1. Justin Fox responds to my post on the Supreme Court decision (see Karl’s take below). The best so far on this issue are Julian Sanchez and Eugene Volokh. Julian writes:

Why is it that so many people who clearly do think books and magazines and talk radio shows enjoy unambiguous constitutional protection, despite being corporate funded or operated, are simultaneously absolutely sure that paid broadcast spots are in an utterly different category?

2. In what culture is it not a sign of disrespect to throw a shoe?

3. Hitchens on the word “like”:

People who can’t get along without “um” or “er” or “basically” (or, in England, “actually”) or “et cetera et cetera” are of two types: the chronically modest and inarticulate… and the mildly authoritarian who want to make themselves un-interruptible.

4. Strange maps. H.T. James Fallows.

5. Oh those tolerant French:

Parliament will now have to debate whether to adopt the nonbinding resolution suggested in the report, stating that the full veil was “contrary to the values of the republic” and asserting that “all of France is saying no” to the veil. Then Parliament will decide what if any legislation should be passed.

6. David Henderson on the problem with small banks:

Because banks during the Great Depression were so small, they were undiversified. So when the agriculture sector went under, in part because of the Smoot-Hawley Act that attacked free trade, many rural banks failed. Call it “too small, so we failed.”

History shows us that you don’t need “too big to fail” banks to have a devastating financial crisis. It’s important to remember that.

About these ads