say what you will but I LOVE the 70's.  They were my decade.  I started Jr. High in 1970 and graduated college in 1980.  Beautiful symetry.  So here's my top 10 from the decade.

but in a whole NEW way!  Nanny Bloomberg blames wealthy jet-setters for the booming homeless problem in NYC.  If an ELPH had said this ... well, you know.

"You can arrive in your private jet at Kennedy Airport, take a private limousine and go straight to the shelter system, walk in the door, and we’ve got to give you shelter,” the billionaire mayor fumed on his weekly WOR radio show.

“That’s what the law is. I didn’t write the law.”

Luckily for Bloomberg his idiot streak makes him a sacred cow in the media, so this story is likely to die away quickly. We're Bloomberg a conservative Republican, the media would kill themselves to make this a career-ender.

Bloomberg's disregard for the homeless isn't anything new, either. Last year, Hizzoner banned private food donations to New York City homeless shelters.

Found this over at WUWT on one of my daily visits.  Mr. Watt prefeaced it thus:

"It is one of those seminal moments where I think a bridge has been created in the climate debate, and I hope you’ll seize the moment and embrace it. This video comes with my strongest possible recommendation, because it speaks to a real problem, with real solutions in plain language, while at the same time offering true hope.  Every once in awhile, an idea comes along that makes you ask, “gee why hasn’t anybody seen this before?”. This one of those times. This video below is something I almost didn’t watch, because my concerns were triggered by a few key words in the beginning. But ... I stuck with it, and I’m glad I did, because I want every one of you, no matter what side of the climate debate you live in, to watch this and experience that light bulb moment as I did. The key here is to understand that desertification is one of the real climate changes we are witnessing as opposed to some the predicted ones we often fight over.

Allen Savory

A year ago I had a conversation with a student regarding POTUS O's "diversity" appointments to the SCOTUS.  I observed that all nine are either Catholic or Jewish, all nine graduated from one of two colleges and they all live withing 50 miles of each other.  And both of POTUS O's appointments have left wing leanings and agree on almost every major issue facing the US.  Not really "diverse."

And now he's done it again.  In nominating “the first openly gay black man,” “the first Asian American lesbian” and “the first South Asian” to judgeships, The Post reported March 4, President Obama is “moving quickly to change the face of the federal judiciary” [“Obama remolds federal bench,” front page]. According to White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, “Diversity in and of itself is a thing that is strengthening the judicial system.”

Preferring candidates “for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake,” Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote in his controlling Regents of the University of California v. Bakke opinion. “This the Constitution forbids.” In Grutter v. Bollinger, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s majority opinion held that the diversity the court approved “is not to be achieved for its own sake” but “is defined by reference to the educational benefits that diversity is designed to produce.”

But the courtroom is not a classroom; its purpose is to produce justice. What judicial benefits does the president intend to produce by attempting to “change the face” (and presumably the aggregate sexual preferences) of the federal judiciary? How will the justice dispensed by an openly gay black man, an Asian American lesbian or a South Asian be different, much less better, because of his or her race, ethnicity or sexual preference?

The fact that race, ethnicity or sexual preference should not disqualify anyone from service on the federal bench does not mean they should be qualifications or even “plus factors” for that service — unless, that is, we now want justice not to be blind but to be seen through race-, ethnicity- and sex-tinted lenses.

Can they read?  No one's sure.  Do the have a requisite judicial temperment?  No one knows.  Does it matter?  Guess not, because they have all the right boxes checked.

Y'all know I'm no fan of Keynsianism.  While I was reading Fighting Keynes with Keynes and following the link I stumbeld upon a stark realization.

Y'all know I'm ALSO no fan of the 17th Amendment.  The whole checks and balances thing was set up when the Senate was appointed by the state legislatures.   Now that it's a state wide popularity contest much of the check and balance in checks and balances is severely missing, because the whole Constitution was written for a different set of assumptions.

So here's the lighbulb moment.  Keynes' General Theory was written for the Gold standard - NOT for a fiat money system.

So why don't more Misesians make this point?  Or any anti-Keynsians?

measuring beverages and pulling earbuds out of our ears:

what it's like in Nancy Pelosi's head.  Is it a vast empty wasteland?  I don't think it COULD be, to produce the things it produces.  More like a Bruegel painting ... very dated, faded, static, with all of the parts somehow related but never really interacting.  How else to explain

 Nancy Pelosi: 'Tax Cuts Are Spending'

and 

Harvard Cheats Itself

 Anti-Israel Harvard Students Send Dorm Demolition Notices to Jews

3% of Yale students admit to bestiality!

In the Yalie's defense only 40 students were polled, so it's just one guy!

which was only slightly less disruptive than the Y2K bug.

But not for lack of trying:

Buckeye's thumped the Hosers in IN!  WOOHOO!

So we'll drop IU one spot and move the Buckeye's up a spot or two.  The right seed and a well placed upset might get tOSU into the Elite Eight.