Good Point

Mankiw links to Krugman on why HMOs don't work particularly well. I think they're both right. Krugman is right to distrust HMOs, and Mankiw is right to distrust giving government that much direct power over his (and my) health. However, the whole weight of history supports the idea that we can't trust government, while only a few decades support the idea that HMOs are bad. Like a rational Russian in 1918, I'd be against the Czar and actively oppose the Lenin, and today I'm against HMOs and am actively against having even more government control over healthcare.

At it again

Krugman wrote a very good explanation for laymen about his belief that increasing government spending now would be a good idea. I disagree with it, but that's not the point of this post. In the first two paragraphs of the column, Mr. Krugman would have you believe that President Hoover cut government spending, which made the Great Depression worse. He very carefully doesn't say this, but anyone who doesn't know the facts would come away from reading the column thinking that was what happened. Though obviously not on a level with them, this is a lie worthy of the lies the Bush administration told to get us to invade Iraq, where they didn't exactly say lies, but where uninformed listeners/readers would come away thinking falsehoods. For the record, government spending from 1929-1933 (just prior to the Great Depression through FDR's first term) was $3.8bn, $4bn, $4.1bn, $4.3bn, and $5.1bn. Not huge increases, but clear ones, especially in light of the deflationary environment.

Credibility

More "accidental" errors by anthropomorphic global warming advocates. Remember, good ideas do not need lots of lies told about them in order to gain public acceptance.

Crunchy?

More evidence that the credit crunch is way overrated.
Also, an explanation of why the CDS markets didn't fail (it involves woonerfs!).

A Little Zen

Excellent set of comments over at MR, in response to how people stay sane.

You are getting sleepy

Six hypnosis/brainwashing techniques. They're actually much more basic and common (and real) than the putting someone to sleep cliche, and you should watch out for them. Especially from people you agree with.

Blinded by Partisanship

Sorry DeWrong, but Palin is actually right about this. Either she means her statement as a description of the past, or of what is happening right now. Most likely she was referring to how Fannie and Freddie have cost taxpayers money so far, as they are exempt from many taxes that a similar, privately-founded, company would have to pay. An alternate interpretation is that, just now they "have gotten...too expensive to the taxpayers", as there is a significant probability that they will require an outlay of cash from the government, which, if nothing else, hurts the government's credit standing right now and thus raises the rates it borrows at, and thus costs us taxpayers.

Best Ron Paul Reference Ever

We interrupt your irregularly scheduled reviews of movies made from Marvel comics to bring you this very important memo that will help you determine a woman's intent towards you. Is nice. A taste:

"She asks who you are voting for....You should say, Ron Paul, because chicks dig guys who live dangerously or that are crazy and voting for Paul puts you in both categories."

Framing

This helps show me the power of preconceived notions. If you think someone is threatening in general, then when they leave a plea for friendliness and understanding, you are likely to interpret it as menacing. Good to keep this in mind.