Planet Moron cuts loose on the "Burn, baby burn" house fire in Tennessee. Filing from City Moron the NY Times also bleats about it, writing absolutely nothing that wouldn't have been said in a freshman dorm at a liberal college, but I'll highlight this:
The many things government undeniably can and must do — and individuals cannot — includes putting out fires that threaten the community.
Great point! And in fact, out in Obion County, the various fire departments are legally obliged to fight field fires that might spread. But not house fires - incredible as it may seem to a New Yorker, rural homes can be spaced so far apart that one house burning does not affect another.
Consequently, one might arge that there are no important externalities associated with a decision to let the Cranick house burn. The fire chief did say he would have gotten involved if human lives were at risk, but that was not the case here.
Nobel to Xiaobo!
======
Posted by: Now, how do you pronounce that name? | October 08, 2010 at 09:48 AM
Hey, shit burns.
========
Posted by: Hey, burns happen. | October 08, 2010 at 09:50 AM
The NY Times editorial board has long since had an air of self-parody about it.
Minus 12 at Raz today.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | October 08, 2010 at 09:56 AM
Posted by: Neo | October 08, 2010 at 09:56 AM
Yep, Neo. Vaclav Klaus likes him and that's enough for me.
============
Posted by: Me? I know nuttin'. Nevah huhd of da man. | October 08, 2010 at 09:59 AM
The Hill reports Harry Reid's idiot son,Rory Reid, says Obamacare might hurt his state. Should have spoken upo earlier about this before his dad forced its passage.
Posted by: clarice | October 08, 2010 at 10:10 AM
Mario Vargas Llosa was an excellent choice as well; I have to read "Conversation in the Cathedral".
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 08, 2010 at 10:17 AM
It's instructive to note that Vargas Llosa was one of the strongest critics of Alan Garcia's bank nationalization campaign (sound
familiar) in the 1980s, and led essentially a
citizen's campaign for President, in 1990, on essentially free market principles, including
that of de Soto, Twenty years later, Garcia
is back, but he's much more sensible
Posted by: narciso | October 08, 2010 at 10:22 AM
Whatsa matter with Free Markets and de Soto?
And how is that Not sensible?
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | October 08, 2010 at 10:31 AM
Mel, narc can speak for himself but I think those things were what Vargas Llosa was promoting over Garcia at the time.
O/T Goddammit, this is what pisses me off at times at people like Laura Ingraham. She had Mitch McConnell on yesterday and didn't ask him a damn thing about he and his cohorts gutless decision not to strip Lisa Murdumbski's fat ass of her committee assignments but today's she got Joe Miller on and is asking him what he thought about it. Aaaaaarrrrgh
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 08, 2010 at 10:49 AM
I guess that was too much a yadda, yadda moment, he lost to Fujimori, who liberalized
somewhat with an iron fist, under his vizier
Montesinos. The successors lincluding Toledo
and now Garcia, have followed a more or less
free market and are in the lead against Chavez,
Laura was a fave of mine, for a while, but she has seem to drop the ball when it comes
to these intra party maneuvers, and has become a real Mittens booster, I don't know
if that is synonymous
Posted by: narciso | October 08, 2010 at 10:55 AM
And how is that Not sensible?
I think Narciso meant "more sensible than the 1990 version of Garcia." We can all agree that Vargas Llosa was (and presumably still is) more sensible than Garcia.
Posted by: jimmyk | October 08, 2010 at 11:07 AM
I dunno narc; Laura seems to be pretty pro-Tea Party. My problem, besides what I previously mentioned, is that she continues to give a forum to idiots like Pat Buchanan and Michael Savage; Pat should only be on MessNBC as an example of what those nutjobs think of as a conservative and Savage just creeps me out. Regarding Mitt; he still bothers me as a flip-flopper but his work behind the scenes for Scott Brown was impressive imo.
Posted by: Captain Hate | October 08, 2010 at 11:17 AM
got it.
thank you, all.
(saved me a lot of reading, I'm not too strong on Southern Hemispere stuff, except Antarctica)
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | October 08, 2010 at 11:17 AM
The many things government undeniably can and must do — and individuals cannot — includes putting out fires that threaten the community.
The many things includes?
What's TM talking about calling that a great point, anyway? The NYT may as well say that the demons in fire can be defeated only by shamans from the priest-king, and the rest of the tribe is powerless before their juju.
Posted by: bgates | October 08, 2010 at 01:16 PM