If you had ten million dollars....

If I were an entrepreneurial type and were to start my own business and somehow wind up with ten million dollars in the bank....

Or if I were to inherit ten million dollars....

Or if I were to hit the blackjack tables in Vegas and clear ten million....

I like to think that, after taking care of my daughter at Texas A and freakin' M university, I'd give a chunk of money to The Reason Foundation. 

Here's what they do:

Reason Foundation advances a free society by developing, applying, and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law.
Reason Foundation produces respected public policy research on a variety of issues and publishes the critically-acclaimed Reason magazine.
Together, our top-tier think tank and political and cultural magazine reach a diverse, influential audience, advancing the values of choice, individual freedom and limited government.

I believe that educating people about the Free Market and Small Government and Personal Freedom would do more good than anything else I could do with my money.  Freedom helps people, Big Government hurts people.   

I'd probably give another chunk to The Cato Institute. 

The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank – dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues.

Founded in 1977, Cato owes its name to Cato’s Letters, a series of essays published in 18th- century England that presented a vision of society free from excessive government power. Those essays inspired the architects of the American Revolution. And the simple, timeless principles of that revolution — individual liberty, limited government, and free markets – turn out to be even more powerful in today’s world of global markets and unprecedented access to information than Jefferson or Madison could have imagined. Social and economic freedom is not just the best policy for a free people, it is the indispensable framework for the future.

I know that, despite avoiding the place for the last 5 years or so, I'd give a chunk to the Agape Meal at Broadway Baptist Church.  If you want to give something to the poor folks in Fort Worth, Texas, Broadway BC is the way to go. 

The Agape Meal is our weekly banquet for the community. Broadway hosts about 175 guests each Thursday with volunteer table hosts and servers for each table of seven guests. The meal is served Thursdays at 6:00 p.m.; tickets are available starting at 4:00 p.m. in the Baptist Center Breezway (west side of church on May St.) until all gone.Ideally volunteers should arrive by 5:30 p.m. for duty assignments (host, server, etc.) and enter through the Main Entrance on St. Louis St.

Hit the link above to read about their clothing ministry, the Room At The Inn program, and everything else they've got going on.  Good people, those Moderate Baptists.... 

I would give a massive chunk to the Libertarian Party Of Texas.  Hell, if I could get just one of the Nixon - Obama Drug War victims out of jail through political means, it would be money well spent.

It would be cool to sponsor a M.D. in some politician-ravaged region through the Doctors Without Borders program. 

That's my list.  It's heavy on political education, mostly because I think political ignorance (which leads to Statism) has created more poverty, hunger and want than anything else on the planet. 

Think of your list.  Jot it down.  Seriously.  Jot it down.  If you've read through all the other stuff and don't write down your list, you've wasted your time. 

Now, go here.  

30 Anti-Libertarian Fallacies

Someone named Max Borders at the Foundation For Economic Education came up with this list of anti-libertarian logical fallacies. 

Mr. Borders knows his stuff.  In fact, I've scraped it, just in case the Foundation For Economic Education goes bankrupt or the site disappears.  (This fallacy is also known as "The Blogger You're Reading Is A Lazy Bastard, And Ripped Off Another Writer".) 

Mr. Borders lists 30 logical fallacies that are often used in arguing against the libertarian philosophy.  You'll have to go here to see number 30. 

You already know what it is.  You've heard it a hundred times. 

1. Argument ad KochBrotherium: This fallacy is a cousin to the genetic fallacy and guilt by association. The twist, of course, is that anything that the Koch Brothers ever say, said, fund, funded, might fund, came close to funding, could have funded, will fund, walked by, looked at, support, think about, or mention is invalid by virtue of, well, “Koch Brothers! Boo!”
    
2. The Unicorn: You’ll recognize this fallacy from the question, “Why does no libertarian country exist anywhere in the world?” Embedded in the question is the assumption that libertarian countries don’t exist because they are fantastic creatures, like unicorns. Of course, just because something doesn’t exist yet does not mean it can’t exist. Indeed, the Internet in 1990 and the American Republic in 1775 beg to differ. And the unicorn fallacy fundamentally confuses the libertarian worldview with some “L”ibertarian platform that might be the product of some electoral processes—processes most libertarians reject. Michael Lind and E. J. Dionne have brandished this fallacy rather shamelessly, and have had it parried rather effectively by better minds.
    
3. Nut-Picking: This fallacy has nothing to do with Jimmy Carter. In this style of argument, the arguer finds the kookiest or most insane person who self-identifies as libertarian and then ascribes all of that person’s beliefs or claims to all libertarians. (This one could also be called the Alex Jones fallacy.) This is a tough one to counter simply because there are plenty of nuts to pick from, and plenty of them use the l-word.
    
