So Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf might declare an official state of emergency in his country. Officials may talk of concerns in the wake of the Red Mosque confrontation and additional threats as the military ramps up in the Northwest Federally Administered Tribal Areas, hints that the U.S. might intervene (with what?) and all. But it's more likely that Musharraf sees it as a way to extend his grip on power. How pathetic that people who hold power, even perilous power (numerous assassination attempts), get so addicted to it.
As I understand it, if there's a state of emergency Musharraf might be able to postpone elections scheduled for December and meybe even parliamentary elections in December. He can probably secure reelection himself with th old parliament, but he's so unpopular he is almost certain to lose allies in parliamentary elections. It seems unlikely the fundamentalists could come to power through elections, but things are extremely unsettled in the near-ungovernable country.
It all creates complications for the U.S. Musharraf chose to ally himself with the U.S. after 9/11, but the U.. has tied itself too closely to Musharraf the individual rather than cultivating other friends/allies in the complex political realm. If he goes, the U.S. might not know what to do, even if former president Benazir Bhutto, without the taint of having been installed by the military, comes back to power .
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Nice going, Hank
Classy move by Hank Aaron to have a taped congratulations to Barry Bonds prepared for the video screen in San Francisco. I can understand him not wanting to watch it in person and I can understand him sharing the widespread perception that Barry Bonds didn't really deserve it because he was juiced. But his attitude, at least as portrayed in some of the media, was just on the edge of being petty. In the end, however, he was gracious and classy. Good for him.
Now for a little perspective. The Register's Mark Whicker did a column a couple of days ago that reminds us that while hitting home runs may be spectacular, it doesn't necessarily coincide with winning. No American League team leader in HRs has won the World Series since 1984 (Detroit), and no National League team leader since 1976 (Cincinnati).
Manny Ramirez led the AL in home runs in 2004 and his team won the World Series. The previous time that happened was 'way back in 1973, when Reggie Jackson played for Oakland. The last time a NL team had a home run leader and a World Series championship was Mike Schmidt and Philadelphia in 1980.
Mark Whicker thinks Tom Glavine getting 300 wins is more significant, and he's probably right. He's likely to be the last to reach this plateau the way the game has changed, whereas A-Rod, who became the youngest player to get to 500 homers this weekend, will probably pass Barry (barring something catastrophic) before he's done. Ken Griffey Jr., despite injuries, has a shot, as does Andruw Jones.
None of their teams has been a consistent winner (unless the Yanks sustain their current hotness, which will depend on players other than Rodriguez) while these players have blasted so many out of the park. Home runs are fun, but it's a team game.
Now for a little perspective. The Register's Mark Whicker did a column a couple of days ago that reminds us that while hitting home runs may be spectacular, it doesn't necessarily coincide with winning. No American League team leader in HRs has won the World Series since 1984 (Detroit), and no National League team leader since 1976 (Cincinnati).
Manny Ramirez led the AL in home runs in 2004 and his team won the World Series. The previous time that happened was 'way back in 1973, when Reggie Jackson played for Oakland. The last time a NL team had a home run leader and a World Series championship was Mike Schmidt and Philadelphia in 1980.
Mark Whicker thinks Tom Glavine getting 300 wins is more significant, and he's probably right. He's likely to be the last to reach this plateau the way the game has changed, whereas A-Rod, who became the youngest player to get to 500 homers this weekend, will probably pass Barry (barring something catastrophic) before he's done. Ken Griffey Jr., despite injuries, has a shot, as does Andruw Jones.
None of their teams has been a consistent winner (unless the Yanks sustain their current hotness, which will depend on players other than Rodriguez) while these players have blasted so many out of the park. Home runs are fun, but it's a team game.
Unadulerated congratulations, Barry
Well, Barry Bonds has finally hit home run #756, breaking Hank Aaron's record. I congratulate him without reservations. May there be many more now that the pressure is lifted. I think I'll go crack open another cold one. Later with some arguments that the record really doesn't mean all that much in a team game.
More surveillance state expansion
Here's a link to the Register's editorial on the new surveillance law passed and signed over the weekend. I think it covers most of the relevant isssues, except perhaps for the bogusness of the "crisis" atmosphere that led the administration to claim it had to be passed right away, and that if some attack happened during the August recess the Democrats would pay a heavy political price.
