==> Where’s the right’s Daily Show? (HT2 Danny Sanchez) But we must work within the system, rather than seeking third comedies. If we can just install good writers at the Daily Show… (Yes I’m trolling myself. I’m the only one at this point who appreciates my jokes.)
==> George Leef addresses the claim that Austrian Economics is responsible for DC gridlock.
==> Stephanie Murphy [sic, they misspelled her name] makes an analogy with email to give Bitcoin basics for beginners.
==> Steve Landsburg talks about pi. I think Steve would have gone into pure math, except it offered little opportunity for outraging feminists.
==> Speaking of economists outraging feminists, Nick Rowe points out the logical possibility that the overrepresentation of men in the hard sciences is due to anti-man discrimination in the humanities.
==> Speaking of outraging everyone, Jeff Tucker coins a new term: libertarian brutalism. For sure, I have realized (especially since joining Facebook) that there are people who ostensibly share the same ideology as me, but whose worldview is immensely different. Jeff’s brutalism/humanitarian distinction is intriguing, and that might explain some of what I have noticed, but I might put the dividing line differently: There are some people who see a news story about the U.S. military bombing a village in Pakistan and think, “Oh my gosh, they just killed a bunch of kids, that’s awful.” There are others who see the same story and think, “Oh my gosh, my taxes–either current or in the future–are paying for that, and it’s not even protecting me from Pakistani terrorists. That’s outrageous.”
==> Finally, in a perfect world with clones of Bob running around, one of them would carefully respond to Daniel Kuehn. But I don’t think I’m going to get around to doing it, so let me at least link to his post, where he says I’m nuts for claiming that Krugman “rewrote history” regarding Krugman’s view of the 2009 Obama team’s economic forecast. I definitely should have worded my claim differently. It’s not that I am claiming a contradiction between Krugman in 2009 and Krugman in 2014, rather I am claiming a Kontradiction between Krugman in 2009 and Krugman in 2009. In any event, Daniel certainly did a good job to point out the prima facie problem with my claim, as published. I mildly defended myself in the comments, if you want to get a hint of how my clone would provide a more robust response.