Don’t Mess with Massachusetts It may be everyone’s punching bag, but it’s time to face facts: The Bay State is best. Yes, this is a bit personal. I live in Massachusetts and just bought a multi-family home here. But I would hope to extend this to the much larger discussion (and pull it out of the "fail" threads a bit) of what forms of governance actually WORK here in the US, which ones clearly don't, and which approaches might be best applied at the federal level. Consider the floor open for debate...
Substitute Sweden, Norway, Germany, California (with some caveats), NYC, etc. and you'd have another good article. It's not hard to find great places that are "socialist." Tougher to find those that are not. My kid's HS counselor told his (Illinois) class that the most difficult situation when applying for colleges was to from a public HS in Massachusetts. Too much supply -- too many great students coming from that state. From the socialist I mean public high schools.
Your Your guidance counselor got it half right. The most difficult situation is applying to college from a PRIVATE HS in Massachusetts.
I think this old classic about sums up my feelings on where I'd like to live (with a few exceptions) http://www.lukecole.com/Electoral Maps/USofC.jpg
So if Massachusetts is a socialist state, then it follows that its former governor must be a socialist. Which means we'll be stuck with a socialist president either way. God bless America!
Crony capitalism=socialism is quite possibly the second worst insult hurled at our CiC, right behind "Muslim and Reverend Wright supporter."
Then you haven't seen this week's Newsweek cover. Everyone's pulling out all the stops on my country's president.
It's too bad the (Newsweek) cover gets all the attention, since it's a stupid cover. The article is good though. Hopefully people manage, you know, to actually read it...
Big state governments are fine by me. Besides most of the "big government" complainers are from welfare states to begin with.
I'll get around to it soon enough. But the cover is poor and sensationalist. Dismissing it because it's only the cover misses the point.
I realize that the cover has to sell the magazine, a low tech SEO if you will, not necessarily provide a 100% honest portrayal of the content, but this is the second high-profile Obama cover that mis-sells the cover article in recent times (the other one being "Why are Obama's critics so dumb?" cover for Andrew Sullivan's article). It does the product, which isn't terrible, a great disservice.
Yeah, as much as I disagree with him on the role of government, he is about the only smart conservative commentator with any sort of platform.