I have learned over the years that when one sees something bad and has to decide whether the causation is evil or stupid, it is 95% stupid, 3% evil, and 2% both. Your piece causes me to contemplate the 2% -- and that is not where I wished to be. Food for thought.
Thanks, I guess. The best thing you can say about Pruitt-Igoe is that it was conceived with a large amount of arrogance. But there is no doubt that evil intent informs many federal programs we see now.
Still, there were so many things wrong with Pruitt-Igoe from the get-go that I'm drawn to believe that a certain amount of evil intent occurred even for this early example.
I have learned over the years that when one sees something bad and has to decide whether the causation is evil or stupid, it is 95% stupid, 3% evil, and 2% both. Your piece causes me to contemplate the 2% -- and that is not where I wished to be. Food for thought.
Thanks, I guess. The best thing you can say about Pruitt-Igoe is that it was conceived with a large amount of arrogance. But there is no doubt that evil intent informs many federal programs we see now.
Still, there were so many things wrong with Pruitt-Igoe from the get-go that I'm drawn to believe that a certain amount of evil intent occurred even for this early example.