We are here in Scottsdale again attending the annual conference of the Mercatus Center and Institute for Humane Studies. For the last several years it has been an annual event for us and friends to caravan down and enjoy a few days of exceedingly interesting presentations and workshops on economics and national issues. The conference attracts about three hundred attendees, most of whom are donors to the two organizations connected to George Mason University. What always amazes us is the number of well-read and informed people who also make this their annual pilgrimage for stimulating discussions and debates.
This year’s keynote speakers were PJ O’Rourke and economist Tyler Cowen. PJ was a last minute stand-in for syndicated columnist George Will who had to deal with a family emergency. And everyone got a chance to rub elbows and talk at length with the nationally prominent scholars who do the institutes’ research and present their work here, in scholarly publications, national news media, and in congressional hearings.
In the interval I have not been able to monitor the goings on hereabouts. Looking in on RR, I am more than a bit dismayed over the exchange that has been going on in ‘Sandbox – 11mar15’ during my absence. I notice that RR is again the tromping ground for Mr Jeff Pelline and some of his cohort. And the dialogues such attendance has given rise to are nothing to write home about, let alone memorialize for the ages on the web.
Mr Pelline’s contributions are the indelible derivatives of his nature delivered to raise him to the extent that he can successfully push down those he attacks. As usual, he brings no ideas to discuss or dissect, only ad hominem vituperation. But what continues to puzzle me is that RR readers take the man seriously enough to more than give him the time of day. These readers, who have already established their credentials in debating issues and ideas, actually are seen to engage with Mr Pelline at length and at his level. The resulting mudball fights bring nothing to the large number of this blogs regular, albeit silent, readers. But they do bring out the bitter angels that inhabit a select few of those who oppose Mr Pelline and all that he stands for. My question again is what end is justified by entering into such exchanges at his peerage. Are there not better ways to shorten his pointless visits here?
As I’ve said before, if Pelline’s attacks on RR readers are ignored, then I will delete them as I would flick away any pesky fly. But if his droppings solicit an exchange, then I must conclude that certain RR readers actually enjoy engaging the man. And according to the established sandbox rules (as they now stand), the dialogue can continue. But again, to what end??? Any thoughts on this?