograde gun laws, or a mayor.
If it's not obvious, I'm not suggesting anyone move-- so much of the District is residentially zoned I wouldn't tinker with that, but the lines on the map would change, or maybe DC would become a mapless entity that mostly serves to give addresses to the government buildings. I guess the residents on Pennsylvania Ave and at the US Naval Observatory should be excepted, since they are government servants in their sleep and furthermore they don't lack for representation in government.
I can see a lot of issues with making the change, naturally, and I think that race would arise as one of the biggest. However, it solves the representation problem, and it puts more government between the Feds and the "city" of DC, or rather, more distance, which in this case is a good thing.
There would probably still need to be a virtual city of DC to service the muni-level but government-property police (unless they set up a foot patrol out of the JE Hoover Bldg), and to arrange for utilities which whould be provided by VA and MD-based entities.
Obviously this is a crackpot idea, but *how* crackpot?
You have covered "correlation does not imply causation". How about a lack of correlation does not imply a lack of causation? I know it could be uncomfortable if you run into Matt at breakfast, but someone needs to point out that the conclusions he draws from this medicare spending versus "quality of care" chart are unwarranted.
Most recently here:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/differences_2.php
But even worse here:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/differences_2.php