Who will still be famous in 10,000 years?

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/02/who-will-still-be-famous-in-10000-years-1-1.html#comments

I am very skeptical of scientists making this list.  It seems extremely naive.  Thoughts?

A Steinbrenner embarrasses himself and the Yankees yet again . . .

"At some point, if you don’t want to worry about teams in minor markets, don’t put teams in minor markets, or don’t leave teams in minor markets if they’re truly minor,” Steinbrenner said. “Socialism, communism, whatever you want to call it, is never the answer."

I guess receiving over $1 billion from New York tax payers is not considered socialism.  What a joke . . .

(Note: fascism is a better description for the situation, but you get my drift . . .)

To Gus

Gus,

I was wondering if you could provide a quick summary of why the events in Wisconsin are somehow distinct from the republican attempts to undermine democratic decision-making at the federal level, and how the distinction can be seen as legitimate line drawing independent of claims of desirability of content .  I have not followed the case closely at all, and it is not a big deal to me one way or the other, but from someone who holds strong contrarian views, the reaction of many "Liberals" to defend the actions (and the "Conservatives" who denounce them) is another example of the rampant hypocrisy characteristic of popular politics.  You may not hold these views, and if that is the case, apologies for an appearance of a presumption otherwise.

Brilliant line by joe rogan . . .

During the UFC 127 preview show, regarding UFC fighter George Sotiropoulos:

"George Sotiropouolos is the #1 Australian fighter . . . in the world."

Hillary Clinton touts free speech while guards drag away 71 year old silent protestor

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2011/02/17/as-hillary-touts-free-expression-police-brutalize-ray-mcgovern/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-Vy8fFnz18

Word of the day

Anatidaephobia

The Dangerous Take on Contracts and Coercion, pt. 1

I'm as busy as a middle eastern dictator raiding his country's central bank to steal its gold stock right now, but I absolutely plan on responding to the questions posed by Gus and reiterated by Hume.

In the mean time, I present this video for your consideration:

re: Contracts and Coercion

Gus posed the question a few weeks back:

"Query: does an adequate theory of contract necessarily imply a coercive force? Is contract tantamount to law in a completely stateless society? Can contract exist without the state?"

I am interested in hearing Danger's response.

Friends

Although this statement is taken out of a context not directly relevant to the issue of friendship, I think it is enlightening, and I wonder how many live their lives as does H:

"Consider a friendless soul, call her H, who hears everyone talking about the great value of having friends. Never having participated in this unfamiliar value she sets out to do so. She is an extremely good mimic. She quickly gets the hang of acting towards people in seemingly friendly ways and quickly picks up what she takes to be a circle of friends. Not only that, but these people also regard her as part of their circle. All the time, however, her eye is only on the value of having friends.  She never thinks about her so-called friends in the way that friends do. Their joys and sorrows are never her joys and sorrows, their passions are merely embarrassments to her, and so on. She thinks about them as beings who satisfy her need to have friends. What she does not realize is that this way of thinking about them, this way of reacting to them, is itself incompatible with her haying friends.  She has no friends while she aims, in her relations with her pseudo-friends, at having them as friends.  Imagine H being asked, by an outsider to the circle, why she is friends with members of the circle. She says that it is in order to have friends. This only shows that she is not friends with them at all.  Her pursuit of the value of having friends is logically self-defeating.  Of course, H's basic problem is that she misunderstands the value of having friends.  Some will say that this example is one of evaluative error rather than self-defeat in the pursuit of genuine value. But our point is that H’s evaluative error lies precisely in her thinking that one can have friends in order to have friends. It is true that having friends is part of the value of friendship. But that is not a reason for performing any of the constituent acts of friendship."

Randy Barnett

is testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the constitutionality of the individual mandate.