This is a post from Richard Taylor.  The last time I stepped in as the
blogmasters' avatar I was posting from Italy, just south of Switzerland.
 That seems like a good enough segue to muse for a moment on a great
article by the economist  Robert Shiller in the Sunday
New York Times. (You have to read the article to find the connection.)
Noting the myriad federal subsidies to the housing industry, Shiller
asks "what is the long-term justification for putting taxpayers on the
line to subsidize home ownership?"

His answer is a complicated
one.  I won't try to summarize it here; there is enough nuance and food
for thought that it deserves its own reading.  I will say that I
appreciated having an economist acknowledge that our decisions cannot be
reduced to simple economic efficiency.  He talks about the role of
values (and not the kind showcased on "The Price is Right"). In addition
to finding policies that make economic sense, those policies need to
take account of some fundamental values that run much more deeply in our
national psyche than simple economic efficiency.  His point is a bold
one because his critics could argue that the values he describes are
contrary to the change in policy direction he seems to be proposing.  He
seems more committed to recognizing, naming, the values than in winning a
technical argument (and willing to insist that we look deeply at the
values before jumping to policy conclusions).  The piece feels like an
invitation to conversation rather than a prescription for legislation.

Some
may differ with his take on our values as a nation.  That could be an
essay in itself.  To me, the first step is to acknowledge that values
have a place in the discussion.  Now we can talk.

A couple of weeks ago, linguist Geoff Nunberg talked about pet peeves on Fresh Air. He was advocating that a pet peeve is only a pet peeve if it is particular to the peeved. It is not a pet peeve if everybody, or most people – at least – have it. For example not liking people who poison dogs is not a pet peeve.

The other day, I ran across one of my biggest pet peeves. A quote in Time magazine in which in the quote they had f**k. WTF? Why? I think they should either say fuck or @#%&. If they consider themselves a magazine that children, too young to read the word fuck, read; then they should not put it in, they should either put in @#%& or put in an innocuous word like gosh. But everybody but those small children know that f**k means fuck, so who are they kidding – why not just put in fuck.

The New Yorker puts in fuck when it is in a quote and, even occasionally, when it is deemed appropriate by the author. They seem to feel they are dealing with a mature reader. (As an aside, one of my favorite bits in the New Yorker was Anthony Lane’s  in which he says: Also, while we’re here, what’s with (Yoda’s) screwy syntax? Deepest mind in the galaxy, apparently, and you still express yourself like a day-tripper with a dog-eared phrase book. “I hope right you are.” Break me a fucking give.end aside.)

But Time magazine, among others, just want to be cute and, I guess, not offend anybody but adults.