Ricochet has validated an argument I long made, but for which I could provide limited empirical evidence prior to the site's existence: that the most interesting political debates are the intramural ones on the right. I realize I'm biased, but it seems to me that most internecine squabbles on the left tend to pit ideology against interest (think of education reformers and teachers unions). We tend to fight it out more over principles.

I also hope (and strive to ensure in my role as editor) that we're representative of low blood pressure conservatism. To Jon's point above, the outrage complex is (A) not terribly enlightening and (B) utterly fatiguing. I like to think of Ricochet as conservatism with a two drink minimum.

Sadly, I think you would find this to be the default response of most foreign policy hands in most Administrations. The cookie pushers are the same in virtually all times and places.

Not that it would have been much better at the top. Looking into Putin's eyes and getting a sense of his soul is arguably more embarrassing than the garden-variety naivete of a "reset."

I hadn't heard about that before. Utterly brilliant.

To your point about congestion pricing, I recall once having a conversation with a transportation policy analyst at the Reason Foundation who lamented, "This is one area where our policy positions are basically the consensus across the field -- it's just that the politicians and the voters hate it."

I drive back and forth between Los Angeles and Nashville once or twice a month (if you ever find yourself in Amarillo, Texas on a Saturday night odds are about even that I'm there). It's about 2,000 miles and I leave on Saturday mornings and arrive on Sunday nights (even Dave Carter's jaw hit the floor when I told him that).

I have no fear of flying, I just loathe the experience. I've long maintained that if you just went by hospitals and airports you'd assume that we lost the Cold War. I also love the open road and, because I'm away for weeks at a time, it saves me from having to spend money on rental cars.

My travels have convinced me that there's a legion of Nestor acolytes out there doing the exact same thing for the exact same reason.

By the way, Nestor's metaphysical opposite was Bob Novak. At one point, he and I used the same DC parking garage. He was usually up to about 75 by the time he was exiting to the street.

Actually, this strikes me as an extremely salient point and the biggest difficulty in solving the problem. I instinctively agree with Thelonius' earlier point that what you really want is cops going after unsafe drivers -- at any speed. Giving the law that sort of elasticity, however, creates exactly the problem identified above: the more discretion you give to those charged with enforcing the laws, the greater the potential for abuse.

So obviously I'm starting to price helicopters.

While we're at it, I'd also probably sandblast away all the HOV lanes, which lead to a wildly inefficient distribution of traffic the vast majority of the time.

Completely agree on this point. It's one or the other.

Every word of this post seconded!

Because I'm using "libertarian" as a synonym for limiting legal restrictions or abolishing them outright. Seems fair to me, although I'll happily concede that there's no libertarian dogma on speed limits if that's the objection. 

Also, to Tabula Rasa and Valiuth's points above, I'm thinking only of the wide open spaces that make up a huge chunk of the interstate highway system. On surface streets and urban freeways (where the ceiling on your speed is more often set by traffic flow than by statute) it's a different situation.

"Michael, you have a chance to save this family. Please, do the right thing here - string this blind girl along so that Dad doesn't have to pay his debt to society"

Making my way through Season 4 right now. Have to admit that I probably couldn't make it through the whole thing if it wasn't for my preexisting affection for the show. It's in desperate need of editing.

If something like that picture is the first thing I see after I die, I'll know I lived a good life.

... but who am I kidding? With my track record, we all know I'm going to awake to a bottle of Zima.

Yes! Didn't even realize I had said Diana. It is of course Athena, and it's truly stunning in person. Highly recommended for anyone who finds their way to Nashville:

There aren't many major differences in diction that I can think of. There is, however, a certain accent that is ubiquitous in Tennessee that I don't hear much in the rest of the South (if you're not used to southern accents, you won't hear the distinction). Senator Bob Corker is a very good example (note: this is a weekly Republican address, so you'll be disappointed if you're looking for any fireworks in terms of content):

Don't forget Nev-ah-dah vs. Nev-aw-dah. Hint: they hate one of them.

Of course, the city of Louisville, Kentucky probably takes the cake here. They're very conscious of the confusion:

For the record, the pronunciation on the top is the one you usually hear amongst locals.

Mendel makes my case much better than I could. I don't see this as some permanent blemish on Rubio's record. But I do see it as an indication that he may have a problematic mix of overconfidence and naivete. It's that -- not the substance of the immigration issue -- that gives me pause at the thought of him in higher office.