4. Must Be Scared/Have No Answer: This one’s pretty simple really, and a unique creature of “debate” via social media. The libertarian leaves his computer or signs off for a while and the opponent accuses the libertarian of not being able to answer his or her FB claims, which the libertarian simply never saw or had no time to answer.
    
5. The Tin Man: This fallacy was identified and named by Cole James Gentles (here) who inspired this article. With the tin man the arguer either concludes or falsely assumes that the libertarian “has no heart” because she argues against some favored policy. 
   
   This cousin of the straw man (scarecrow) fallacy assumes a direct line between sympathies and outcomes. Any failure to support some means amounts to a failure to support the wished-for end.
   
   
   The tin man fallacy is rooted in the assumption that one’s opponent, often a libertarian, has no heart. Unlike the straw man fallacy, in which the debater needs to mischaracterize their opponent’s position, the tin man fallacy allows the debater to build a sturdy-looking, if hollow, general facsimile of their opponent’s position (“You are against state mandated universal health care?”), but not give him a heart (“Then you don’t care about poor people who don’t have access to affordable, quality insurance, or people with pre-existing conditions!! You heartless monster! WHY DO YOU HATE THE POOR?!” Heard that one before?)
    
   The frightening part of this fallacy is that its wielder usually thinks exitus acta probat.
      
6. Availability Cascade: Something big and bloody happens on the news (or goes viral) so the arguer implies or concludes that it’s a widespread occurrence.
   
   Example: A mass shooting has occurred, which points to an epidemic of gun violence.
   
   It’s not clear that if gun violence is at a multidecadal low point, the incident reflects an “epidemic.” The ready availability of some story leads one to conclude that a problem is widespread and demands a drastic response. Cass Sunstein, known for his work on “nudging,” gets credit along with Timur Kuran for identifying this phenomenon. (An availability cascade doesn’t always have to involve specious reasoning, but it very often does.)
    
7. Man on the Moon: Remember Rachel Maddow standing in front of the Hoover Dam? She’s trying to convince her viewers that the government (which she calls “the country”) must tax and build some major make-work project in order to revive the economy (or whatever). Maddow is employing a form of the man on the moon fallacy, which takes the form, “If we can put a man on the moon, we can do X.” But it misconstrues any reservations about big, awe-inspiring State projects as doubts about “America’s” ability to do big things. It’s just assumed that anything requiring extensive collaboration must be done via State power for it to count. Questions of the value, cost, or feasibility (or some combination thereof) of any particular project are sealed off from the word “if.” And of course “we” is never carefully unpacked.
    
8. The Gap: I wrote a whole book about why the following involves fallacious thinking. The fallacy goes something like this: “The free market widens the gap between rich and poor.” Now, strictly speaking that claim might be correct. But so what? I’ll pass over the problem that the “free market” has probably already been attacked with the unicorn fallacy at some prior point in the same hypothetical conversation. In any case, because economies are dynamic, the “rich” and “poor” change from day to day, and measured in quintiles, we don’t know whether the “gap” will be greater or smaller from one day to the next, even assuming a free market. The real problem with such reasoning is the built-in assumption that a gap itself is a bad thing. Suppose a really tall man moves into my neighborhood. Apart from my suddenly wishing I were taller, does the presence of the tall man make me worse off somehow? Of course not. The existence of the rich person doesn’t make me worse off, either, unless he got rich by using political means to transfer money from my pocket to his. This happens all the time. But such transfers have nothing whatsoever to do with free markets.
   
   Measuring an asset gap in and of itself tells us little. Indeed, without the functional story of how any gap came to be—stories, not snapshots matter here—we can’t make any judgments about it whatsoever. “Gap” talk is just a fetish that ignores how much better off the poor are thanks to the existence of innovators and entrepreneurs who got rich by creating value. And the unstated assumption is that if any group of people has more wealth at any particular point, the people with less are somehow being wronged simply because the other group has more. The gap fallacy is also meant to preempt debate, usually in the service of another agenda (which is rarely more than reinforcing the opponent's opinion of himself as a good guy).
    
9. The Two-Step: Some opponents will simply change the subject in the middle of a discussion, leaving the original claim by the wayside. Usually neither party notices the two-step. For example, the opponent may refuse to answer the libertarian’s direct question and instead respond with another question. Or the debater may slide into one or another irrelevant point that has no bearing on the original point at issue. This process can go on for a while unless the libertarian rigorously brings the opponent back to the original point. The red herring, ad hoc and non sequitur are similar enough fallacies, so the two-step may also be classified as an evasive tactic.
    
10. Panglossian Fallacy: Because the military-industrial complex was somehow involved in developing aspects of what later became the commercialized Internet, it follows that government funding is indispensable for such wonderful things to appear—and that all the things that go along with the funding (and revenue-collection) apparatus are therefore also acceptable. This variation of the post hoc fallacy is seductive particularly because we can never know what would have happened in the counterfactual private sector. Form: If it happened, it must be the best of possible worlds. (See also the “The Government R&D Canard.”)
     
