Not this year thanks
I don't really understand Oliver's point here. Is he really going to turn down any offered pay rise from The Times and his other employers for the good of the country?Update: Bizarrely, for someone who I tend to agree with, I find his next two posts hard to understand. First, in a piece about blogging, he says that a serious argument in defence of blogging is this by Stephen Pollard (a man who wants the US Marines to invade Spain because they wouldn't invite George Bush to a parade), in which he says that "I do think the fact that without blogging we would not have beeen able to access the opinions of writers...Scott Burgess is a strong positive in favour of the medium itself". What can you say?
Second, Oliver links to this Marcus Linklater article. He says:
Would gun control in America have prevented the carnage at Virginia Tech university? Probably, yes. Does that mean that tighter controls will reduce gun crime? Almost certainly, not.
Well ignoring one's view on gun control, this doesn't make sense. If (as he does in the article that follows) you believe that gun control would stop these kind of massacres, and have no other impact, then by definition it would cut gun crime.
Labels: economics
posted by Matthew @ 4/18/2007 10:51:00 AM
Comments: 14
