Nobody tell the folks at Slate: "Here's the thing: as history progresses, things change. And societies try to adapt to those changes. Experts come up with solutions to the problems the societies face. Those solutions often entail discomfiting established interest groups. And the solutions the experts come up with almost always entail some degree of perverse counterreaction, some kinds of problems or inefficiencies or whatever. It can be very interesting to focus on those counterreactions; it can generate fascinating, eye-grabbing journalism. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, the counterreactions aren't as big as the first-order effects of the solutions. ...as journalism has come increasingly to focus on contrarianism, it has become less and less adept at actually describing the world."
Monday, October 19, 2009
11

Actually, I think contrarianism actually makes journalism more adept at describing the world.
"The first time I ever encountered an argument that I would now clearly recognise as "contrarian" was in elementary school, during Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign, when I first heard someone argue the supply-side case that lowering taxes would raise government revenues."
Are you shitting me with this Mr Economist Writer Person?!
Does this mean that the world is no longer perverse and often baffling? Or, excuse me, "perverse and often baffling"?
Ah, someone is setting camp for the Superfreakonomics war.
No it hasn't.
Au contraire!
In related news, Camille Paglia has announced she has started sucking cock.
In less frightening but also related news, the policy proposals of technocratic experts no longer contradict each other all that much. Also, the epithets in the phrases "crude rationalism" and "vulgar utilitarianism" have been made redundant.
This is merely evidence that contra-contrarianism is alive and well.
I'm not saying that I don't disagree with the non-opposite of this article's antithesis. Oh wait, I mean that do.
AYE do, ahem.