11. Your Side: Also known as tarring with the same brush, this fallacy has a couple of related forms (see No. 1 and No. 3). An opponent may accuse the libertarian of being a Republican or Tea Party conservative because he or she happens to agree with a majority of Republicans on some particular issue. One hears: “Your side thinks . . . ” when in actuality the libertarian doesn’t have a “side” per se. It works even better as a tactic if there is really no connection at all apart from being something the opponent’s “side” would never say. The “your side” fallacy allows the opponent to appeal directly to tribal biases, which are more immediate and powerful than any argument. When it’s intentional, this rhetorical maneuver is meant to appeal to others who may be watching—the hope being that they’ll swerve into the ditch that is their own biases.
     
12. The We/Society Fallacy: This common form of hypostatization occurs when the user ascribes rational individual agency to “society” and conflates or confuses society with the State. Both usually happen immediately, or somewhere hidden, before the opponent even speaks. The opponent wants his moral position or emotional state to be reflected somehow in the organization of society.
    
     Although “we” or “society” is a useful ersatz word that appears to confer legitimacy on some aspect of the opponent’s claim, it is almost always an intellectual sleight-of-hand. Only individuals can act. Groups must work through processes of either collaboration or coercion. (Note: “The market” is often misused this way, by both supporters and detractors.)
     
13. Deus ex Machina/Market Failure: People is people. And yet opponents sometimes think that it’s enough to argue that governments, by dint of largess and force, have the power to fix certain kinds of problems, which they label “market failures” because they happened outside the purview of State action. Note that this only works in one direction: Problems in any area covered by the State are usually chalked up to being problems merely of execution, whereas “market failures” allegedly reflect an inherent deficiency. Even if one agrees that one set of people working in voluntary cooperation cannot solve some problem (or at least haven’t yet), it does not follow that another group of people—“the government”—can. Indeed, greats like James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock have given us very good reasons why government is not likely to solve problems and will likely make matters worse.
     
14. The Organic Fallacy: Such arguments take the form, “It’s organic therefore it’s good or good for you.” Or similarly, “It’s not organic therefore it’s bad or bad for you.” One hears this rationale to demand regulations and food labeling. And while there may be independent reasons to justify such regulations or labeling, these are not justified by the organic fallacy. It’s not clear that Socrates would argue for the health benefits of natural hemlock, nor would people with thyroidectomies argue they should go without Synthroid. I would add that, until there is more evidence to the contrary, there are plenty of GMOs that are good for me. (Note: Plenty of libertarians commit this fallacy too. Just because Monsanto is a rent-seeker doesn’t mean all its products are bad.)
     
15. Nobel Fallacy: You may recognize the form “X has a Nobel Prize in economics, who are you to argue against his claims?” I don’t care whether Krugman or Stiglitz has a Nobel Prize, they’re wrong about just about everything.
    
    And the truth or falsity of one’s claim doesn’t depend on his credentials. (Meanwhile Nobel Laureates James Buchanan, Vernon Smith, Elinor Ostrom, Douglass North, Milton Friedman, and Friedrich Hayek are mostly always right. I mean, that’s like 6–2 for the good guys. [*rimshot*])
     
16. No Parks for You: Snarkier opponents of libertarianism rhetorically ask why libertarians avail themselves of all the goods and services government happens to provide. “If you’re going to live by your principles, you can’t use X or Y” (insert: state universities or public roads). Of course, it does not follow that one should not avail himself of some good or service he thinks should be provided by other means.
    
    Indeed, one could argue that he is more than justified in consuming some good or service he has been forced to pay for against his will.
     
17. The Self-Exile Fallacy: Snarkier still is the opponent who argues that “If you don’t like it, why don’t you just leave?” Implicit in this question is the suggestion that there is some positive duty for one to leave a condition he doesn’t like and/or that by one’s staying, he his implicitly consenting to whatever the system is. By this “logic,” if you have just bought a house with an ‘80s bathroom, instead of improving, changing, or upgrading it, you should just take a bath in the kitchen sink.
     
18. Somalia: Opponents love to tell you that Somalia must be a “libertarian paradise.” Everyone laughs. If you respond with a phrase like “comparative institutional analysis,” everyone’s eyes glaze over and you lose, despite being correct. Somalia has been better off on most dimensions without a central government than it was under a brutal, centralized regime—warlordism notwithstanding.
     
19. Social Contract: Rousseau left a terrible intellectual legacy. And progressives use his “social contract” to justify anything under the statist’s sun.
    