If the Democrats bought that argument, shame on them. They've gotten a good deal of criticism in the left/progressive/civil-libertarian (not all overlapping, alas) blogosphere for being craven. I'll repeat, because hardly anyone else is saying it. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they figured their guys would be in control of the executive branch soon enough, and they wouldn't mind the executive branch having juiced-up surveillance powers. Hillary doesn't strike me as reluctant to use almost any kind of power that comes to hand. Nor does Obama.
If the Democrats bought that argument, shame on them. They've gotten a good deal of criticism in the left/progressive/civil-libertarian (not all overlapping, alas) blogosphere for being craven. I'll repeat, because hardly anyone else is saying it. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they figured their guys would be in control of the executive branch soon enough, and they wouldn't mind the executive branch having juiced-up surveillance powers. Hillary doesn't strike me as reluctant to use almost any kind of power that comes to hand. Nor does Obama.
The freedom case against war
The invaluable Anthony Gregory has an excellent piece on the libertarian case against war. He both argues from first principles and makes the consequentialist case that war is destructive of ordered liberty in any society. Here's an excerpt:
"The moral principles of individual liberty that are so obviously compromised by the vociferous taxing, regulating and mass killing of the warfare state are complemented by libertarian economic and practical arguments against war. Not only is war a violation of the rights of the individual – which we must always oppose on moral grounds – but on balance, it has failed to produce security, much less peace and liberty, for most people it has touched."
Murray Rothbard used to argue that the American Revolution was the exception to the rule that war and revolution almost always lead to less liberty. There may be other exceptions, but my knowledge of history, while more extensive than that of your average bear, is not voluminous enough to come up with one. For the more extensive case, check out Robert Higgs' classic: "Crisis and Leviathan."
"The moral principles of individual liberty that are so obviously compromised by the vociferous taxing, regulating and mass killing of the warfare state are complemented by libertarian economic and practical arguments against war. Not only is war a violation of the rights of the individual – which we must always oppose on moral grounds – but on balance, it has failed to produce security, much less peace and liberty, for most people it has touched."
Murray Rothbard used to argue that the American Revolution was the exception to the rule that war and revolution almost always lead to less liberty. There may be other exceptions, but my knowledge of history, while more extensive than that of your average bear, is not voluminous enough to come up with one. For the more extensive case, check out Robert Higgs' classic: "Crisis and Leviathan."
Monday, August 06, 2007
Go already, Alberto
Here's a link to the Register's editorial last week calling for Attorney General Albeerto Gonzales to do the decent thing and resign. We don't especially care to have him indicted for perjury or investigated by a special prosecutor. We just want him out of any position that gives him government power.
Surveillance state on steroids
Jacob Sullum over at Reason's Hit & Run has a good post -- more extensive than I'm inclined to do this late in the evening after researching it for the Register most of the day -- on the unwarranted surveillance bill that Congress passed and President Bush signed over the weekend. It includes links to some valuable commentary I can recommend and to the text of the bill itself. A few comments of my own, however:
This bill is a tribute to pusallinimity in Congress -- the only serious argument for greatly expanding executive-branch surveillance power now-now-now rather than doing some technical fixes that account for technology changed since the FISA law was passed in 1978 was the threat that if they didn't do it the Bushies would accuse them of being soft on terrorism if another attack came during the August recess. An even less attractive possibility is that the Democrats figure they'll control the executive branch soon enough, and they won't mind at all having unaccountable power to monitor electronic communications.
Remember how, after the NSA unwarranted surveillance program was made public and acknolwegded in 12/05, defenders said it was only messages between al-Qaida members or other known terrorists abroad and people in the U.S.that the NSA was monitoring? Well, this bill targets anybody reasonably suspected of being overseas -- no requirement that they be a terrorist, activist or anything. And it will be supervised not by a FISA secret court, but by the Director of National Intelligence and the attorney general -- Mike and Alberto -- so there's not even a pretense of judicial oversight. And there's no provision for congressional oversight, not even in the form of regular reports on how many Americans were surveilled, either.
