Given the fairly large slowdown in the way of current events (domestically and politically anyway… Israel is a big deal but not exactly my personal intellectual forte), especially as the country gears up for Jan. 20th, I have spent most of my time reading (and buying) a selection of books that have been recommended to me by various reliable sources. Given our current economic issues, I’m especially looking to strengthen my knowledge of free markets, capitalism, socialism, and economics in general, so most are of that slant. Here’s my current list, in case you would like to do the same.

The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression by Amity Shlaes

The Constitution of Liberty and The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek.

Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism by Michael Novak

The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David S. Landes

Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism by Ronald J. Pestritto

Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Issues in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates by Harry Jaffa

Human Action by Ludwig von Mises

Liberty versus the Tyranny of Socialism: Controversial Essays by Walter E. Williams

Happy educating everyone!

Big apologies for the lack of content of the last week or two. Strangely enough, we all got hit with fairly large things at the same time: finals, illness, crushing workloads, etc. For now, here is some excellent reading to tide you over. Some of it is a bit older (from a few weeks ago) but all relevant/interesting.

“Jolting” the Economy by Thomas Sowell, from TownHall.com

Peter Wallison on how the government created the financial crisis, from Instapundint.com

Why Reporters — and Judges and Professors — Are Biased by Dennis Prager, from TownHall.com

Iraq’s New Dawn: Victory Across The Board by Michael Yon. From the New York Post.

Guy who predicted the financial meltdown: Obama’s only making it worse, from HotAir.com

Scientists urge caution on global warming, from Politico.com

Tracking ‘The Gore Effect’, from Politico.com

The Barack-Blagojevich Stand Off, from The Weekly Standard Blog.

The Employee Free Choice Act Is Unconstitutional, from The Wall Street Journal.

Channeling Jimmy Carter, by Stephen Moore. From The Wall Street Journal.

Quantum of Solis, from the Wall Street Journal.

Obama Administration: Too Many Cooks? from the Weekly Standard Blog.

On Saturday President-Elect Obama gave us for the first time some details from his forthcoming economic plan. While we all can appreciate his well meaning intentions, his rhetoric seemed to be displaying the same enormous deficiency that should have derailed his entire campaign: a complete disregard for historical precedent. Obama intends to “save or create at least two and a half million jobs, while rebuilding our infrastructure, improving our schools, reducing our dependence on oil, and saving billions of dollars.” And he’s going to do this by investing (taxpayer) dollars in infrastructure construction and repair- rebuilding roads, retrofitting government buildings and schools to be more energy efficient, and installing the internet in schools and hospitals. (The careful observer will notice that Obama’s promise of 5 million jobs made repeatedly in the campaign has now been scaled down to 2.5 million jobs.) Unfortunately, this proposal seems to be suggesting a warm and fuzzy sounding band-aid to a cancer patient in need of serious chemotherapy. What he is presenting is a re-packaged New Deal/Great Society government solution to a problem government created in the first place. It has never worked before, and it won’t work this time. Just ask FDR and LBJ. History shows that government intervention turned a recession into the Great Depression. As Reagan said in his first inaugural address, “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” In a great article entitled “Green Jobs“, John Stossel points out the fatal flaw in the “government created jobs” idea:

The fallacy is the same in every case: Even if the program creates jobs building bridges or windmills, it necessarily prevents other jobs from being created. This is because government spending merely diverts money from private projects to government projects…. Governments create no wealth. They only move it around while taking a cut for their trouble. So any jobs created over here come at the expense of jobs that would have been created over there.

Obama said in his address that one of the measuring sticks he will use to determine the success of these programs is “whether America is more competitive in the world.” It’s really much more simple to do than he thinks. Forget this “new” job investment idea. Cut business/corporate tax rates, of which America currently has the 2nd highest in the world. Why would business people want to invest in a financial environment like we have now? Make income tax cuts permanent. Cut capital gains taxes. Wealth cannot be created by the government, it can only happen in the private sector. So set the American entrepreneur free- let us keep our own money and invest it back into the market, or wherever we see fit. That is how jobs are created, and they will be created here, on our own soil. The stock market, which thrives on stability, would sky rocket knowing exactly where its money will remain. The only way to fix this economy is to allow the private sector- the American people- to fix it themselves. The government can only get in our way.

I’d like to elaborate a on a great point brought up by The Professor. In an Iowa campaign speech Obama said “The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result. And that’s a risk we can’t take. Not this year. Not when the stakes are this high.” Obama’s “change we need” campaign slogan was as inescapable as it was vague. In a brilliant Wall Street Journal article Fouad Ajami discussed how Obama’s personality and promises were ambiguous enough as to allow any member of his adoring crowd to project their own individual needs and expectations upon him, knowing their own personal version of him would fulfill their every heart’s desire. Comparing Obama’s crowds to the ones Ajami has spent much of his career documenting in the Middle East, he says “A leader does not have to say much, or be much. The crowd is left to its most powerful possession — its imagination.”

Obama’s promise of “change” is vague in the same way. Can anyone identify exactly what it means? It obviously means many different things to many different people. To Obama, (at least for the past year), the primary definition of change is “Not Bush.” By that same token, anyone elected would represent change, so Obama spent the campaign comparing McCain to Bush, and it worked. McCain seemed to have not even noticed the comparison until midway into the third debate.

