Read it. A review of Robert Frank’s book, which I found very enjoyable.

While single-digit millionaires trend Republican, those worth $10 million or more largely favor Democrats.

Charitable and progressive though they may be, Richistanis often indulge in obscene luxury.

And that tells you a lot about who’s the “party of the rich” these days.

Read it. And ponder.

Read it. I know it’s silly, but I just think that these devices look very cool.

Read it. Hey, that was a good year.

Actually, it looks a lot like Chicago, if Chicago were run by British intellectuals.

Read it. I guess “Don’t be evil” sort of depends on what the meaning of “be” be. Or maybe Cringely is just going through a phase of some kind; who really knows?

Read it. Doesn’t matter what you know if you can’t find it when you need it.

Steve Sailer discusses Samuelson’s review of Clark’s book and related matters.

Steve Sailer nails it again. There was a tremendous difference between the music of 1945 and that of 1955, and a substantial difference between that of 1955 and that of 1965 — my older brother and I, just over five years apart, are effectively part of separate musical generations.

Between 1965 and 1975 is much less difference, and between 1975 and 2005 it’s almost negligible.

The rise of rap is, so far as I can tell, the only significant musical development (if, indeed, one can call it music rather than recited poetry) during that period, that I can recall. (No, disco was not a development. It was a fashion statement, and lasted about as long.)
High-schoolers today can listen to Fleetwood Mac and the Rolling Stones and will readily admit that it’s “classic rock”; when I was in high school, music from before we were born was antedeluvian crap the parents listened to, for which we had no time.

The problem has become that the punk-New Wave rebellion against the blues got institutionalized, and the same musical styles that were refreshing in 1977-1982 are still hanging around. The more linear, abstracted styles that emerged after 1977 were interesting, but you can’t keep mining that vein — abstracting an abstraction hits diminishing marginal emotional returns pretty quickly.

So what happened?

Read it. I understand that Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have a deal not to ride on the same airplane, so that the country isn’t faced with the prospect of losing both of its great black economists in one accident. It’s probably just an urban legend, but a comforting one nevertheless.

Read it. Watch a trained professional take an entire page to go over what a Dilbert cartoon can cover in three panels.

Read it. A good question.

Read it. No doubt the goblins, being oppressed, will all vote Democrat — so at least they can be oppressed democratically.

Oh, wait, we’ve got that now. So what will change?

Arnold Kling points to some interesting stuff. A teaser:

It strikes me that we use the same formula to raise prices in both health care and education. (a) Subsidize demand; (b) Restrict supply using accreditation rules.

Consider that health care and education are the last two major areas of human life that haven’t benefited significantly from automation. In health care, people are sensitive to quality, so price goes through the roof. In education, people are sensitive to price, so quality goes in the toilet.

Read it. Ross Douthat responds to a comment by Neil Gaiman.

I don’t much care about what happens in HarryPotterWorld, but the discussion has some thought-provoking ideas with respect to writing and Life.

David Friedman questions the conventional wisdom. He’s good at that.

Read it. That certainly explains the Senate — and most senior faculty.

Jonathan Clements, personal-finance columnist, in today’s Wall Street Journal:

We all tend to sit up and take notice when we come across people with fancy titles, hefty incomes and immense riches. Yet these aren’t signs of genius or virtue. Want proof? All it takes is two words: Paris Hilton.

Read it. The telphone — modern convenience, or agent of social disintegration?

Read it. An interesting concept — if it actually works. I’d love to see some proof that the data on the line don’t go out to the wide world generally. The thought makes home WiFi look like a bank vault.

Read it.

Read it. You see, you learn something new every day.

Read it. Anne Applebaum underscores the differences between how Germans cope with their Nazi past and how Central Europeans cope with their Communist past.

Read it. An admirable reminder of how markets work, and why they’re good for us.

Read it. Jonah Goldberg puts it in a nutshell.

Mark Steyn talks about social programs and demographics.

Steve Sailer has a gripe. Or maybe two.

Read it. I’m sure there’s a PhD dissertation in there somewhere.

Read it. The problem with health care today (indeed, the same problem as with politics today) is that all the incentives are pointed the wrong way. We need some fresh ideas on how to straighten things out again.

Read it. David Friedman always has an interesting take on any question.

Read it. Some ethnicities are more equal than others.

“Who are you voting for next year?”

“Ronal Reagan.”

“But Reagan’s dead.”

“Do you have a problem with that? I don’t.”

Read it. What’s it like to get paid to think for a living?

Arnold Kling has some interesting speculations, but it makes sense. If taxes are high, then people tend to do things that aren’t taxed. If profit is penalized, then people tend to do things that are nominally not-for-profit.

I’ve always thought that the perfect inheritance-tax-avoidance scheme would be to leave all the money to a “charitable” foundation, with self-selecting trustees. Give each of the kids a trusteeship for about $75k a year, the only duties of which are to attend quarterly meetings (expenses paid) and vote on where to put the 5%-a-year the law requires to be distributed. Poof, a self-perpetuating gravy train like one of the ancient estates of Old England. Not a shred of profit or taxable activity to it, and everybody winds up quite comfortable.

Virginia Postrel is always worth reading.

David Friedman keeps turning the conventional wisdom on its head.

What many people don’t realize that almost all of the religion-based moral strictures to which we are accustomed can be justified without recourse to religion, purely on practical (and, in many cases, evolutionary) grounds. I did murder in a seminar paper in law school, but even somewhat minor moral strictures can be analyzed that way. The problem is that religious people aren’t interested in doing so and irreligious people don’t think there’s any point to it.

Steve Sailer has some good things to say, as usual.

Read it. Maybe part of it could be that with the modern school system people don’t know how to read these days?

Read it. Do we need to pay attention to Africa? Steve Sailer has some thoughts on the subject.

Read it. I tried to connect this to Talk Like A Pirate Day, but creativity is hard to come by on Monday morning.

Safire on Language.

Read it. I’m sure this says something profound about our culture, but I’m too lazy to figure out what.

Since the 19th century, gray squirrels, an American import, have been overtaking Britain’s native red squirrels and claiming their territory.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Read it. Much like Democrats with tax cuts, certain primitive tribes appear to lack any concept of “number”, to the point where the don’t even have words for it.

Read it. Christopher Hitchens at his best.

Read it. And ponder.

Read it. Is music destined to be free? (Only your hairdresser knows for sure — and she’s busy listening to her iPod….)

Peggy Noonan. Always worth reading.

Read it. Well, we’ll see. I usually don’t rush to believe what I read in The Guardian.

Read it. And be careful what you wish for.

Read it. A very good write-up.

Read it. A lot of the conventional wisdom and old-economy assumptions about how markets for easily distributable and replicable goods work is being blown out of the water by people who “do it wrong” and make money at it. We live in an exciting time.