Freighted with meaning As the world economy staggers, there’s been a lot of focus on transport infrastructure as a way of boosting growth. In Britain and the U.S., certainly, building new rail lines has become prohibitively expensive. Visitors to Japan look at the gleaming, futuristic bullet trains with envy. When we think of the impact of transport on growth, we usually picture passenger transport. Historically, though, it’s been the less glamorous freight transport which has made the difference, the historian of technology Anton Howes writes. In early modern Britain, the ability to get bulky coal and wheat cheaply to cities kickstarted the industrial revolution, not the commuter 08:27 to King’s Cross. Sweet charity Slight deviation from the usual LRS format here — a post from last year, newly relevant. Last week Reuters reported that the International Agency for Research on Cancer would soon declare aspartame to be a “possible carcinogen.” Aspartame is the sweetener in diet drinks. It’s a ludicrously unhelpful decision (or Flagship’s Tom, who’s written about the IARC before, thinks so, anyway). Luckily, the science-y blogger Dynomight addressed the topic last year: Our understanding of human biology and the vast preponderance of scientific evidence suggests that aspartame, at the doses humans might plausibly intake, is clearly safe. As Dynomight notes, the FDA calls aspartame “one of the most exhaustively studied substances in the human food supply.” Affirmative, sir Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down affirmative action, making it illegal for selective colleges to use race as a factor in admissions. At Slow Boring, Matthew Yglesias and his team put together some thoughts on the decision. Yglesias thinks colleges’ support for affirmative action is more cynical than most progressives believe. On the other hand, it’s considered rude to point to individuals — like Yglesias himself — who benefited from affirmative action: “You don’t see people saying ‘look at all these great affirmative action success stories’ because it’s considered demeaning and insulting to characterize a person that way.” That makes the policy harder to defend publicly. |