    Of course, there could be a real social contract, but libertarian opponents prefer the one that allows them to justify anything under . . .
     
20. Start Somewhere: You’ve slogged through the data. You’ve offered a completely rational response. You’ve explained the ins and outs of why your opponent’s policy X won’t work and why it may even make things worse. The response? “We’ve got to start somewhere.” The idea here is that it’s better to do, well, anything—even if it might result in calamity. And, of course, the State must do that potentially calamitous thing. (See also No. 23.)
     
21. Social Darwinism: “The free market is just social Darwinism!” This is actually a pretty old meme. It was used by progressive academics in the 1940s to smear the work of Herbert Spencer. Spencer was a biological Darwinist to be sure. And he also thought the market and social phenomena like institutions and ideas would be subjected to analogous evolutionary forces. But the unit of survival in markets is the business, not the individual. In other words, businesses that fail to create value for customers die. But advocating for free people to engage in voluntary exchange is not advocating people leave the weak, poor, or vulnerable to suffer.
    
    Quite the contrary. Most advocates of the free market believe a robust philanthropy sector is part and parcel to a system of voluntary exchange. Herbert Spencer thought so too. He writes: “Of course, in so far as the severity of this process is mitigated by the spontaneous sympathy of men for each other, it is proper that it should be mitigated.”
     
22. Argumentum Ad Googlum: This fallacy proceeds when the libertarian makes a good point or builds a stellar case, or asks a question the opponent can’t answer. The opponent disappears for a while frantically Googling away. The opponent comes back with a series of links that stand in for argument. To be fair, this isn’t always a fallacy, as some will use links to support their claims. But often the tactic is used to thrust the burden of debate back onto the libertarian who is expected to read through the links and infer some point. At best, it’s bad form.
     
23. We’ve Got to Do Something!: Related to the “start somewhere” fallacy, “We’ve got to do something!” is an argument that really means (a) the State has to do something, and (b) State action is preferable to both no action or private action. Numerous examples of this fallacy appear when opponents think any action riding on good intentions is good enough, consequences be damned. Often, however, it can be demonstrated that it is better for government to do nothing and to stop doing what it’s already doing. (Examples include stimulus spending, regulation, and other forms of intervention.) For government to do nothing is rarely presented as premise subject to debate and evaluation. Someone genuinely open to ideas would ask, “What should be done about this?” and “Who should do it?” Someone genuinely interested in answers would have the courtesy to make explicit what they already believe: “The government has to do something, which is beyond debate. Here’s what I think that something should be.”
     
24. Empirical Fallacy: A familiar opponents’ refrain of late is: How do we know X isn’t going to work until we try it? We have to wait and see the empirical evidence before calling X a failure. With such reasoning we should let monkeys go to Washington and type randomly into a big machine that spits out statutes at random. Well, we already do this in a manner of speaking, but it might be a good idea to look at some well-established economic theory and economic thinking before sallying forth into legislative adventures that could have both predictably perverse and unintended consequences. More importantly, the opponent presumes it is the prerogative of the State—and, by extension, any governmental group within the State apparatus—to experiment on those under its auspices, and that it is the duty of the subjects in that jurisdiction to submit to the experimentation. (Also called the Pelosi Fallacy.)
     
25. No True Libertarian: Ever heard of the No True Scotsman fallacy? Usually it’s applied by someone in a group to question another’s membership in that same group in terms of their ideological purity. Libertarians are famous for saying to each other “If you think X, you’re no libertarian.” But libertarians’ opponents use a variation of this, too. They’ll say something like “Libertarians believe in X. If you don’t, you’re no libertarian.” (X might be natural rights, collective non-State action, a social safety net, etc.) The No True Libertarian fallacy is a way of trying to force the libertarian to choose between a subtle variation in his argument and his own doctrine. It implies the libertarian lacks credibility: “This clown doesn’t know what he thinks!” Of course, such a tack has no bearing on the truth or falsity of either party’s claims, or the validity of their arguments. Libertarianism is a diverse school of thought. It is not a monolith. One need only demonstrate the consistency of his argument.
     
26. Fascist Ignorance: This one should be familiar: Libertarian opponents were outraged—OUTRAGED—when John Mackey pointed out quite correctly on NPR that Obamacare is a fascist policy. Fascism is, of course, a doctrine that calls for significant State control over private industries, to be carried out in the service of State ends. So the fallacy of fascist ignorance is a form of ad hominem in which a libertarian opponent refers to the libertarian or his views as “fascist” despite, strictly speaking, holding fascist views herself. (One might also refer to this as the “Chicken calling the cow ‘poultry’” fallacy.) In the interests of good discourse, however, it’s probably not wise for anyone to evoke the power of the “F” word at all, given how much baggage it carries.
     
27. Just One Life: The emotional appeal, grounded in nothing substantive, is meant to be a moralistic shutdown card. It goes “I’m sorry, but if we can save just one life with this policy, it’s worth it.” What does that even mean? Does it mean that every life has infinite value? Does it mean that saving lives at the expense of others and all other considerations is the purpose of government? Or does it mean that “worth it” is completely vague, but you just care a lot? It’s a heroic-sounding sentiment, but it demonstrates only the speaker’s commitment and earnestness—not any analysis of the policy itself.
     
28. Consensus: This hybrid of the bandwagon and appeal to authority fallacies infects lots of discourse. It takes the form, “Lots of really smart and educated people believe X, therefore it’s true.” From the USDA food pyramid dieticians to macroeconomists, authorities are not always right.
    
    There are limits to any individual’s Fability to understand all the nuances of a given issue. Prediction and forecast are even more difficult. Political decision-makers must confront the same exact same cognitive limitations as mere mortals, which is why they, like libertarian debate opponents, rely far too heavily on expert “consensus.”
     
29. Logo-phallo-euro-centric: Opponents accuse libertarianism of being hostile to women, minorities, homosexuals, and other marginalized groups. The fallacy lies in the idea that if your doctrine doesn’t acknowledge that groups deserve special, State-sanctioned treatment at the expense of other groups or individuals, it’s tantamount to some ism. Some even go as far as to say that if you use certain language some construe as racist, sexist, or homophobic, it invalidates libertarian doctrine. While many libertarians act like idiots and should probably not overreact to collectivist PC victim narratives with foul language, libertarian doctrine is at root a doctrine of anything peaceful—voluntary cooperation, decentralized power, and radical community formation. The heroes of libertarianism (of all races, sexes, and ethnic backgrounds) knew that collectivism and Statism are interdependent world views: It takes evoking collectivism and inventing group rights (or wrongs) to justify most State actions, and the State has historically had the power systematically to prop up or tear down people by group.
       
30. You'll have to go here to read #30.  Heck, the guy went to all that trouble to make this list and you need to send him some traffic!!

The Rich Are Different Than You And Me. They Read.

Dave Ramsey recently featured a neat list of factoids generated by Thomas C. Corley, author of "Rich Habits".  Here's Corley's list of things that differentiate the wealthy from the rest of us.  I've known a lot of rich folks, and this list rings true. 

Contrary to the belief system of the statists and the redistributionists, it appears that most rich people are rich because they planned to be rich.  Or, to phrase it properly, they had a goal and worked toward it.  The money came later. 

1. 70% of wealthy eat less than 300 junk food calories per day. 97% of poor people eat more than 300 junk food calories per day. 23% of wealthy gamble. 52% of poor people gamble.


2. 80% of wealthy are focused on accomplishing some single goal. Only 12% of the poor do this.

3. 76% of wealthy exercise aerobically 4 days a week. 23% of poor do this.

4. 63% of wealthy listen to audio books during commute to work vs. 5% for poor people.

5. 81% of wealthy maintain a to-do list vs. 19% for poor.

6. 63% of wealthy parents make their children read 2 or more non-fiction books a month vs. 3% for poor.

7. 70% of wealthy parents make their children volunteer 10 hours or more a month vs. 3% for poor.

8. 80% of wealthy make hbd calls vs. 11% of poor

9. 67% of wealthy write down their goals vs. 17% for poor

10. 88% of wealthy read 30 minutes or more each day for education or career reasons vs 2% for poor.

11. 6% of wealthy say what’s on their mind vs. 69% for poor.

12. 79% of wealthy network 5 hours or more each month vs. 16% for poor.

13. 67% of wealthy watch 1 hour or less of TV. every day vs. 23% for poor

14. 6% of wealthy watch reality TV vs. 78% for poor.

15. 44% of wealthy wake up 3 hours before work starts vs.3% for poor.

16. 74% of wealthy teach good daily success habits to their children vs. 1% for poor.

17. 84% of wealthy believe good habits create opportunity luck vs. 4% for poor.

18. 76% of wealthy believe bad habits create detrimental luck vs. 9% for poor.

19. 86% of wealthy believe in life-long educational self-improvement vs. 5% for poor.

20. 86% of wealthy love to read vs. 26% for poor.

On a related note, here's The Whited Sepulchre list for avoiding poverty.  I've seen variations of studies about this all over the 'net, and the documentation should be easy to find.  Poverty doesn't hit people at random.  If you live in the USA, and do the following, it is unlikely that you will end up in poverty. 

1.  Finish high school.

2. Get a job, any job, as soon as legally possible.  Mow yards.  Sack groceries.  Whatever.  Get something, anything, to fill up that "Previous Experience" section of your future job applications. 