But for the voter, it meant something on an emotional level. Things are not “going well” now, so change is needed. War is universally bad and we only do it to kill innocent people, but Obama will change that. Bush gets some of his words mixed up on TV and therefore is a complete idiot, but Obama will change that. The environment is being destroyed and bunnies are being driven from their homes on a daily basis, but Obama will change that. Evil greedy Wall Street people are stealing money from my paycheck daily to provide padding for the seats of their golden sofas, and Obama will change that. Only rich, old, white men are involved in our government, so Obama will definitely change that. Washington DC has probably never even seen a black guy before he came into town. Above all, Obama understands me where Bush never could, so that’ll be a change too. All of this gives me hope. Hyperbole? I wish.

Now the happy feelings are starting to fade, the tears of joy have dried up, and we are looking face to face with reality. Change has come, and so far, Obama has evidently completely forgotten his own talking points. I have heard pundits and lay-people on both sides say “it’s not fair to criticize him yet, he’s not even into office!” To which I say: excuse me, I was under the impression that change is coming. That gave me hope. I was led to believe that change and hope radiated from every pore of Obama’s being. The words “change and hope” accounted for 87% of his speeches for the past year. So I expect change from minute one. Aren’t I entitled to it? I don’t believe change comes a week, a month, a year, or even a 2nd term after he is elected, I think it began on Nov. 4th.

So where’s America’s change so far? He’s well into his most important pre-inauguration step, setting up his teams. Unfortunately for the “change and hope” crowd, nearly every member of his cabinet shows that despite a year’s worth of saying the contrary, he is indeed planning on “playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and [will be] expecting a different result.” Let’s step back a few months, to his first pick, VP. Who does he pick? Joe Biden, the most insider of insiders, a guy who has never held a single non-government job in his life. Biden has been in the Senate for 30+ years, since Nixon was in office. Nice one there. Rahm Emanuel? Greg Craig? Clinton hacks. Tom Daschle? Hillary Clinton? Are you kidding me? Every single one, a complete and total government/Washington insider, through and through. None of them have brought any kind of noteworthy (read: beneficial) change to our country so far, but that doesn’t mean they won’t get there this time, right? Perhaps my favorite appointment was that he has decided to keep Robert Gates on as Sec. of Defense. The only issue I heard mentioned about it on the news today was how incredible is it that Obama’s keeping a Republican on staff. Which is completely missing the point- why is the agent of change, who has been talking about Bush’s “failed war strategies” and “failed foreign policy” choosing to keep Bush’s Sec. of Defense? Wouldn’t that imply that Obama thinks Gates is doing a good job? But I thought the definition of “change” was “not Bush?”

If I were an Obama fan I’d be pretty confused right now. You know that cliché, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results? Apparently Obama thought it was a prescription for how to pick his cabinet members. Now that’s change I can believe in! Or not.

Mitt Romney on the Auto Industry Bailout, from the New York Times.

David Yermack’s take on the Auto Industry Bailout, from the Wall Street Journal.

If the government diverts our national savings into businesses that have long track records of destroying investment capital, eventually we’ll end up with an economy like France’s — or Zimbabwe’s.

Wider U.S. Interventions Would Yield Winners, Losers as Industries Realign, from the Wall Street Journal.

Consensus? Let them deal with their own issues in bankruptcy court, like anyone else in the business world would has to. They have brought this crisis upon themselves through poor management, short sightedness, and pressure from the UAW. Instead, it appears that someone (either a lame-duck, congressionally bullied Bush, or a bought off by unions Obama) is going to give them (the unions) what they want, which will merely forestall all three of these company’s inevitable destruction.

Auto Makers’ Rescue Drive Stalls, from the Wall Street Journal. GM doesn’t want to go into bankruptcy, and they list every reason why except that bankruptcy court would allow/force them to renegotiate their contracts with the unions who are sucking them dry, and naturally the unions would rather that not happen. The “customers won’t want to buy products from companies in bankruptcy” argument is pretty pathetic. The truth is that customers don’t want to buy extremely expensive, crappy products, when there are more viable options available. Lots of airline companies have gone bankrupt lately, and yet their airplanes stayed in the air. Cut the BS guys, we all know what’s going on here.

Obama Hears a Giant Sucking Sound, from the Wall Street Journal. I wanted to read this one just based on the title. Obama is looking at some pretty rough seas ahead, especially as someone who had hoped/does hope to dive into his first term with FDR style programs and spending.

Zogby won’t duplicate Obama poll, from Politico. Looks like another casualty of political correctness. Zogby doesn’t want do do another poll, despite liberal blogs screaming for it, apparently because of what the results might show, and the ensuing firestorm that would occur afterward. If you’ve somehow missed this whole thing, scroll down a few articles and watch the movie I posted, then read this, from the man himself.

Elton John: Where Prop 8 went wrong, from USA Today. Prop 8 is all about changing the definition of the word marriage. I didn’t say it, Sir Elton did. Get mad at him, not me! Ok, I admit, I’ve been saying that all along too, but naturally his opinion holds far more weight than mine does. He did sing Tiny Dancer and Your Song, after all.

