LA Times runs an article where David Axelrod, an Obama advisor states:

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” David Axelrod, a senior advisor to Obama, said, “We have to act. Every economist from left to right agrees that we have to do something big in terms of job creation, but we want to do it in a way that will leave a lasting footprint.”

I bet I can think of at least two economists who disagree with Axelrod’s assumption. And there are a host of other economists who disagree, whether they view the Austrian tradition in a positive/negative light.

The problem here is that our new administration is posturing this as a Global Warming-type “scientific consensus” issue that has already been used and beat into the ground. I’m sure Axelrod will start backpedaling and trying to reign in the comment with something to the effect of “the best economists” or the “brightest economists” to properly qualify the statement. Unfortunately, those definitions would be at the sole discretion of Axelrod and only as qualified as Axelrod is to determine who is the best and brightest.

The problem is that we don’t turn to scientific study to determine what the future is. We infer from the data that we have in an attempt to predict, with some reasonable probability, of future events.  There is a significant difference.  Prediction carries the inherent possibility of chance – the product or outcome of the unexpected is a distinct probability.

With this in mind, an economist’s opinion is only that – the opinion of the scientist. To assume an economist can predict the future with any certainty, which Axelrod appears willing to assume through the “consensus” opinion, is nothing short of malarky. If you believe that an economist knows the future any better than a carnival fortune teller, you are sadly mistaken.

UNKINDEST CUT OF ALL | Daily News | 09/04/2007

It’s interesting to see what happens when government coffers run dry on these special interest projects. I’m not saying the program is a bad idea or that their efforts are in vain, but why always the dependency on government funds to take this type of role as a public program? While many are sitting, awaiting the outcome of government decisions, leaders could be taking present action to continue the work they do, but do it in the private marketplace as a non-profit organization.

So long as you have strong accountability, there is no reason why this group depends on the whims of politicians. Is the program valuable enough that these group leaders will not let their progress wither away? If so, they would diversify their revenue stream and take nothing from the government. It is of the same whim that government must provide that most people have ascribed themselves to.

TheAgitator.com: Childhood Now a Sex Crime: Comments

Radley has a link to a story whereby a couple of juvenile males were arrested for a sex crime for patting girls on the ass in the hallway. It sounds like football coaches are safe for the time being.