3. Don't get pregnant until you are married, and don't get married until you're 21. 

4. Don't become a drug addict. 

5. Vote for Libertarians. 

Quote of the decade, from Wes Benedict

The Libertarian Party of Texas recently sponsored a tax debate.  "Low Taxes vs. No Taxes"

Former LP Chair Wes Benedict, defending the "No Taxes" side, let loose with this gem:

"I'd rather see my dollars burned then see them go to the government." 

Wow. 

But think about it.  How do you feel about sponsoring the following:

The NSA

The Department of Energy

Lois Lerner

George W. Bush

The war in Afghanistan

Barack Obama

The war in Libya (yeah, there is one)

Aid To Families With Dependent Children (only pays if one parent leaves)

Social Security (totally mismanaged, and as broke as the 10 Commandments)

The war in Iraq

Jimmy Carter

The war in Yemen

Waste and inefficiency

Elaborate parties and conferences for the IRS and GAO

The Federal Reserve banking system

The place on Blue Mound Road in Fort Worth where the Fed prints is increasingly worthless paper money

Wiretaps

The 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world, exceptions to which are sold like Big Macs

The Drug War

Providing 46% of the world's military spending, therefore encouraging terrorism

John Kerry

Hillary Clinton

Condi Rice

Support of Teachers' Unions

The Texas Department of Transportation

FEMA

Insane tariff and quota regulations which do nothing but add overhead

I'm typing as quickly as I can, and have to start work soon.  I bet I could go all day.  I repeat.... Here is the quote of the decade, from Wes Benedict of the Libertarian Party.  If you disagree, I've got some farmland in the Everglades I'd like to sell you.....

"I'd rather see my dollars burned then see them go to the government."

The Top 100 Science Fiction And Fantasy Books

National Socialist Radio listeners have participated in a project to compile The Top 100 Science Fiction And Fantasy Books. 

Denny and a lot of other bloggers have participated in a meme where you copy the NSR list, highlight the ones you've read, and provide any commentary that would encourage others to read some of the titles that you've enjoyed. 

I'm not a huge fan of the Sci-Fi/Fantasy genre, mostly because any time the hero gets in trouble, the authors can instantly save him with a time warp, an enchanted spatula, an unexpected invasion of liberators from the planet Nekthar, or a magical stimulus package.  But I was surprised at how many of these I've read. 

Enjoy ! 

1. The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy, by J.R.R. Tolkien

This is the ultimate fantasy trilogy.  A friend of The Whited Mama, Mrs. Merritt, recommended it to me when I was in the 8th grade.  Mrs. Merritt had read the series 3 or 4 times.  I devoured these puppies.  You've never known true joy until those hobbits get rid of that dang ring. 

2. The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, by Douglas Adams

You will laugh until you cry.  I almost ruptured a gut during the sequence where Marvin The Paranoid Android gets left behind in the space time continuum and has to park cars at The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe for billions of years until he can rejoin his buddies in "the present".  Please don't judge this thing by the movie adaptation.  This is brilliant stuff.  I wish it could have been number 42 on this list, though. 

3. Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card

4. The Dune Chronicles, by Frank Herbert

The first book in the series is pure, undiluted greatness.  Herbert creates an entire culture that the reader can totally buy into - grammar, traditions, religion, coming-of-age rituals, laws, diet, clothing, the works.  The second is good.  The third is blah.  All the other stuff after that is dull.  I bet if you read the first one, you'll still try to read the all the rest, kinda like a crack addict trying to get that old feeling back. 

5. A Song Of Ice And Fire Series, by George R. R. Martin

6. 1984, by George Orwell

Yes, Big Brother is watching you.  And he's not happy that you're reading anything on this site. 

7. Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury

The best anti-censorship book EVER.  Read it, and you'll never forget the temperature at which paper spontaneously ignites.  Bradbury's best? 

8. The Foundation Trilogy, by Isaac Asimov

I didn't read all of this.  Therefore it is only half-highlighted.  I usually liked Asimov's non-fiction essays more than his novels.   

9. Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley

"And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins

When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins."

10. American Gods, by Neil Gaiman

11. The Princess Bride, by William Goldman

Hilarious.  Joyous.  Wonderful storytelling.  Loved it, loved it, loved it.  And they didn't screw up the movie.  Inconceivable.  I don't think that means what you think it means.  And I am not left-handed.  Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.     

12. The Wheel Of Time Series, by Robert Jordan

13. Animal Farm, by George Orwell

As Timothy The Tax Cheat Geithner will tell you, "some are more equal than others".  Animal Farm - we're living on it. 

14. Neuromancer, by William Gibson

15. Watchmen, by Alan Moore

Watchmen is a graphic novel.  For people over 60, that's what they're now calling lengthy comic books.  I liked it ok, but didn't think it was worth inclusion in Time magazine's Top 100 Novels list.  Because of this graphic novel, all references that I make to "Ozymandias" are misunderstood.   

