Little Puffs of Smoke

The mind of a regulator.

Dead?

I agree that some of the things he supports are wrongheaded, but saying that Ron Paul is dead to you, "now and forever?" It seems a bit excessive for the best member of the House of Reps. Maybe I'd feel differently if I were gay, but I still think he's great.

I'd dispute the word viable...

but otherwise, sounds good to me.

Want to get a job with Microsoft?

Here's a guide to the job interview. (I haven't looked at it myself, so I can't vouch for any of it. I mean, it's fricking long, and I don't want to work for them.)
via Newmark's Door.

Nice

The Onion on TGI Friday's.

Ah... L'Amoure

I'm not sure if this
is scary or sad or just plain funny.

Ah, what an...incredible smell...you've...discovered!

Great near-disasters in casting.

Order is restored

Eugene Volokh explains the trick behind the geometry.

He's really smart in some ways...

but Walter Williams don't know shit about foreign policy. Just one of his errors is thinking that Libya gave up its weapons programs due to Bush's wars. Libya had been trying for a few years to get out of the doghouse, we just hadn't let them until recently. I guess you could argue that neither Bush nor Clinton felt they could let Libya back into the family of nations without a Nixon-to-China type of situation, but if that's the argument, say it. Most likely, Williams just swallowed the administration claim unquestioningly that they basically put the fear of Bush into Qaddafi.

Innovative charity

From Modest Needs.

Get paid for doing this shit?

Fuck yeah!

There is someone dumber than Bush and Moore

His name is Duane Meiser.

Do it yourself

Outsourcing, that is.

This looks...

awesome!

64=65?

Apparently.

A couple of fools

Moore and Timmins have a war of words over Timmins kicking Ronstadt out of Aladdin. I don't think either one has any idea what being an American means.

A peak into the future

Thanks to the editor of Harper's.

Who da men?

Stewart and Corddry, of course.

We and They

From Kipling.

On false bravery

Tom Palmer (director of Cato U, and a very good speaker) on McSleazy, er, McGreevey.

An almost perfect system

Ok, that's an exaggeration, but for dealing with emergencies, it is the best one we've got.

I guess it makes sense in a weird kind of way. If you're crazy.

Bush: I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election.
And then, he signed the bill.

The perfect analogy

From Dave Barry, of course.

PJ and Powell

I found this interview of Colin Powell by PJ O'Rourke fascinating. I'm still trying to figure out what I think of Powell; is he part of the problem in the administration? Or is he the voice of reason that keeps them from really going crazy?

The South Park Boys present

Team America: World Police

Sometimes things just come together

I coincidentally found this column on the Swift boat veterans and this piece on spotting liars just a couple of minutes apart.
Update: Also read this.

Wow! Fafblog gets W to sit down for an interview. How do they do it?

They sure are paranoid.

Russell Roberts chimes in on the Tabarrok mini-controversy.
Deroy Murdock has some advice for John Kerry. I'm guessing Murdock is more for Bush, but, regardless, he's right, Kerry should release those records.

Tabarrok follows up on his initial post here and here.
It looks like the NY Times inadvertently caught Kerry in a lie about the economy.

Alex Tabarrok poses a thought experiment and some questions on regulation of apartment rentals. Atrios misinterprets him, but raises some decent points. The people in his comments section then proceed to misinterpret Tabarrok even more and make some really stupid statements. Here's my take:
First, I'd bet less than half of the commenters even read the post. Second, Tabarrok never says requiring hot water to be provided is bad. We can't say a priori that it either is or isn't. When looking at regulations of this sort, we need to consider costs and benefits to all parties (leaving aside whether or not the government has the right to require these things, which some do dispute). In some circumstances it's good, in some it's bad, in some it doesn't matter much. For example, requiring it in 1800 Boston would be a very bad idea, the costs would far, far exceed the benefits. We simply weren't rich enough to make it wise. On the other hand, if economic progress proceeds, in the year 2100 it won't matter at all, the costs of provision will be tiny and information flow will be great enough that assymetric info won't be a problem. Determining the wisdom of these sorts of laws isn't just a matter of them sounding like nice things.

Please read

The NY Times interviews an econometrician who predicts the outcome of November's election using econometrics. The interviewer is really annoying, such as: It saddens me that you teach this to students at Yale, who could be thinking about society in complex and meaningful ways.
More relating Hayek and gay marriage. This guy comes to almost exactly the conclusions that I did back in June. I'm not saying he ripped me off, he's probably never heard of me or this site, just that it's interesting.

Anyone who would use the word sensitivity in any context relating to war, is a pussy, and is not fit for high office. So vote him out.

Some brief analysis of the upcoming Google IPO.
Will Wilkinson on free will and determinism.
I've never heard of homophobes described as altruists, but it kind of makes sense. MYOB.

Test your knowledge of greek mythology. I answered nine correctly, but the one I missed was a real gimme, arguably the easiest one on the quiz. Overconfidence-bred sloppiness, it's a killer.
Just another reminder of why Clinton wasn't that much better than Bush. A little better, but this is pretty bad.
Here's an unusual way of analyzing the candidates, but it jives with my impressions of the two, so it's probably got something going for it.
A lot of people say that either not voting or voting for a third-party candidate is a vote for Bush. Charley Reese is one of these people. This argument is, quite frankly, retarded. First the obvious point that there is a difference in voting for Bush and not voting at all. If they were the same, Bush would happily have everyone stay home who intends to vote for him. Secondly, either voting matters or it doesn't. If it doesn't matter, since there's no way my vote will change the outcome of the election, then it doesn't matter. Vote for Bush, vote for Kerry, write-in your spouse, whatever. On the other hand, voting may matter. If I express a desire for policies x,y and z and don't vote, politicians will generally not take account of what I want. If I vote for a candidate who has no chance of winning, I'm not supporting one of the incompetent/bad/evil guys with a chance, and I'm showing I'm part of the process, that I'm a voter to woo. I am firmly convinced that Ross Perot's performance in 1992 (despite the fact that he is insane and had no chance of winning) put the deficit front and center on many politicians' minds, nudging us towards fiscal sanity. Was a vote for Perot a vote for Bush I? Or for Clinton? No, it was neither, and people weren't throwing their votes away either.

Attention comic book nerds!
Don Boudreaux on the difference between law and legislation.
A very interesting article on Brian Cashman. He may work for the source of most of the world's evil, but it's a good read.

Thomas Sowell's random thoughts, which are generally worth more than most people's fully developed ideas.
Psst. Hey...did you know that Paul Krugman used to actually be an economist who wrote worthwhile pieces, not the misleading polemics he generally writes today? (Yes I know I recently praised something he wrote, but it wasn't on economics and wasn't like most of he writes, i.e., it was good).
I have no words to describe how I fee about this.

The Red Sox have some interesting off-field plans. I tentatively support what they're trying to do.
I'm not sure if this article warrants on "oh shit", or a "bullshit", but I figured I'd pass it along.

Will Wilkinson offers a moral defense of the self-made man. You wouldn't think it'd be neccesary to do so, but apparently it is.
Deroy Murdock, whom I met at Cato University in July, on the Orwellian nature of current political discourse. I don't think it's that much worse now than it was before, but that says more about the before than the now. Of course, Deroy probably has a better perspective on the past than I do. I'm not saying he's old, just older than I am....He does have good taste in music, if his lecture on the music market is any indication. I'm pretty sure he picked the music he wanted to play and built the lecture around it, but it worked out pretty well. Ok, enough rambling.
This is pretty weird, but I like it.

Bruce Bartlett on the stupidity of a national sales tax, and on Europe's economic performance vs. the US'. I think he leaves out some important considerations in favor of replacing the income tax with a sales tax, but since I don't advocate for this change, I won't point them out.
For any Objectivists reading this, an interesting article/story relating to morality in different worlds. FYI, I'm not an Objectivist, but find they have a lot to offer, even given this.

Think nuclear power is dangerous? Check this out.
Think the minimum wage is good for the poor? Check this out.
Want to know who has the heart of a champion? You know what to do.

So I saw The Manchurian Candidate yesterday. I haven't seen the original, so I can't really compare the two, but I thought the new version was quite good. I'm not sure what exactly the message of it was, or if there even was a message, but it does make you think. A couple parts of it I'm not sure if I liked, but I won't get specific as I don't want to give anything away. I'll just say the bathroom scene was overly explicit, and the final scene didn't seem to be neccesary to me. For another review, here you go.
I found this column on rape shield laws pretty interesting. I don't know enough to say how it needs to be done, but it seems clear to me the current system sucks, for both sides, and needs to be reformed.

Some Comedy Central news to report. Apparently Jon Stewart and Ted Koppel got into a bit of a fight at the DNC. Just words, no fists. Hopefully Koppel will take some of Jon's advice.
Dave Chappelle really can say "I'm rich, biotch!" now. $50M? Wow.
BTW, Abe Vigoda....still alive.

Will Ferrell. 'Nuff said.
I like cats, but this is enough to make me reconsider. Ow.
It may seem like a sad day, due to the Super Freak passing away, but fret not: Abe Vigoda lives!

Balko on how to protect the environment. And an oldie but goodie on a green supply-side agenda.

George Shultz takes on the Clinton economic record. Matthew Yglesias and Don Luskin have very different reactions. I think he overstates his case quite a bit, but isn't totally wrong.
Here's an interesting market development. Wonder if it will work.

I am Cornholio! (via Vodkapundit)

Still upset about the whole Nomar situation. Including with the media, for apparently either doing whatever the team's management wants of them now and selling out Nomar, or lying to us all these years about the real Nomar. Pricks.
Anyway, read some Sowell on discrimination here and here.

Good-bye 5.