Bruce Edward Walker, frequent SFE lecturer, gives his take on Cantor and Cox's "Literature and the Economics of Liberty". This is an excerpt originally posted by the Acton Institute. 

In recent decades, literary criticism has championed several schools that disavow common-sense economics in favor of more private and personal agendas. The "personal is political" formulation long ago crept into English departments, at the expense of more traditional understandings of the warp and weave of Western civilization. Beginning in the mid to late 20th century, students were subjected to successive waves of New Criticism, Marxist theory, queer theory, feminist theory, and deconstructionism — all guilty of squeezing square pegs into round holes in order to further individual reputations and engineer social change rather than increase knowledge of the human condition through the arts.

The human condition is, no matter how much theorists would prefer to believe otherwise, economic as well as spiritual, sexual, and political. After all, even atheist transsexual Marxists need to trade something for food, clothing, and shelter, do they not?

A valid question for the creators and critics: What provides the best economic model to ensure the happiness of the seven billion inhabitants of this earth? And what of the billion or more characters inhabiting our planet's literature?

Read more...

From Jarrett Skorup at Michigan Capitol Confidential:

According to MIRS Capitol Capsule (subscription required), the Michigan Lodging and Tourism Association (MLTA) is "hoping to send a clear message to lame duck legislative leaders — don't you leave town without funding Pure Michigan."

The private trade group wants public funds to advance their industry, and to this end they've launched a billboard campaign:

Businesses advocating for government funds is nothing new, but it is interesting that the MLTA will use private funds (donated by the Outdoor Advertising Association) in order to pressure lawmakers to get them taxpayer dollars for advertising. The industry goes the long route instead of just paying for the advertisements themselves, which they have refused to do.

As Michael LaFaive previously reported: "In the industry's own 2007-2011 strategic planning report, titled 'Michigan Tourism Strategic Plan,' the authors write:

There is absolutely no industry support for a broad-based industry self-assessment approach to generate sufficient monies to fund Travel Michigan. Last year, TICOM (Tourism Industry Coalition of Michigan) created a special task force to explore such an approach. Without exception, representatives from a variety of tourism industry segments indicated their members and/or Boards would strongly oppose such an approach."

The group also cites a study that says the Pure Michigan funding "pays off in the long run." But apparently the MLTA isn't confident enough about the long run to put up their own money. Instead, the group is simply attempting to rob taxpayer Peter to pay industry Paul.

A more honest billboard would read: "Hey Taxpayers…Fund Our Advertising Now!"