16. I, Robot, by Isaac Asimov

I think I finished it. 

17. Stranger In A Strange Land, by Robert Heinlein

I grokked it in a big way.  One of the best libertarian novels ever written. 

18. The Kingkiller Chronicles, by Patrick Rothfuss

19. Slaughterhouse-Five, by Kurt Vonnegut

20. Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley

Frankenstein isn't about being afraid of a monster.  It's about how horrible it would be to live as a monster. 

21. Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?, by Philip K. Dick

Even if you haven't read PKD's books, you're probably familiary with some of the movies they spawned - Blade Runner, Total Recall, and Minority Report.  This theme seems to have driven Philip K. Dick stark raving mad....  How do we know that we really experienced something in the past?  How do we know that we weren't all created 15 minutes ago, with common non-contradictory memories?  This guy makes my head hurt. 

22. The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood

Margaret Atwood has a typing fit where she imagines a religious fundamentalist takeover of the U.S. after nuclear war makes most of the women sterile and races are segregated again, and nobody can wear makeup and women can't drive cars.  Kind of a left-wing rape fantasy. 

23. The Dark Tower Series, by Stephen King

I think I own all the volumes of this, but I'm saving them for my old age. 

24. 2001: A Space Odyssey, by Arthur C. Clarke

I read this in the North Sunflower Academy library when I was too young to understand it.  I need to revisit this one.  Every time Barack Obama discovers that some Socialist/Keynesian policy will not work, it reminds me of the chimps crowding around the metal tower and discovering how to use tools. 

25. The Stand, by Stephen King

This is a big fat story that you can get lost in, with a good vs. evil plot.  King has a great time destroying the world and populating it with dozens of memorable characters: Trashcan Man, Mother Abigail, The Walking Dude, and that washed-up, one-hit-wonder, rock singer.  This is one of my favorites.  Buy the really long uncut version. 

26. Snow Crash, by Neal Stephenson

27. The Martian Chronicles, by Ray Bradbury

If bookstores still exist 50 years from now, Ray Bradbury will probably be shelved in the Literature section, not Sci-Fi. 

28. Cat's Cradle, by Kurt Vonnegut

29. The Sandman Series, by Neil Gaiman

30. A Clockwork Orange, by Anthony Burgess

My friend Roger and I were discussing this one last night.  If you take away someone's free will with drugs, is he still a human? 

31. Starship Troopers, by Robert Heinlein

Imagine a semi-fascist society where everyone lives to serve the state, and the state assigns them their careers, and some of them are sent off to fight giant bugs.  Good stuff.  Bad movie.  It's so bad that you'll watch it over and over.  "It's an ugly planet !  A BUG planet !" 

32. Watership Down, by Richard Adams

I've not thought about this before, but this one belongs on the list for the same reason as Frankenstein.  Frankenstein is about how horrible it would be to live as a monster.  Watership is about how horrible it would be to live as prey. 

33. Dragonflight, by Anne McCaffrey

34. The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, by Robert Heinlein

Haven't read it, but it's on my Bucket List. 

35. A Canticle For Leibowitz, by Walter M. Miller

36. The Time Machine, by H.G. Wells

Read it a long, long time ago.  Those underground Morlock things gave me bad dreams.   

37. 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, by Jules Verne

Read it after I went on the ride at Disneyland, sometime in the 4th or 5th grade. 

38. Flowers For Algernon, by Daniel Keys

Read it in Jr. High School and thought it was ok.  Tried it again a few years ago, and it wasn't ok. 

39. The War Of The Worlds, by H.G. Wells

If we ever make contact with other planets, this is what The Feds will use to justify more spending.   

40. The Chronicles Of Amber, by Roger Zelazny

41. The Belgariad, by David Eddings

42. The Mists Of Avalon, by Marion Zimmer Bradley

43. The Mistborn Series, by Brandon Sanderson

44. Ringworld, by Larry Niven

45. The Left Hand Of Darkness, by Ursula K. LeGuin

46. The Silmarillion, by J.R.R. Tolkien

Phenomenally dull stuff.  Like George Lucas discovered in doing Star Wars Episodes 1,2, and 3, there are times when you should produce something great and then leave it alone.

47. The Once And Future King, by T.H. White

48. Neverwhere, by Neil Gaiman

49. Childhood's End, by Arthur C. Clarke

50. Contact, by Carl Sagan

Pure, undiluted greatness.  I love, love, love this book.  Love it, love it, love it.  I will give you a dollar if you read this book.   

