Maybe the dreamers have a point about high speed rail. It seems to have worked in countries not so rich as we, so when we finally get levelled economically as seems to be their aim, then perhaps enough of us will be willing to work cheaply enough to build the thing and the rest of us will have no choice but to travel on the subsidized tracks and trains as we won't be able to afford our cars. Another possible argument comes to mind: if we all have to somehow get along, and some of us are fanatic about railroads, then perhaps we shouldn't worry about efficiency and just give them what they want in a part of our economy that could probably withstand the socialist fatal conceit, and get on with a free market life in the rest of our lives. Another argument might be that we probably are not counting everything that costs us in the automobile sector or the airline sector. I guess I am a closet railroad guy because I think a high speed rail between Chicago, Milwauke and Minneapolis would mean a significant fewer number of trucks on our highways and help the crowding in our airports as well. There might have to be a little coercion here but the Left is good at that. Just think Lucy and Linus.

Perhaps we could propose a Constitutional amendment denying nomination to all those under age 70 or so. Or maybe we could use the legislature and courts to accomplish the same thing. Back in the 18th century age 35 was probably considered fairly mature as the average lifespan was in the 40s or so.

I wonder if Professor Parkinson, who did have some reasonable ideas about the increasing bureaucracy, had any about controlling these pests?

And the issue of "papal infallibility" will be solved by who?

Now we finally find out what the big rush was all about.