The greatest pleasure in life is
doing what people say you cannot do.
Walter Bagehot
A Graph is Worth 1000 Words
or Why We Can't Afford 4 More Years
 |
| Courtesy Economist John B. Taylor (HT Cafe Hayek) |
I debated whether to list this item under my occasional follow-up odds and ends feature. I have criticized the suspension of DC-based Gallaudet University diversity administrator Angela McCaskill for simply signing a petition to put Question 6 (a referendum on Maryland's new same-gender marriage law) I'll simply point out that signing the petition does not necessarily imply opposition to the law but the feeling the people should decide a fundamental issue. I and other Question 6 opponents feel that McCaskill's suspension exposes the hypocritical nature of the morally self-superior progressives arguing their side owns tolerance . The reason I'm bringing this up (I find it ironic a never-married bachelor pro-liberty conservative has felt the need to write so many segments lately defending traditional marriage) is that I have seen an answer ad by question proponents which indirectly calls for McCaskill's reinstatement but quickly throws the Maryland resident under the bus noting her job is out-of-state (for people not familiar with the MD-DC-VA metro area, many DC workers live in the Maryland or Virginia suburbs--the location of Gallaudet is totally irrelevant, of course). McCaskill wouldn't have been able to sign the petition if she wasn't a registered Marylander--and their only reason for mentioning work location was to raise a phony issue.
In fact, I think this raises a broader issue, so-called transparency provisions are used to intimidate people from expressing politically incorrect points of view or face threats to one's safety, property or livelihood. The right to anonymous speech must be protected. McCaskill's rights override any so-called public right to know.
It's been fascinating reviewing the latest RCP polls; I''m waiting until this weekend's polls to judge whether Obama got any boost from the second debate (which I doubt). In Gallup Romney got to a 7-point lead yesterday and 6 points today--but there's also a sea of red swing state polls, including NH and Iowa (just barely). Drudge cites one shock Pennsylvania poll with a multi-point lead showing Romney gaining in blue collar west PA and the Philly suburbs. Even Oregon is within 7 and Obama under 50. I think Morris said the other day Wisconsin and Michigan were within 3. Drudge noted items that RCP gave Romney got his first electoral lead (below 270 as more states joined tossups from lean Dem) and another link showed Romney's favoables exceeding Obama's for the first time. And as Obama has been hyping his crony auto bailouts, Detroit icon Lee Iacocca has endorsed Romney.
Just a final note here: I cite a number of libertarian sources. I have made no secret of my policy differences with Romney (particularly on China, foreign interventionism, individual rights (the Patriot Act), immigration, and victimless crime reform). I know a number of fellow pro-liberty conservatives hold grudges over the treatment of Ron Paul; but I'm growing increasingly impatient with those arguing there is no difference between Romney and Obama. I don't expect Cafe Hayek or other economics blogs to be political blogs like this one, but I'm growing impatient with those whom fail to see a difference; only one candidate signed renewal of the Patriot Act, has expanded drone attacks and other military interventions without Congressional approval, reappointed Bernanke, doubled externally held public debt, raised tariffs on Chinese goods, insists on income redistribution, has radically expanded regulations and economic uncertainty, through the government holds stock in and calls the shots in private companies, and is in a state of denial over lack of viability of morally hazardous entitlement programs. This same guy has only been restrained to date by the need to be reelected--no doubt his second term would be more ideological, armed with a reform-killing veto and an explosion of backdoor policy making by administrative edict.
The New Nobel Laureate Economist Alvin Roth
I've never done speed dating (it's bad enough getting rejected by women one at a time, never mind a room full of women: I'm sure the feminist ideologues think I'm a misogynist; but my family thinks I'm partial to girls: I have 3 goddaughters and no godsons). Speed dating is an example of economic engineering. Boudreaux of Cafe Hayek referenced a highly readable Roth essay "Repugnance As a Constraint on Markets", which among other things looks at social barriers of entries to markets like kidney transplant transactions. Boudreaux is fascinated by a paternalistic policy about not paying low-income people too much to participate in experiments for their own good. Other examples--eating dog or horse meat; I've done my share of Obama eating dog meat jokes. I happen to be an open-minded consumer; I remember my first taste of goat at Taste of Chicago--it was some African dish of goat and bananas, actually quite good. I would try horse meat--and I have a contrary sense of humor: I would probably tell a nephew I just had fillet of Trigger and he was delicious. Roth starts out his essay talking about a majority of Californians arbitrarily banning killing of horses for consumption (because of course horses are more equal than livestock or chickens). If you don't want to eat horse, don't buy it: don't impose your dining preferences on other people.
Your Grandchild's Tax Dollars
No doubt the ideological feminists are wondering why we are talking about a mission to Mars versus Venus.
Political Humor
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
The Four Tops, "Bernadette"
