Where are these angels?

Milton Friedman on the Phil Donahue show from 1979.
Fantastic discussion of basic economics and why free markets work. I especially like the way Friedman punctures everyone of Donahue's anti-capitalist assumptions.
One thing that strikes me is how much time Friedman is given to talk. I don't watch much TV - at least not many talk shows - but my perception is that a guest today never gets so much time to speak and develop ideas without being talked over or interrupted by the host(s).

The ruling class ...

Demublican or Reprocrat - makes no never mind if you're the right people.
The Tea Party is a reaction to this more than anything - the idea that our representatives don't.

When pollsters ask the American people whether they are likely to vote Republican or Democrat in the next presidential election, Republicans win growing pluralities. But whenever pollsters add the preferences "undecided," "none of the above," or "tea party," these win handily, the Democrats come in second, and the Republicans trail far behind. That is because while most of the voters who call themselves Democrats say that Democratic officials represent them well, only a fourth of the voters who identify themselves as Republicans tell pollsters that Republican officeholders represent them well. Hence officeholders, Democrats and Republicans, gladden the hearts of some one-third of the electorate -- most Democratic voters, plus a few Republicans. This means that Democratic politicians are the ruling class's prime legitimate representatives and that because Republican politicians are supported by only a fourth of their voters while the rest vote for them reluctantly, most are aspirants for a junior role in the ruling class. In short, the ruling class has a party, the Democrats. But some two-thirds of Americans -- a few Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents -- lack a vehicle in electoral politics.

This is a terrific piece.

ya think?

It does seem that the President was inadequately vetted pre-election. So we're doing the vetting now, instead, which is somewhat more expensive.

indeed

That explains it ...

illegally voting felons MAYBE put Franken over the top.

Going to Hell in a handbasket

Or ... maybe not.

When I was a student, in the 1970s, the world was coming to an end. The adults told me so. They said the population explosion was unstoppable, mass famine was imminent, a cancer epidemic caused by chemicals in the environment was beginning, the Sahara desert was advancing by a mile a year, the ice age was retuning, oil was running out, air pollution was choking us and nuclear winter would finish us off.

...

I began to pay attention and a few years ago I started to research a book on the subject. I was astounded by what I discovered. Global per capita income, corrected for inflation, had trebled in my lifetime, life expectancy had increased by one third, child mortality had fallen by two-thirds, the population growth rate had halved. More people had got out of poverty than in all of human history before. When I was born, 36% of Americans had air conditioning. Today 79% of Americans below the poverty line had air conditioning. The emissions of pollutants from a car were down by 98%. The time you had to work on the average wage to buy an hour of artificial light to read by was down from 8 seconds to half a second.

Not only are human beings wealthier, they are also healthier, wiser, happier, more tolerant, less violent, more equal. Check it out - the data is clear. Yet if anything the pessimists had only grown more certain, shrill and apocalyptic. We were facing the `end of nature', the `coming anarchy', a `stolen future', our `final century' and a climate catastrophe. Why, I began to wonder did the failure of previous predictions have so little impact on this litany?

Atlas still shrugging

National Academy of Sciences (State Science Institute?) publishes a list of Skeptical Authors on Climate Science in connection with an article that claims that 97 - 98% of climate scientists are in agreement on Global Warming - based on published research.
One of the scientists on the naughty list takes issue and points out that the IPCC actively suppressed contradictory research from being published while also falsifying their own evidence.