Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt Click here to download a pdf
Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy By the Rev. Robert Sirico Is written so well and so conversationally it is a very easy read. Buy it on Amazon here.
WEBSITES AND BLOGS I LOVE! Click on the name to get there.
BY THE NUMBERS BLOG This is my nerd friend David's blog about economics. You've heard him on the show and now you can read his stuff too!
BLUEGRASS INSTITUTE Free market solutions for Kentucky
MICHELLE MALKIN Great blog site with interesting links
BREITBART.COM Even dead he's still shaking things up from the grave
BLUEGRASS POLITICS If you are glutton for punishment
ARE YOU A VET NEEDING HELP? Find the Disabled American Veterans by clicking here or on Facebook
THERE HAS BEEN LOTS OF TALK ABOUT THE "RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY" And occasionally it gives me pause. This article from Sunday's NYTimes has given me pause. Former Reagan Budget Director David Stockman wrote a rather testy indictment of how government has ruined America and our budget. He doesn't just say give the standard if-we-continue-down-this-path warnings and dire predictions. He succinctly lays out the framework, which no politician will EVER agree to, that is necessary to save America. And I find myself agreeing with him. Now, as a glass half full type, I am loathe to consider that America is truly in decline. But where is the hope? What is there to give me hope that the politicians in DC have a clue about just how dangerously far we are from where we started? Not to be a negative nellie, but read this and tell me it doesn't sound entirely feasible. And depressing. And David Stockman is now being dismissed as a crank by the very people advocating for the policies that will be our undoing.
By the way, if someone uses the argument "I'm on the right side of history" as a point, just end the discussion. That statement is loaded with ego. Only history will tell and it will be written by people who have two things we can't: no emotional attachment to the issues and hindsight. I can only hope my offspring get some satisfaction in the future that my thinking was sound on the biggest issues of my day.
IF NOT ALTOGETHER TOTALITARIAN, INDEED B Shank is appealing the ethics commission ruling that found her to be less than ethical. This is where I think the taxpayers shouldn't be responsible for her legal bills. But I do give Aubrey Williams points for colorful language:
Williams says in the petition that there was “no clear and convincing evidence” on the charges, which made the findings “arbitrary and capricious, if not altogether totalitarian.”
THE CONFUSED CONCENSUS I am a proud AGW Denier. That's Anthropogenic Global Warming Denier. I absolutely believe the climate is changing. But to say science has "proven" it's our fault is balderdash. The consensus has some new info to explain: worldwide temperatures haven't gone up in 15 years. And at the same time we've introduced 100 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere. I'm sure there is some reasonable explanation. Or something preposterous. Read about it in The Economist, lest I be accused of only using right wing flat earth websites.
THIS INFURIATES ME The soldiers killed or wounded by Muslim soldier Maj Nidal Hasan, while he shouted "Allah Akbar", are not being given Purple Hearts. Why? The Administration says it's so Maj Nidal Hasan gets a fair trial. The real secret reason? The Administration doesn't want to admit this was a terroristic attack. So they are screwing soldiers who were wounded to prevent political egg on the face of the POTUS. I'm happy to know the Administration is more concerned about getting a known mass murderer a fair trial than his is making sure wounded soldiers get the help they need. Shameful. Just shameful.
THIS IS A POWERFUL BLOG POSTING The author uses the "F" word a few times, so if you are easily offended, steer clear. However, if you are tired of being told you are wrong for believing in the Constitution, this is for you.
STOCKTON CALIFORNIA IS BROKE and filing for bankruptcy. Why do we care? Because they owe the state of California's pensions system a crapload of money. As part of the bankruptcy, Stockton is arguing they must pay the CalPers system IN FULL, while paying bondholders about 17 cents on the dollar. Bondholders are fighting back. Why do we care? Because this could be the first time we find out if bankruptcy laws trump inviolable contracts. Do I have your attention now?