People often ask me why environmentalists tend always to incline to apocalyptic conclusions about the state of the planet. “Because it makes them happy,” is my standard response. This is not tongue-in-cheek. There is something about certain kinds of personality types that derives a frisson of delight from contemplating the end of the world. And if you point out that the end of the world is not at hand, it makes environmentalists very unhappy, in part because it deprives them of the opportunity to play savior to the world.

Of course, deliberate scientific experimentation would be unethical, so we have to settle for comparing “sort of kind of” approximations with each other. With that in mind, I direct your attention to this article about the economic fortunes of Chile. They seem to be profitably ignoring the conventional wisdom.

One of the most frustrating things about reading the newspaper is that journalists frequently display a nearly absolute ignorance of basic economics.

By these kinds of policies–presumably enforced with straight faces–the government erodes its own perceived legitimacy. In short, it erodes respect for “The Law” when the laws in place are demonstrably absurd.

There is one thriving constitutional democracy in the Middle East. It is Israel. Arabs can vote in Israel. There are Arab members of the Israeli parliament. Why does the President of the United States put any pressure on Israel to make concessions to the other side–the side that does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, the side where people danced in the streets on 9/11, the side that mourned the death of Osama Bin Laden. This is a political mystery I do not understand.

Assuming that Social Security is completely solvent, the expected return on investment (ROI) of Social Security is far lower than the expected ROI of a private account. Further, if an individual could hypothetically opt out of Social Security payments and invest the funds entirely in Treasury Bills, the Treasury bills would even yield a greater ROI.

Judging from polls and personal interviews, half the public seems to believe that there is some sort of “common sense” solution, involving no major cuts or tax hikes, which is eluding politicians only because they’re a bunch of partisan jerks. The other half is busily encouraging their politicians to engage in as much partisan jerkitude as possible. Neither is conducive to actually achieving a solution. So we have to cut our politicians a little slack; they’re acting insane because we’re acting insane.

The federal government will take in $2.173 trillion in 2011. That’s their income, and it sounds pretty good. Until, that is, you factor in that the federal government will spend $3.818 trillion during the year. So, just like many families, the government’s outgo exceeds their income—to the tune of $1.645 trillion in overspending. That’s called the deficit. Altogether, the government has $14.2 trillion in debt. What would happen if John Q. Public and his wife called my show with these kinds of numbers? Here’s how their financial situation would stack up: If their household income was $55,000 per year, they’d actually be spending $96,500—$41,500 more than they made! That means they’re spending 175% of their annual income! So, in 2011 they’d add $41,500 of debt to their current credit card debt of $366,000!

As bad as Bush was, the truth is that, in many ways, freedom and constitutional rights are under attack even more than during the Bush years. For example: