Sorry for the lack of posts, ladies and gents. It's been a busy few months.
Here's a little something to tide you over.


(Thanks to The Agitator)

Why, god?!?!?!? W H Y !!??!!??!!??!!??

And now for a rundown of some of today's funny and serious news stories:


Bash the Bailout: Government is Not the Answer

The Financial Crisis: Facing the Facts

Who Voted for the Wall Street Bailout?

The Nonexistence Theorem

Shoeless Joe Biden and the Snowbilly Hockey Mom

Reagan (and Hayek), Not Entirely Off-Base

She Left Me for Jesus

This is interesting:

From Winds Of Change:

A much remarked, minor story in this election was the question of Senator Obama's birth certificate. We've all ignored it, except to try to shoot it down, because it sounded like a wacko conspiracy theory; and anyway, the campaign produced a birth certificate.

In ignoring this story, we may have made an error. Some of you will recall that the issue arose briefly a little while ago when a Clinton camp supporter filed a suit demanding that Sen. Obama produce various documents to prove that he is able to run for the Presidency.

US Federal District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick has denied Sen. Obama's motion to dismiss the suit, and has ordered him to produce a certified copy of the original long version of his birth certificate. Presumably, Sen. Obama will comply.

However, the judge's order also states that, according to the law in effect in 1967, Sen. Obama lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. He has therefore also ordered Sen. Obama to produce a certified copy of his Certification of Citizenship and a certified copy of his Oath of Allegiance.

Want a crash course in economics? Give Econ4U a try.

No I'm not being paid to shill for them and yes the site is quite educational.

Here are a few pointers on how to have a polite political debate from the folks @ the Art of Manliness:

Kate grandpa’s is fond of repeating the mantra he and his fellow sailors repeated while serving aboard the USS Indiana during World War II. “Never discuss politics or religion.” And he always adds, “So what does that leave to talk about? Girls, of course.”

Gramp’s advice is certainly appropriate if you’re going to be trapped on a ship with the same guys for months on end. And it’s a rule of good etiquette for dinner parties and other occasions when polite decorum should prevail.

But otherwise, politics should be debated, vigorously and often. Men in every age debated politics- from the Grecian Assembly to the Roman Forum, from the salons of France to the mutual improvement societies of colonial America. Being able to reasonably discuss the political issues of the day was considered a vital and essential part of being a well-rounded, well-educated, man. Indeed, one of the express purposes of education during this time was to equip men to be able to hold their own in the political forum.

These days rousing, yet respectful political debate is practically non-existent. The new media, far from presenting balanced, in-depth coverage of the important, meaty issues of the day, spend their time constantly regurgitating manufactured scandals and fanning the flames of personality contests. Debates between men in person, and especially on the internet quickly devolve into indignant shouting matches, where personal insults are substituted for rational arguments.

That’s not to say that our manly forebearers were the paragons of respectful debating. They too would often let their passions get away from them and unleash oratorical hell on their opponent. For example, during his days as a young state assemblyman in New York, Teddy Roosevelt would frequently lose his cool during debates on the Assembly floor. He’d call his opponents “cold blooded, narrow-minded, prejudiced, obstinate, timid, old psalm singing Indianapolis politicians” or “oily-Gammon, churchgoing specimens,” or simply “classical ignoramuses.”

Young Roosevelt quickly became the laughing stock of the Assembly and of the state newspapers with his outbursts. After bitterly insulting a senior assemblyman, Roosevelt was rebuked severely, and tearfully apologized for his unbecoming behavior. He soon learned to control his temper and direct his passion towards more constructive debate as opposed to petty insults.

Unlike men from the past, today’s men are unapologetic about their undisciplined, discourteous political rants. Men need to learn how to bring back vigorous, yet civil political discourse.

From Paul Reads:

In Friday's debate, candidates Barack Obama and John McCain tacitly agreed that one of them will "rule the country." Perhaps tired of dizzying circumlocution, moderator Jim Lehrer rephrased a question about priorities for the third time:

LEHRER: Before we go to another lead question. Let me figure out a way to ask the same question in a slightly different way here. Are you -- are you willing to acknowledge both of you that this financial crisis is going to affect the way you rule the country as president of the United States beyond the kinds of things that you have already -- I mean, is it a major move? Is it going to have a major affect?

CNN Debate Transcript, emphasis added

Kings rule. In 1789, Americans rejected the idea. Mr. Lehrer gave Senators McCain and Obama the opportunity to clarify a major point of philosophy, on which they apparently do not differ. Neither candidate addressed the wording. Are we subjects? A comforting response would have started, "I will not rule, I will … and in answer to your question …."

The candidates bickered over whether each understood the distinction between tactics and strategy. That's pedantic. Whether the president rules America?* That deserves discussion.

Quick question; How many of you think that the President rules the nation and how many of you don't? Discuss/ Debate.

(*emphasis mine)

Cato@Liberty shows you the difference between free-market, laissez- faire capitalism and corporatism:

The seemingly arcane difference between laissez-faire and corporatism is one of the most important in today’s public policy debates. Laissez-faire means the equality of all before the law, with the state neither helping nor hindering any market actor. Corporatism means offering special favors to those who’ve already succeeded. (Just for starters: “Too big to fail” is corporatism.)

If only this distinction were more clearly understood by lawmakers, journalists, and the general public. Too often all of these groups just use the vague word “capitalism,” which seems mostly intended to split the difference — or to obscure it. But laissez-faire and corporatism are directly opposed to one another, and if more people on the left understood this, they might be far more sympathetic to free markets. Even, perhaps, while keeping a healthy mistrust of corporations.