A hero of mine, my all time favorite talk radio host (now turned documentary film maker), John Ziegler, has just posted footage from his upcoming film entitled “Media Malpractice… How Obama Got Elected.” The official webpage can be found here. Please check out this terrifying video/teaser/trailer.

OBAMA’S ‘CHANGE’: BACK TO THE DEMOCRATIC WASHINGTON INSIDERS, from DickMorris.com. This article is of special personal interest to me, given a conversation I had with a guy I met at a birthday party earlier this year, during the primaries. He informed me that the best thing about Obama was what an outsider he was, and how every person he brought in through his administration was going to be new blood. I would imagine that guy is fairly disappointed now, given that a huge majority of Obama’s people are old Washington hacks. Now that’s change I can believe in!

The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace, from the Wall Street Journal. Written by a former John Kerry advisor, no less. One of my favorite things to do in the last couple years is to talk to all the gigantic “Bush haters,” and ask them to explain to me why he is so evil. Usually I get, “oh he’s a war monger,” or “he lied about WMDs!” Now don’t get me wrong, Bush has done plenty of things that upset me. But I can at least define what those things are. I guess what it really must come down to is the fact that Leonardo Decaprio and Kanye West think that Bush sucks, and that must mean it’s true. The level of blind hatred backed up by complete ignorance from most of this country over the last four years has been pathetic. It’s be nice to see general unfounded hatred replaced by obvious, unfettered Obama fawning from celebrities and the media for the next four years. Or not.

Joe the Plumber case still dripping from Ohio.com. If Obama’s/the media’s treatment of Joe The Plumber is any indication of what the next four years are going to be like, then fasten your seatbelts. If there was any justice in the world there would be rioting in the streets over this one. Government agencies using government resources to smear/discredit a private citizen because they dared to ask His Mercifulness a question? Terrifying.

Report: ‘08 turnout same as or only slightly higher than ‘04 from CNN.com

Tolerance fails T-shirt test from the Chicago Tribune. An 8th grader wore a “McCain Girl” t-shirt to school as an experiment and recorded the results.

FRANKEN ‘FIXES’ STALK SENATE RACE from NY Post. Al Franken is an idiot, and I sincerly hope he doesn’t manage to weasel (read: cheat) his way into the Senate.

And I thought Global Warming was a slam dunk? Shame that some of the “data” reported recently has been shown to be fraudulent, and apparently sea ice is growing fast.

Good summary of some arguments against all the Prop 8 protesting at PowerlineBlog.com. And just in case you didn’t know, Prop 8= Hate, which must mean No on Prop 8= happy love feelings. Just don’t tell these guys or these guys. Yay Democracy!

Underlying the main idea stated in Leadership and Communication is one of the defining principles Conservatism (or the Republican Party for that matter) will need to grab a hold of if this country is going to survive the next two, four (or God forbid, eight) years of potentially unchecked liberalism: political courage. Or more plainly stated, leadership. The GOP is currently hopelessly lost in a sea of political correctness, and everyone knows it. McCain, while an honorable and good man, proved once and for all what everyone on our side already knew- Moderate Republicans do not win. The GOP knows the model for winning is not to pander to the middle, but to establish roots in conservatism and move the country to the right through effective communication, but has abandoned that model completely. It is as if they think that Reagan’s success was based completely on his personality, and not on his ideas.

McCain passed on opportunity after opportunity to nail Obama and the Democrats to the wall on the issue of the economy. Instead, he allowed them to dictate the pace and topic of conversation for the entire last month of the campaign, and he rightly lost because of it. He allowed them to convince America that our economic crisis is somehow tied to Bush and his calls for deregulation, when the very people overseeing the regulating committees were Democrats. The seeds for this problem were planted, watered, fertilized, and lovingly tended to by Democrats. That’s not political posturing, it’s reality. Who was the number two money taker from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac? Obama. In two years, no less. Who has run Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac for it’s entire existence? Democrats, largely Clinton cronies at that. Who passed the Community Reinvestment Act, the bill that led to the sub prime mortgage crisis? Who later decided that bill wasn’t enough, and put the original bill on steroids? Carter, and then Clinton, both Democrats. Was McCain just not aware of all of these facts? Or was he too convinced his path to victory was through his precious moderates? That’s one’s pretty obvious.

If the Republican party wants to survive, maybe even move ahead in the future, someone is going to need to step up and call a spade a spade. And I’m not talking about just articulating Democrat’s failures, though it is occasionally necessary. I’m talking about being a leader, who communicates ideas to the people, and tells them about history, what works and what doesn’t. Lord knows our school system isn’t doing that. Obama certainly isn’t. He wouldn’t know history if he was clubbed in the knees with it by one of his union member thugs. I’m talking about a leader who remembers that Capitalism is what made our country a super power in the first place, and Socialism is what will promptly return us to the stone age. I’m talking about defending our rights to personal liberty, reminding Americans of how important and precious those rights are, and forgetting about whether or not that gets you on MTV. Anyone want to take that job?