Really, really, really looking forward to the new book Ed. That's one of my pet issues, the radical rich, or especially the radical upper-middle class (who are generally worse than the radical truly-rich IMHO).
"Honorable and capable though Mr. Draghi may be, his resignation is a triumph of democracy, at least as the word democracy has traditionally been understood."
It is an interesting, though not unexpected, phenomenon that "democracy" has come to mean "the kind of government stuff I like" in the same way that "fascism" or "socialism" or other BadWord can mean "the kind of government stuff I don't like" or vice-versa if "socialism" is your GoodWord.
You might think that a working definition of "democracy" as "when citizens and/or their representatives vote on laws and stuff" would be uncontroversial, but you'd be incorrect. It's only "democracy" if the outcomes are what the person likes.
As a crank about the text, whatever the text is, I find it very annoying.
...well, at the heart of things, those who read and write in order to know, rather than to be distracted, are looking for/building towards he sweet spot of a broad consensus reality. Peter Hitchens seems to be aware of the audience capture risk, but sometimes, in what may be an effort to avoid it, he goes au contraire rather annoyingly. No need for that Ed.
Really, really, really looking forward to the new book Ed. That's one of my pet issues, the radical rich, or especially the radical upper-middle class (who are generally worse than the radical truly-rich IMHO).
"Honorable and capable though Mr. Draghi may be, his resignation is a triumph of democracy, at least as the word democracy has traditionally been understood."
It is an interesting, though not unexpected, phenomenon that "democracy" has come to mean "the kind of government stuff I like" in the same way that "fascism" or "socialism" or other BadWord can mean "the kind of government stuff I don't like" or vice-versa if "socialism" is your GoodWord.
You might think that a working definition of "democracy" as "when citizens and/or their representatives vote on laws and stuff" would be uncontroversial, but you'd be incorrect. It's only "democracy" if the outcomes are what the person likes.
As a crank about the text, whatever the text is, I find it very annoying.
...well, at the heart of things, those who read and write in order to know, rather than to be distracted, are looking for/building towards he sweet spot of a broad consensus reality. Peter Hitchens seems to be aware of the audience capture risk, but sometimes, in what may be an effort to avoid it, he goes au contraire rather annoyingly. No need for that Ed.