This bill is a tribute to pusallinimity in Congress -- the only serious argument for greatly expanding executive-branch surveillance power now-now-now rather than doing some technical fixes that account for technology changed since the FISA law was passed in 1978 was the threat that if they didn't do it the Bushies would accuse them of being soft on terrorism if another attack came during the August recess. An even less attractive possibility is that the Democrats figure they'll control the executive branch soon enough, and they won't mind at all having unaccountable power to monitor electronic communications.
Remember how, after the NSA unwarranted surveillance program was made public and acknolwegded in 12/05, defenders said it was only messages between al-Qaida members or other known terrorists abroad and people in the U.S.that the NSA was monitoring? Well, this bill targets anybody reasonably suspected of being overseas -- no requirement that they be a terrorist, activist or anything. And it will be supervised not by a FISA secret court, but by the Director of National Intelligence and the attorney general -- Mike and Alberto -- so there's not even a pretense of judicial oversight. And there's no provision for congressional oversight, not even in the form of regular reports on how many Americans were surveilled, either.
Inside the CIA's Black Sites
Here's a link to the truly remarkable investigative piece by Jane Mayer in the current New Yorker on the CIA's secret "black sites" and what kind of torture went on there. Although a bit longish (11 pp. in print-friendly format) it's worth reading in its entirety.
Essentially Jane demolishes the cover story that whatever unpleasant stuff might have gone on at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo was the work of low-level "rogue" guards who have been tried and punished. She describes a systematic and rigorous program -- remarkably tightly controlled and disciplined from the tops; it seems techniques and plans had to be approved, probably by the CIA director himself, on a day-to-day basis -- of extremely abusive interrogation approved at the highest levels of government. What's a little shocking is that the interrogation program was implemented "on the fly" by an agency that had no practical experience in interrogation or running prisons, and how quickly just about everyone involved seemed to assume that torture would be necessary. But people-pleasing George Tenet just couldn't say "no." How ironic that the people-pleasers end up authorizing the most people-torturing policies.
The other key is that the program of inflicting "learned helplessness" on detainees through waterboarding, sleep deprivation, isolation, prolonged periods in "dog cages" too small to stand up in, hanging from wrists and the like, despite all the claims by officials that is was essential to gathering key information that might have prevented another attack, in fact produced what one officer called 90 percent unreliable information. There's no real science behind the concept that torture can produce valuable truth in an imminent-danger situation. It's hard not to conclude -- my conclusion, not Jane Mayer's, who confines herself to fact and is careful to let you know when she doesn't know or her information is based on hearsay -- that the main reason for torture is sadism or vicarious sadism, n0t anything remotely resembling national security.
Essentially Jane demolishes the cover story that whatever unpleasant stuff might have gone on at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo was the work of low-level "rogue" guards who have been tried and punished. She describes a systematic and rigorous program -- remarkably tightly controlled and disciplined from the tops; it seems techniques and plans had to be approved, probably by the CIA director himself, on a day-to-day basis -- of extremely abusive interrogation approved at the highest levels of government. What's a little shocking is that the interrogation program was implemented "on the fly" by an agency that had no practical experience in interrogation or running prisons, and how quickly just about everyone involved seemed to assume that torture would be necessary. But people-pleasing George Tenet just couldn't say "no." How ironic that the people-pleasers end up authorizing the most people-torturing policies.
The other key is that the program of inflicting "learned helplessness" on detainees through waterboarding, sleep deprivation, isolation, prolonged periods in "dog cages" too small to stand up in, hanging from wrists and the like, despite all the claims by officials that is was essential to gathering key information that might have prevented another attack, in fact produced what one officer called 90 percent unreliable information. There's no real science behind the concept that torture can produce valuable truth in an imminent-danger situation. It's hard not to conclude -- my conclusion, not Jane Mayer's, who confines herself to fact and is careful to let you know when she doesn't know or her information is based on hearsay -- that the main reason for torture is sadism or vicarious sadism, n0t anything remotely resembling national security.
A smoker's airline?
I guess there had to be a backlash eventually. A German former stockbroker, Alexander W. Schoppmann, has started something called Smoker's International Airways, or Smintair. He complains that "Other airlines have lost every kind of sympathy for their passengers by leaps and bounds. What all of those carriers want these days is for you to stay in the seat, and you better bloody well stay there, and don't even ask for anything to eat or drink." Smintair will have Boeing 747s configured for 138 passengers rather than the usual 400 or so, and will encourage patrons to get up, go to bars, smoke, drink, mingle and even gamble.
