Self portrait: J. H. Huebert
Monday, May 17, 2004
|
Now online: The Block-Epstein debate! The dynamic debate between Walter Block and Richard Epstein, held last Monday at the University of Chicago Law School, is now in the archives at Mises Media. Hear these two giants of libertarianism in a feisty dispute on the issue: "Do we really need eminent domain?" Here's the direct link to the mp3 audio: Walter Block and Richard Epstein, "Do We Really Need Eminent Domain?" Your feedback on this debate would be appreciated. - posted by J. H. Huebert at 10:45 PM |
|
Suddenly, I wish I subscribed to Reason. I don't like the quasi-libertarian Reason magazine quite enough to subscribe to it, but I do like it enough to pick it up when I see on the stand at Borders. This is somewhat paradoxical, I'll admit, since it's costing me more to buy it off the shelf pretty much every month than it would to subscribe. I'd like to think I'm making a statement of some sort, but I'll have to get back to you on exactly what that statement is. At any rate, this is cool. My compliments to them on a most innovative idea. - posted by J. H. Huebert at 3:14 AM |
|
Block vs. Epstein online soon. Many people have e-mailed me asking either for details on how Monday's debate between Walter Block and Richard Epstein went, or if a recording will be available. An audio recording will be available soon, on Mises.org, and you'll be able to hear it all for yourself. So keep your eyes open, and get ready for what was, indeed, a feisty contest of libertarian ideas, and a huge success all around. My personal thanks to Walter Block, Richard Epstein, Lew Rockwell, and the Mises Institute for making it possible! - posted by J. H. Huebert at 8:57 AM |
|
F-word retracted. Karen De Coster apologizes for her libelous statement about me. Elsewhere, Stephan Kinsella adds his thoughts. (I, too, think Friends is a-okay when Jennifer Aniston is on screen, provided that the mute button has been pressed, so I don't have to hear any lame one-liners.) - posted by J. H. Huebert at 11:36 PM |
|
Yikes! Based on a previous post, Karen De Coster has mistaken me for a "Friends watcher"! Let me assure the world that nothing could be further from the truth. My hatred for Friends knows no limits. I firmly believe it is the worst television show ever, combining everything that is bad about both sitcoms and soap operas. Miss De Coster was absolutely correct in saying that it is "for morons." Its popularity certainly makes a sad statement about our culture. I am shocked that even some seemingly intelligent, educated adults can find this show at all funny or interesting. Thus, I found Miss De Coster's statement about watching the Pistons game ironic, coming right after her entirely accurate comment about Friends, given that pro team sports are played primarily by "morons," and enjoyed primarily by morons (but not exclusively, as Miss De Coster and others of my acquaintance prove). Moderate sports fandom certainly isn't as bad as even casual Friends watching, though. A person who finds Friends even remotely entertaining is obviously of no use to me at all, whereas at least a few sports fans are mostly okay otherwise. - posted by J. H. Huebert at 8:49 PM |
|
An idea whose time has come, again. Local governments sometimes discourage university students who live there temporarily from voting. In response, Amber Taylor asks, "But if childless renters with low wage jobs who merely pay sales tax and use the roads deserve the vote less than families who own homes and businesses, why not just reinstitute a property requirement for voting?" Indeed, why not? These local governments understand why we had the property requirement in the first place, and why it was a good rule. For someone who claims to be a libertarian, restricting the vote should be a no-brainer. - posted by J. H. Huebert at 7:57 PM |
|
Judge not, lest... From Karen De Coster: I am so tired of the Friends eulogies all week, everywhere I turn. A show by morons, for morons. - posted by J. H. Huebert at 3:50 PM |
|
Super size critic. It's worth reading Roger Ebert's review of Super Size Me, in which he writes, "Eating responsibly at McDonald's is like going to a strip club for the iced tea." More importantly, he offers these words of wisdom, after losing 86 pounds in under two years: You didn't ask, but what I Truly Believe is that unless you can find an eating program you can stay on for the rest of your life, dieting is a waste of time. The pounds come back. Instead of extreme high-protein or low-carb diets with all their health risks, why not exercise more, avoid refined foods and eat a balanced diet of fruits and veggies, whole grains, fish and a little meat, beans, soy products, low-fat dairy, low fat, low salt? Of course I agree with McDonald's that a visit to Mickey D's can be part of a responsible nutritional approach. That's why I've dined there twice in the last 17 months.And when you've finished that morsel, check out his review of the the Olsen Twins' new movie. I love how he devotes so much print and thought to even the most trifling movie. - posted by J. H. Huebert at 1:38 PM |
|
Those Iraqi prisoners deserved it for not being feminist enough. That's the conclusion I draw from Virginia Postrel's analysis. Apparently, Iraqi prisoners should know that it's insensitive to say that severe torture that you personally endured, including sexual torture, made you, as a man, feel emasculated. (Compare her out-of-context quote to the full context of the statement on the site from which she drew the quote.) - posted by J. H. Huebert at 3:39 PM |
© 2004 J. H. Huebert
