Over at Bayou Renaissance Man, Peter urges his readers to post their own “Around The Blogs” series. I thought it was a great idea; this feeling was reinforced when I realized I’d already done it five times before. Well, let’s make it six. (For the record, he’s up to 20.)
Before the State of Georgia murdered* Troy Davis, Stephen Littau posted a very sensible examination of guilt, innocence, the death penalty, and the judicial process up at The Liberty Papers. Worth reading no matter which side of the fence you like to mow. I will say that I can’t figure out how palliative and hospice care rates “death panels” — meant as an insult, mind you — but government programmes designed to kill people get applauded in nationally-televised debates without anyone becoming noticeably uncomfortable. Because, y’know, the government is full of fuckups except when it’s infallible.
Next we have Ken over on Popehat pointing out to South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley that before she pulls a fact out of her ass she should consult her proctologist’s original sources. Turns out that her claim to the effect of “half the job applicants at the Savannah River Site, a nuclear energy facility operated by the government, had failed drug tests” was off by… oh, a factory of fifty; the figure has been verified to be more like 1%. Haley, to her credit, is starting to realize that the world isn’t quite the way she’d expected it to be:
“I’ve never felt like I had to back up what people tell me. You assume that you’re given good information,” Haley told Jim Davenport of the Associated Press. “And now I’m learning through you guys that I have to be careful before I say something.”
Much as I’d love to mock Haley for her journalism degree, I did a half-assed fact check and discovered Wikipedia’s opinion that she earned a B.S. in Accounting from Clemson [citation]. I… wow. Never met an accountant with that degree of blind faith in the honesty and inerrancy of humankind.
Over on EconLog, David Henderson links to Megan McArdle’s fisking of the “Buffett Rule” — spoiler warning: the administration’s proposed tax changes aren’t actually going to affect, you know, Warren Buffett. While McArdle points out a lot of reasons why high-income earners can more-or-less legitimately pay less tax on any given year than their secretaries (including things I’d hesitate to slash without deep deliberation, like loss carry-forward, and things progressives should hesitate to slash without deep deliberation, such as cap-gains tax breaks on municipal bonds), Henderson adds a vital and insightful point to the discussion:
Incidentally, most of the discussants of this idea, on both sides, fail to distinguish between “the rich”–the apparent targets of the proposed tax–and high-income people–the actual targets. There’s a very strong positive correlation between wealth and income, but it’s not close to 1.0.
Funny how that works, isn’t it. (Meanwhile, this happens.)
Next we have a pretty standard Ryan Avent post about housing prices. Not much to say beyond “go read it”.
Finally, Jonathan Adler pimps the Green Tea Party over at The Volokh Conspiracy. Not much to say beyond “go read that“, either.
* Murder? Yeah, I went there. I recognize the right to use deadly countervailing force in defence against aggressive violence. If someone tries to kill you and you have to kill him to stop him, I’m on board. If someone tries to kill you and you hunt him down and kill him years or decades later, that’s murder. I don’t distinguish between “you” as an individual and “you” as a State government.