Schoppmann is still a ways away from being operational. But Smintair has won a landing slot at Duesseldorf International and permission to fly into Nagoya Japan. He's finalizing purchase of his first plane and hopes to start flying early next year. It will be expensive, of course, a luxury for the wealthy, but a number of new airlines are starting up planning to cater to the high-end niche.
It will be interesting to see if it works.
Schoppmann is still a ways away from being operational. But Smintair has won a landing slot at Duesseldorf International and permission to fly into Nagoya Japan. He's finalizing purchase of his first plane and hopes to start flying early next year. It will be expensive, of course, a luxury for the wealthy, but a number of new airlines are starting up planning to cater to the high-end niche.
It will be interesting to see if it works.
Inflating al-Qaida in Iraq
I know I mentioned it at the time of his speech, but this piece I did last week for Antiwar.com I think does it in a more lengthy and systematic way. Whether out of desperation or denial, President Bush made a fairly sustained attempt week before last to sell the idea that al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) was the major foe, and that if we withdrew prematurely (an almost infinitely elastic concept apparently) we would be turning the country over to a group affiliated with the people who perpetrated the 9/11 terrorist acts (and just happen to be reconstituting themselves along the Pakistan-Afghan border). For any number of reasons, many having to do with the fact that AQI constitutes maybe 5 percent of the insurgent fighters in Iraq and would no doubt be crushed rather ruthlessly if the U.S. left, this is balderdash. But read the whole thing.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Athletic enhancement and abritrary lines
Not that being alone in holding an opinion ever bothered me much, but it's interesting to see that I'm not the only one who wonders about the arbitrary lines we often create between the kinds of enhanced performance we choose to call "cheating" and the enhanced performances we choose to cheer.
This article explores several sides of the question without getting hung up on labels. It wonders, for example, why Tiger Woods' (whom I admire greatly) laser surgery to improve his eyesight is legitimate while taking certain drugs or other substances is cheating. It notes that competitive bodybuilding, for example, is already "splitting into two kinds of organizations -- the untested (anything goes) and the tested ..." But even the magazine for the "natural" bodybuilding federation is packed with ads for substances to enhance performance. Steve Downs, chairman of the federation "likes performance-enhancing substances that can be found in nature, as opposed to those synthesized in a lab." Thus amino acids, which help the pituitary gland secrete human growth hormone are good, but taking synthetic human growth hormone directly is bad.
Ocular implants vs. contact lenses? A tough call. The natural federation doesn't allow muscle implants but allows breast implants.
James Hughes, a bioethicist at Trinity College in Connecticut, notes that the ancient Olympic athletes used exotic medications and herbal treatments (including eating raw bees -- ugghh). Competitive athletes train 12 hours a day and are hooked up to computers to help them determine which training is most effective. "If you have a cold, you take antihistamines to bring you up to your natural level of performance. But in sports you would be taken out of competition." Why is a hyperbaric tent not cheating when taking HGH or steroids is? Hughes thinks it's "purely a social construct."
Maybe the day will come when we have various sports developing two leagues -- the Naturals and the Enhanced. In the meantime, can we tone down all the moralism about Barry Bonds, who probably did use steroids, but has never tested positive, and allegedly used them at a time when they were neither illegal nor banned by Major League Baseball?
This article explores several sides of the question without getting hung up on labels. It wonders, for example, why Tiger Woods' (whom I admire greatly) laser surgery to improve his eyesight is legitimate while taking certain drugs or other substances is cheating. It notes that competitive bodybuilding, for example, is already "splitting into two kinds of organizations -- the untested (anything goes) and the tested ..." But even the magazine for the "natural" bodybuilding federation is packed with ads for substances to enhance performance. Steve Downs, chairman of the federation "likes performance-enhancing substances that can be found in nature, as opposed to those synthesized in a lab." Thus amino acids, which help the pituitary gland secrete human growth hormone are good, but taking synthetic human growth hormone directly is bad.
Ocular implants vs. contact lenses? A tough call. The natural federation doesn't allow muscle implants but allows breast implants.
