Perception vs. Reality

I'm halfway through The Economy In The Reagan Years and the author has lost credibility in my eyes. The exact moment was on page 79 when Campagna, in regards to tax cuts and whether or not they raise government revenue, states that "the exact numbers are not the issue; the perception was that the tax cuts were unfair." Really? I thought you were trying to write a book that analyzed "the economic consequences of the Reagan administration." If so, then your job is to analyze the numbers and make an educated hypothesis, not opine as to whether some people thought one measure or another was unfair. To leave the numbers out of the equation shows sheer ignorance, bias, or a combination of both. Nevertheless, I'll work my way through this book so I can start reading my other book, There's No Such Thing As a Free Lunch.

Articles of Interest

VDH on the targeting of nation by Islamic extremists

Property rights, anyone?

It appears The Guardian is now openly hiring supporters of terrorism. I usually find at least a few articles that are total garbage on their website, but this was just ridiculous.

Supply-Side Shitstorm?

So I've been reading The Economy In The Reagan Years by Anthony Campagna. I know what most of you are probably thinking, and no, this book is very critical of the Reagan administration. The author seems to take a Keynesian approach critiquing Reaganomics, which makes for an interesting read since Reagan's policies revolved around supply-side and monetarist theory. It was very interesting to see that the author almost flat out call suppy-side theory bullshit, especially when it was an economic theory that tried to address a problem that all sides recognized, decreased productivity among American workers during the late 70's - early 80's. Perhaps the major fault I have thus far is the criticism of Reagan's increase of defense spending which led to an even greater deficit. What Campagna does not understand, or purposely omits, is that the increase in defense spending led the Soviets to economic turmoil in their efforts to keep up and eventually led to their collapse. Reagan had been lecturing on this point since the 60's. After I'm done with the books I may go into further detail since the subject is quite interesting and most poeple are very uninformed when it comes to specifics regarding Reaganomics. My next book is going to be There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch by Milton Friedman.

It's interesting that we always hear about the US soldier or soldiers that have died in the current Iraq War, but never about the number of Iraqi civilians. Or how someone who kidnaps civilians, makes impossible demands for release, and eventually beheads their victim(s) with a dull knife is merely referred to as an "insurgent." Bias in the media? Heresy! Unless, you're talking about Fox.... everyone knows they're conservative. Blast away. But perhaps you can read something a little different first.

Can we call it a war yet?

The contrast between what we've seen on the TV screens here, what's taken place in London and what's taking place here is incredibly vivid to me. On the one hand, we have people here who are working to alleviate poverty, to help rid the world of the pandemic of AIDS, working on ways to have a clean environment. And on the other hand, you've got people killing innocent people. And the contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill -- those who have got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks. ~ President Bush

I assume most of you already know that London was attacked by Islamic extremists today. Correction, it was attacked by subhuman and barbaric murderers.... How many more countries have to be targeted by Islamic extremists before the Western world as a whole recognizes these are not isolated incidents. The terrorists recognize what they are doing as a global war. Kenya, Tanzania, Bali, Chechnya, Beirut, Israel, the Philippines, and America have all been targets. And now London is sadly on the list. Everyone needs to recognize that this is a war based primarily upon Islamic fascists attacking Western democracy. Though I realize the fashionable thing these days is to find as many ways possible to undermine this administration and its war, I believe it's time for the so-called liberal intellectuals to drop their 'clever' comparisons of our president to Hitler and our country to terrorist states. We have not gassed thousands of innocent civilians. Moreover, we do not fund suicide bombers bent on killing innocent civilians. Iraq has, and al-Quaeda does.

Western Civilization has taken enough time in trying to analyze the threat. It has taken enough time in trying to negotiate with terrorists. And, after going from train attacks in Spain to subway attacks in England, it has taken enough attempts in capitulating to the enemies desires. They won't listen. They haven't listened. Now is the time for all the nations who claim to stand for democracy and freedom to stand up to these animals, animals who wish to impose their religious zealotry on the globe with death as the only other option.

I'll end this post with a quote from objectivist philosopher Peter Schwartz:

The weapon necessary to defend against evil is justice: the unequivocal identification of the evil as evil. This means the refusal to grant it, by word or by deed, any moral respectability. It is by scrupulously withholding from the irrational even a crumb of a moral sanction—by rejecting any form of accommodation with the irrational—by forcing the irrational to stand naked and unaided—that one keeps evil impotent.