From Thomas Sowell’s Intellectuals and Society

“In short, many things that the Federal Reserve, Congress and the two Presidents did (during the market crash of 1929) were counterproductive.  Given these multiple failures of government policy, it is by no means clear that it was the market economy which failed.  There is of course no way to re-run the stock market crash of 1929 and have the federal government let the market adjust on its own to see how that experiment would turn out.  The closest thing to such an experiment was the 1987 stock market crash, similar in size but not in duration to the 1929 collapse.  The Reagan administration did nothing, despite outrage in the media at the government’s failure to act.”

“What will it take to wake up the White House?” the New York Times asked, declaring that ‘the President abdicates leadership and courts disaster.”  Washington Post columnist Mary McGrory said that Reagan “has been singularly indifferent” to the country’s “current pain and confusion.”  The Financial Times of London said that President Reagan “appears to lack the capacity to handle adversity” and “nobody seems to be in charge.”  A former official of the Carter administration criticized President Reagan’s “silence and inaction” following the 1987 stock market crash and compare him unfavorably to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose “personal style and bold commands would be a tonic” in the current crisis.”

“The irony in this was that FDR presided over an economy with seven consecutive years of double-digit unemployment, while Regan’s policy of letting the market recover on its own, far from leading to another Great Depression, led instead to one of the country’s longest periods of sustained economic growth, low unemployment and low inflation, lasting twenty years.”

Richard Cohen writes in the Washington Post “From John Edwards, lessons on celebrity and politics”

“- the lesson to be learned from the John Edwards affair. “We have substituted the camera — fame, celebrity — for both achievement and the studied judgment of colleagues.”

David Brooks warns of the “The Populist Addiction” in The New York Times.  ”

“voters aren’t as stupid as the populists imagine. Voters are capable of holding two ideas in their heads at one time: First, that the rich and the powerful do rig the game in their own favor; and second, that simply bashing the rich and the powerful will still not solve the country’s problems.”

The Supreme Court decision reversing McCain Feingold leaves a lot to consider. Many on the left are as outraged as the right was on Roe vs Wade. Jeff Jacoby tries to calm the storm in “Candidates, campaigns, and New Coke“ in The Boston Globe.

“But even those that do choose to advertise during an election cycle will not make the mistake so many of the court’s detractors are making. They know that Americans are not sheep, easily herded by means of clever commercials. If corporate advertising was irresistible, after all, we’d all be drinking New Coke.”

Finally I have an article at American Thinker:  “Why Elitists Fail.”

“Even the brightest minds cannot escape emotional impediments to a rational conclusion. Combining such emotional rationalism with a focus on theories detached from the verification of practical experience can be downright dangerous. This is why it concerns so many that Obama’s administration has the lowest number of appointees from the private sector in his cabinet of any president in history.”

And yesterday also at American Thinker : “Why Obama’s tax incentives for small business will backfire“

“Such micromanagement of the economy is not surprising from the moral supremacists who are more interested in  imposing their view of social justice than truly enabling the economy to allocate capital and create jobs.”

I greatly appreciate the numerous comments at American Thinker. They are thoughtful and worthy of your reading.

Thanks to all the visitors at Rebelyid.

George Will writes on Climate Gate in the Washington Post; The Climate -change travesty

Excerpt:

Barack Obama, understanding the histrionics required in climate-change debates, promises that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83 percent below 2005 levels. If so, 2050 emissions will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. But there will be 420 million Americans in 2050, so Obama’s promise means that per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875. That. Will. Not. Happen.

Were their science as unassailable as they insist it is, and were the consensus as broad as they say it is, and were they as brave as they claim to be, they would not be “goaded” into intellectual corruption. Nor would they meretriciously bandy the word “deniers” to disparage skepticism that shocks communicants in the faith-based global warming community.