James Hughes, a bioethicist at Trinity College in Connecticut, notes that the ancient Olympic athletes used exotic medications and herbal treatments (including eating raw bees -- ugghh). Competitive athletes train 12 hours a day and are hooked up to computers to help them determine which training is most effective. "If you have a cold, you take antihistamines to bring you up to your natural level of performance. But in sports you would be taken out of competition." Why is a hyperbaric tent not cheating when taking HGH or steroids is? Hughes thinks it's "purely a social construct."
Maybe the day will come when we have various sports developing two leagues -- the Naturals and the Enhanced. In the meantime, can we tone down all the moralism about Barry Bonds, who probably did use steroids, but has never tested positive, and allegedly used them at a time when they were neither illegal nor banned by Major League Baseball?
A grandchildren weekend
I know that such times are important and can set patterns for years to come, so it was a good thing that we spent most of the weekend playing with our grandchildren in various ways. Of course I'm a little sunburned from playing in the pool too long and Jen is feeling a bit sore of back from carrying the baby too much. But it's been a good time for strengthening bonds and making memories. Jaedon actually sweet-talked his dad into taking him to a ball game tonight, so Jen and I spent quality time with Griffin.
Of course I may never catch up with all the things I wanted to blog about, but . . .
Of course I may never catch up with all the things I wanted to blog about, but . . .
Another Ron Paul moment ignored
Ron Paul won the straw poll (16,000-plus votes) of limited-g0vernment conservatives associated with FreedomWorks, Dick Armey's outfit. Got 56 percent. Thompson second, Duncan Hunter first.The MSM ignored, of course.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
First baseball game
It feels like an impoprtant night. I took my seven-year-old grandson, Jaedon, to his first professional baseball game tonight. It was a single-A game of the Lake Elsinore Storm, where we live. The stadium, which can seat 6,000-plus, is really nice (usually voted among the best minor-league stadiums in the country, including Triple-A. The Storm is a minor-league affiliate of the San Diego Padres, and they were playing the Lancaster Jethawks, a farm team of the Boston Red Sox.
The most important thing is that Jaedon had a good time and he's ready to go again. It was nice that the Storm won (amazing how quickly Jaedon identified with a home tyeam he hadn'e heard of until today) 6-3, and nice that it was a well-played game. Grandma thought he might have been ready to leave about the sixth inning, but he wanted to stay to the and (it helped that there were fireworks).
Neither of my sons is all that interested in sports, so I guess it's up to me to introduce my grandsons to the superficial passions of the typical American male. Good time had by all.
The most important thing is that Jaedon had a good time and he's ready to go again. It was nice that the Storm won (amazing how quickly Jaedon identified with a home tyeam he hadn'e heard of until today) 6-3, and nice that it was a well-played game. Grandma thought he might have been ready to leave about the sixth inning, but he wanted to stay to the and (it helped that there were fireworks).
Neither of my sons is all that interested in sports, so I guess it's up to me to introduce my grandsons to the superficial passions of the typical American male. Good time had by all.
Thanks, Barry
Well, Barry Bonds hit homer No. 755, tying Hank Aaron's record. No disrespect to Hank, but I think I'll go crack open a cold one.
Friday, August 03, 2007
Government and crumbling infrastrucure
It's possible that the collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis will bring on another era of concern about "crumbling infrastrucure," similar to a burst of interest I remember in the 1980s. It seems that the last couple of times the bridge was inspected there were signs of fatigue, and there were desultory plans to replace it, perhaps in 2020. And it turns out there are a lot of bridges around the country in states of relative disrepair. I just heard Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank talking about how we could fix this stuff if we just pulled out of Iraq and raised taxes on the "rich" even more -- and arguing that there are certain things only the government by "pooling our resources" can do.
As the discussion moves forward, it would be well to remember that maintenance and repair of infrastructure is something government notoriously does very poorly. It's not hard to see why. It's a matter of incentives. Maintenance is not sexy or glamorous and it doesn't buy votes or give politicians the chance to preside at ribbon-cutting ceremonies, as building new things does. So the temptation is always to postpone maintenance or relegate it to a lower priority.
It's not the case that the private sector can't build infrastructure; it does it all the time, from building roads and sewers when new developments go in to building (yes) bridges. Chances are, although the money to rebuild the Minneapolis bridge will come from government, that the actual work will be done by a private company (for more money than necessary, given that public works contracts are typically pork-laden or go to those with connections).