51. The Hyperion Cantos, by Dan Simmons

52. Stardust, by Neil Gaiman

53. Cryptonomicon, by Neal Stephenson

54. World War Z, by Max Brooks

55. The Last Unicorn, by Peter S. Beagle

56. The Forever War, by Joe Haldeman

57. Small Gods, by Terry Pratchett

58. The Chronicles Of Thomas Covenant, The Unbeliever, by Stephen R. Donaldson

59. The Vorkosigan Saga, by Lois McMaster Bujold

60. Going Postal, by Terry Pratchett

61. The Mote In God's Eye, by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle

62. The Sword Of Truth, by Terry Goodkind

63. The Road, by Cormac McCarthy

This is one of the darkest things I've ever read, and I'm a fan of darkness.  Post-apocalyptic meldown.  Two people trying to get from Point A to Point B.  You never get the names of the two main characters, the man and the boy.  This might be McCarthy's best novel, in spite of serious competition. 

64. Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, by Susanna Clarke

65. I Am Legend, by Richard Matheson

If you like Zombie combat, this is your book. 

66. The Riftwar Saga, by Raymond E. Feist

67. The Shannara Trilogy, by Terry Brooks

68. The Conan The Barbarian Series, by R.E. Howard

69. The Farseer Trilogy, by Robin Hobb

70. The Time Traveler's Wife, by Audrey Niffenegger

71. The Way Of Kings, by Brandon Sanderson

72. A Journey To The Center Of The Earth, by Jules Verne

73. The Legend Of Drizzt Series, by R.A. Salvatore

74. Old Man's War, by John Scalzi

75. The Diamond Age, by Neil Stephenson

76. Rendezvous With Rama, by Arthur C. Clarke

77. The Kushiel's Legacy Series, by Jacqueline Carey

78. The Dispossessed, by Ursula K. LeGuin

79. Something Wicked This Way Comes, by Ray Bradbury

80. Wicked, by Gregory Maguire

81. The Malazan Book Of The Fallen Series, by Steven Erikson

82. The Eyre Affair, by Jasper Fforde

83. The Culture Series, by Iain M. Banks

84. The Crystal Cave, by Mary Stewart

85. Anathem, by Neal Stephenson

86. The Codex Alera Series, by Jim Butcher

87. The Book Of The New Sun, by Gene Wolfe

88. The Thrawn Trilogy, by Timothy Zahn

89. The Outlander Series, by Diana Gabaldan

90. The Elric Saga, by Michael Moorcock

91. The Illustrated Man, by Ray Bradbury

Greatness.  Nothing but Bradbury short stories, tied together with a guy who is tattooed all over.  If I remember correctly, you don't have to read them in order, which makes for convenient bathroom reading.  (You know, for when you just need something to keep you occupied for five minutes.) 

92. Sunshine, by Robin McKinley

93. A Fire Upon The Deep, by Vernor Vinge

94. The Caves Of Steel, by Isaac Asimov

95. The Mars Trilogy, by Kim Stanley Robinson

96. Lucifer's Hammer, by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle

97. Doomsday Book, by Connie Willis

98. Perdido Street Station, by China Mieville

99. The Xanth Series, by Piers Anthony

100. The Space Trilogy, by C.S. Lewis

I think Lewis's theological parables (Screwtape Letters, The Great Divorce) are better than these.  I don't think I ever finished the 2nd one. 

That's the list.  I hope it was helpful.  I'm going to try to read the Vonnegut stuff.   

Top Ten reasons why the rich should be allowed to keep even more of their money

Here are the Top Ten Reasons why the rich should be allowed to keep even more of their money than they're currently keeping:

1) Because if The Federal Government takes their money, The Federal Government will probably do harmful things with it.

There are no other reasons. 

For those who haven't been screwed enough....

From The Huffington Post:

The Asia Adult Expo in China is offering anyone who's ever fantasized about making love in the Oval Office the next best thing, having unveiled an inflatable sex doll in Obama's likeness at the event last week.

....Just whom this doll will appeal to is anyone's guess. Is it for those who want to love Obama, or for those who want to hate him?

Ok, let's see what we can do with this....Gotta be at work in 30 minutes....

TOP 10 REASONS THAT INFLATABLE OBAMA IS BETTER THAN PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA !

1) The inflatable version doesn't make a mess of everything it touches
2) The Obama Doll can be discarded BEFORE four years are up
3) Inflatable Barry can be left alone in the house with your money
4) Unlike the real Barack, this one will never give you a Porkulus Package, Cash For Clunkers, Card Check, Cap'n'Tax, or anything else that is too much to...ummm....swallow 
5) No tiresome conversations about who drove the car into the ditch
6) No spills in your gulf - Guaranteed !!! 
7) None of inflatable Barry's pre-recorded phrases begin with "Let me be clear"
8) The Obama Doll produces less hot air and fewer greenhouse gases
9) Inflatable Barack can actually provide a stimulus
10) If something happens to your Obama sex doll, you aren't given the Joe Biden sex doll as a replacement