Thursday, September 10, 2009
Potpourri
* Bob Roddis passes along a good anti-Fed point about GDP volatility.
* Here and here conservative Christian Jared Wilson actually decides not to vote anymore, because of the hysteria over Obama's talk to school kids. I agree that my talk radio boys really blew this one. I can't remember who said specifically what, but I know that before the speech, the generally theme was, "Don't get me wrong, folks, it's fine if the President of the United States wants to give a generic speech about hard work and staying in school. But that's not what Barack Obama is up to with this. If he brings up health care..." And then when Obama gave a speech that Ronald Reagan could have (and actually did), there was of course no recognition of, "OK I overreacted" or "I guess we scared them back into line with our protests." No, it was, "You see folks? This is all conservative philosophy. The left has to steal our principles when they want to appeal to the American people. If Obama said what he really believes in that speech, you can bet it would have made parents run." (Just to clarify, I TOTALLY OPPOSE the president of the US giving a speech directly to kids, during school hours. But my point is, Obama did exactly what a bunch of the AM guys said they would have no problem with, and they proceeded to have a problem with it.)
* Time to jack up alcohol taxes?
* Tom Woods gets medieval on some poor leftist blogger.
* Here and here conservative Christian Jared Wilson actually decides not to vote anymore, because of the hysteria over Obama's talk to school kids. I agree that my talk radio boys really blew this one. I can't remember who said specifically what, but I know that before the speech, the generally theme was, "Don't get me wrong, folks, it's fine if the President of the United States wants to give a generic speech about hard work and staying in school. But that's not what Barack Obama is up to with this. If he brings up health care..." And then when Obama gave a speech that Ronald Reagan could have (and actually did), there was of course no recognition of, "OK I overreacted" or "I guess we scared them back into line with our protests." No, it was, "You see folks? This is all conservative philosophy. The left has to steal our principles when they want to appeal to the American people. If Obama said what he really believes in that speech, you can bet it would have made parents run." (Just to clarify, I TOTALLY OPPOSE the president of the US giving a speech directly to kids, during school hours. But my point is, Obama did exactly what a bunch of the AM guys said they would have no problem with, and they proceeded to have a problem with it.)
* Time to jack up alcohol taxes?
* Tom Woods gets medieval on some poor leftist blogger.
Comments:
Wow, Tom Woods did a number on that Che. That was a lot of fun to read... and he even hit 'em with Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution.
The Blackadder Says:
I love Tom Woods, and his post here is excellent, but the pedant in me was set off by the first line: "We all encounter more than our share of foolish blog posts."
How can it be that everyone receives more than his share of something? Everyone's shares put together has to sum to one, right? So if someone has more than their share of something, logically someone else has to have less (I realize what Prof. Woods was trying to say, which is why this is pedantic, but still).
I love Tom Woods, and his post here is excellent, but the pedant in me was set off by the first line: "We all encounter more than our share of foolish blog posts."
How can it be that everyone receives more than his share of something? Everyone's shares put together has to sum to one, right? So if someone has more than their share of something, logically someone else has to have less (I realize what Prof. Woods was trying to say, which is why this is pedantic, but still).
# posted by 
: September 10, 2009 at 3:59 PM
: September 10, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Blackadder,
I disagree. Tom really was saying we receive more than our fair share. So in a fair world, the total number of foolish blog posts would be much lower, and hence the per capita amount right now is too high, making it theoretically possible that each of us receives more than his or her fair share.
I disagree. Tom really was saying we receive more than our fair share. So in a fair world, the total number of foolish blog posts would be much lower, and hence the per capita amount right now is too high, making it theoretically possible that each of us receives more than his or her fair share.
The Blackadder Say:
Bob, that doesn't work, because a "fair share" is a fair proportion of the total. If you're stuck on a pacific island with seven other guys and a pizza between you and you only get one slice you can complain about not having enough pizza, but you can't really say you didn't get your fair share of pizza.
Two comments is probably all this is worth, so I'll just leave it there.
Bob, that doesn't work, because a "fair share" is a fair proportion of the total. If you're stuck on a pacific island with seven other guys and a pizza between you and you only get one slice you can complain about not having enough pizza, but you can't really say you didn't get your fair share of pizza.
Two comments is probably all this is worth, so I'll just leave it there.
# posted by : September 11, 2009 at 9:44 AM
: September 11, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Woods's article made me dance in my chair as parents were filing in for my first open house session.
Post a Comment
# posted by : September 12, 2009 at 12:16 AM
: September 12, 2009 at 12:16 AM Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]