Assorted links


I didn't see anything on the vampire-killing kit page which indicated any authenticity. This is fine for the casual collector, but somebody dropped quite a lot of money on it.

Would the price go down if you found that all of the items are indeed 19th Century antiques, but that they were assembled much later into the kit?

I doubt that the national review is going anytime soon. The peripatetic and patrician air of the Buckly editorship would make the current crop of writters seem dim in comparison, but any organization will have short term foibles that need not become entries in some publishers Doomsday Book. I for example have been on the staff of a paper long enough to see its golden age turn to silver with a bronze age about to reach its peak. The question is not one of survival but one of glory. Can the National Review becoem better than it was? If that question depends on a name than no. If that name dependes on the strenght of the instituion then possibly.

As for the National Review, lets face it, most people don't like stuck up elitists/ intellectuals. I think this part of the American political punditry scene has changed in the past 40 years. It's not just the GOP which as issues with the intellectual. It's the whole country.

If the National Review wants to stay relevant, it should try to be more wonkish, in a libertarian type way.

It is perhaps a bad idea to ask someone's political opponents if his days are numbered. National Review also likes to talk about the poor state of affairs at The New York Times. Both publications will likely exist for a little longer.

So National Review has been tainted " the tone of blogs, reader comments and e-mail messages."

How on earth did that get through the fact checkers?

Hi Marginal Revolution,

I'm emailing you in regards to a followup email I sent you a month ago in response to a partnership, have you had a chance to think about it?

If you have any questions or would more information, please advise me and we can go from there.

Kind Regards,
Andrew Knight

When Jonah Goldberg ranks as the resident "thoughtful person", you know all is lost.

#1. “I think the problem of conservative magazines is they often follow the party line more than liberal magazines,†

I see this a lot. It seems to be an accepted standard in the establishment. But, is it any more rational to judge ideas positively based on their disloyalty to a party as judging them negatively based on loyalty to a party? This is the kind of thinking that makes heroes out of "mavericks" like McCain, when in fact he could just be an angry, confused man. Why should interesting journalism make for good policy? Sometimes, when all you have is incoherence, all you have is incoherence.

#4: Good for Matt

National Review has been in intellectual decline for a long time. K-Lo is particularly bad. Lots of hacks there now, though it is still fun to read The Corner. NR and NRO would do well to invite more serious people to write for them. Adler, for example, is always a great read and more writers like him would spice things up quite a bit.

As for most brilliant person I've ever met, Richard Epstein would have to be up there. James Buchanan is pretty damn smart too, but I met him for the first time later in life.

When NR locked up WFB in the attic because they got tired of his rants against the drug war, Iraq War, and the current administration, the original voice of dissent within the ranks was lost. He was the only one that kept the magazine interesting and non-predictable.

Now they try to stay "hip and current" with has-been neocons and rationalize anything any self proclaimed "conservative" does be it leftist economic policies or endless wars.

Yes it is a step above The Nation and the Weekly Standard but that's not saying much.

Comments for this post are closed