==> Jack Hunter argues that even though he’s in favor of gay marriage personally (thinking it should be decided legally at the state level), he strongly objects to the rhetoric of saying it is akin to the Civil Rights movement for blacks. I still think Gene Callahan has the best observation on this whole issue (I’m possibly paraphrasing): “Religious types who are against sodomy should be for gay marriage, so that homosexual couples stop having sex just like heterosexuals who get married.”
==> I encourage you to read this David Stockman essay in the NYT, and the accompanying slideshow of Sound Money Heroes and Villains. (Whoever thought the NYT would have a slideshow on heroic defenders of sound money?!) Why do I encourage you to read it? Because David R. Henderson has a post titled “David Stockman Screeches” (in which he quotes Martin Anderson saying Stockman’s earlier book has the “tone of a screeching bluejay”), blogger “Angus” has a post titled “David Stockman wants to pee in your cornflakes,” Scott Sumner says, “I do agree with Krugman’s view that the recent David Stockman column was a sort of mindless rant. And I’m an expert on rants,” Mark Thoma awards Stockman “wingnut of the day,” Jared Bernstein calls it a “horrific screed.” As Paul Krugman summarizes, “the verdict among everyone who knows anything is that Stockman’s piece, mysteriously given star treatment, was pathetic and embarrassing.” (Who talks like that? Why, Krugman does.) So even though I liked Stockman’s piece anyway–because he is warning people about mushrooming government debt and fiat money–the natural defense lawyer in me would really be taking a second look when he receives this much vitriol. It doesn’t mean he’s right, of course, but it’s odd how much of the commentary involves making sure you know Stockman is a whining crybaby. There are two parts where Stockman’s 4-page NYT essay was misleading in the presentation of correct facts–and Angus and Henderson busted him on this–but those were really the only legitimate objections I saw. Suppose we strike those two paragraphs, and look at the rest of his 4 page essay. If even half of what Stockman is warning about is correct, then yeah, I can see why he might be concerned. (I don’t know the guy personally, and he’s trying to sell copies of his new book, but I’m just saying the proportion of criticism to assertion seemed off for the blogosphere’s excoriation of the guy.)
==> Art Carden linked to this hilarious Garett Jones tweet (for those who follow the climate change policy debate): “One upside of the minimum-wage debate: it’s thrilling to watch progressives reject the precautionary principle so thoroughly.”
==> An interesting post from Steve Landsburg on the ambiguities on choosing legal rules to maximize efficiency.
==> Oops meant to relay this on Sunday: Apparently Easter is not named after Ishtar, though my atheist Facebook friends would beg to differ.
==> The erudite Von Pepe sends this funny MR post on the young John Stuart Mill.
==> Yes it’s true, I’m in talks with Warren Mosler on a debate over MMT/Austrian economics. It’s an exciting time to be alive. This is the first time Tom Woods and Mike Norman have agreed on anything related to economics.
==> Some kids have too much time on their hands.