There are only a few private highways in the U.S. (interestingly there may be more in Singapore or China) but they are almost always better maintained than government projects, because paying customers will demand it. When the costs are diffused and confused, which is what happens when we use the coercive power of government to "pool our resources," responsibility is diffuse and there's little relationship between good maintenance and political success.
As the discussion moves forward, it would be well to remember that maintenance and repair of infrastructure is something government notoriously does very poorly. It's not hard to see why. It's a matter of incentives. Maintenance is not sexy or glamorous and it doesn't buy votes or give politicians the chance to preside at ribbon-cutting ceremonies, as building new things does. So the temptation is always to postpone maintenance or relegate it to a lower priority.
It's not the case that the private sector can't build infrastructure; it does it all the time, from building roads and sewers when new developments go in to building (yes) bridges. Chances are, although the money to rebuild the Minneapolis bridge will come from government, that the actual work will be done by a private company (for more money than necessary, given that public works contracts are typically pork-laden or go to those with connections).
There are only a few private highways in the U.S. (interestingly there may be more in Singapore or China) but they are almost always better maintained than government projects, because paying customers will demand it. When the costs are diffused and confused, which is what happens when we use the coercive power of government to "pool our resources," responsibility is diffuse and there's little relationship between good maintenance and political success.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
How Prohibition ended
Don Boudreaux has written an interesting piece on the subject of alcohol prohibition. His thesis is at variance from the usual story of Prohibition being ended because people got tired of the violence, gangsterism and futility of Prohibition. Instead, he suggests that the coming of the income tax in 1913 created an environment in which it was feasible to think about Prohibition, since before 1913 about a third of federal revenues came from taxes on alcohol. By 1920 the income tax was providing nine times as much revenue as liquor taxes, so giving up liquor tax revenue didn't seem unthinkable.
With the coming of the Great Depression, however, revenue from income taxes declined precipitously and Uncle Sam started casting about for other sources of boodle. Legalizing liquor and taxing it started to look attractive.
Don's conclusion is rather dispiriting: "So, if the history of alcohol prohibition is a guide, drug prohibition will not end merely because there are many sound, sensible and humane reasons to end it. Instead, it will end only if and when Congress gets desperate for another revenue source." Hardly encouraging, but it may be realistic.
That doesn't mean I'll stop agitating and arguing for an end to drug prohibition for all the proper "sound, sensible and humane reasons." But it might mean, however much I hate taxes and would prefer to see drugs untaxed as well as legal, that I may emphasize a little more often that marijuana (for example) is the U.S.'s Number One cash crop and that it would be better for it to be a source of revenue than the object of futile spending and cruel enforcement mechanisms.
With the coming of the Great Depression, however, revenue from income taxes declined precipitously and Uncle Sam started casting about for other sources of boodle. Legalizing liquor and taxing it started to look attractive.
Don's conclusion is rather dispiriting: "So, if the history of alcohol prohibition is a guide, drug prohibition will not end merely because there are many sound, sensible and humane reasons to end it. Instead, it will end only if and when Congress gets desperate for another revenue source." Hardly encouraging, but it may be realistic.
That doesn't mean I'll stop agitating and arguing for an end to drug prohibition for all the proper "sound, sensible and humane reasons." But it might mean, however much I hate taxes and would prefer to see drugs untaxed as well as legal, that I may emphasize a little more often that marijuana (for example) is the U.S.'s Number One cash crop and that it would be better for it to be a source of revenue than the object of futile spending and cruel enforcement mechanisms.
Ingmar Bergman Quiz
Do you think you know his films? Or do you think you should? If so, take this quiz. I am only a moderate afficionado -- got 6 of 10 right
Get Tyler's book free
Tyler Cowen, also at GMU, has a new book, "Discover Your Inner Economist," out, and he's giving away free copies -- but you have to write at least a paragraph saying why you should be one of the 15 to get it free, and believe what you say.
Help Russell Roberts name his book
Over at Cafe Hayek, George Mason University economist Russell Roberts is appealing for help naming his new novel. His last book, "The Invisible Heart," was both a charming novel with a love story and something of a primer on economics -- a tough feat to pull off. He has written a new one that does much the same, but with a different story. In the post he describes much of the plot, and asks for help giving it a title.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
