The Blunderful Ron Paul!

By -
Ron Paul has stirred up a tempest by inviting Tom Dilorenzo to testify at a hearing on the Federal Reserve. What is striking to me about this move is how tin-eared a politician it shows Paul to be. DiLorenzo is both 1) not an expert on monetary economics and 2) a defender of Southern secession. If Paul wanted to defend abolishing the central bank, he had available to him people like Larry White and George Selgin who are both 1) experts on monetary economics and 2) not defenders of Southern secession.

So how did he wind up with DiLorenzo and not Selgin or White? Perhaps as the congressman representing the Mises Institute district, he felt compelled to send props to the folks back at home?

Comments

  1. Mike Brady11:55 AM

    Maybe Selgin and White were already booked.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah5:41 PM

    Garrison? Horwitz? Tony Carilli? Greg Dempster?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hal Hildebrand12:32 PM

    Given RP's past comments on southern succession, I'm pretty sure he doesn't even see the problem.

    Still, amazing how high the correlation between these beliefs are. Obviously not 100%. But I'm pretty sure if you deleted the southern successionist from the lot, the rest would find themselves a tiny minority and that they just lost almost all their audience.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more