In some democratic theory circles, there's a belief/faith that participatory democracy, designed and done right, promotes/deepens important civic/democratic virtues. IDK if that's right, but the inverse--participatory democracy poorly designed promotes civic vices--definitely is.

I don't think this guy is actually that much more hostile to freedom of movement than most NIMBYs, he's just refreshingly open and frank about it. It should be a crime to move to Montana.

Pretty big swing from Spike Lee here. Very much hoping he pulls it off -- he could, and he might -- but I'm pretty far from confident.

It's obviously suboptimal to lose him for next year but it's hard to avoid the conclusion that in the end, any of these moves isn't good for Dayton recruiting efforts.

the market for reassuring, comforting 'don't worry, the vaguely alienating creature comforts of modernity don't actually make you any less of a man' takes is pretty much insatiable and produces some fascinating content.

Reds ingratiating themselves to this local baseball fan with a perfect-for-my-primary-rooting-interests week--get swept by Mariners, sweep Angels. Go Reds.

My teen informants (Robert Farley' daughters) tell me color dot stigma is real, and it fits with familiar sociological models of now weird new profoundly arbitrary status hierarchies are created, but I find myself strongly resisting believing it's real.

So many people, w/o a hint of shame, will pretend to not see any difference between
a) Giving rich people more money and hoping they do socially beneficial things with it
b) Allowing rich people to do a thing with the money they already have that we know is socially beneficial

he already exists