I just recieved this request for submissions to The Undercurrent and thought that my readers may like to check it out and respond to it.
***
The Undercurrent, a national Objectivist campus publication, is now accepting submissions for its back-to-school issue, due to hit the presses in the first week of September. The article draft submission deadline is July 28th.
Please send all submissions and inquiries to mail@the-undercurrent.com .
You are welcome as always to send us your article ideas, or an outline to review, if you would like feedback from our editors in advance of the deadline. Please visit our website, the-undercurrent.com , for a review of submission guidelines and to peruse our past issues.
Thanks,
_The Undercurrent_ staff
Which is here.
************************************************
I also recieved an email asking if I would mind doing a review of a two hour documentary on the Discovery Channel called "Global Warming: What You Need To Know" hosted by Tom Brokaw This Sunday night at 9 PM. I agreed. I am not a scientist of any kind so I will be reviewing the doc. strictly from a laymans's perspective. It will probably appear on my blog Monday or Tuesday at the latest.
stat counnnter
Friday, July 14, 2006
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Unity
On Sunday 7/09/06 The Detroit Free Press's editorial page editor Ron Dzwonkowski ran his second editorial calling for unity in politics.
"I heard from a surprising number of people after writing recently about Unity08, the nascent political movement that is trying to depolarize this divided land.
I do not hold out great hope for the effort, but extrapolating the level of
local interest in it tells me that there are millions of Americans who are fed up and frustrated with the state of politics in this country and looking for an alternative to bickering, conniving Democrats and Republicans."
I think that bickering and conniving will always be part of politics. But bickering and conniving are not evil in and of themselves and have no value apart from that about which one is bickering and conniving. Mr. Dzwonkowski goes on to present a few anecdotes of people upset with the status quo then says:
"That's not what Unity08 wants. The Internet-based organization is trying to channel all this disaffection into support for a presidential ticket in '08 that would be pledged to really do something about important issues -- global terrorism, dependence on foreign oil, the spread of nuclear weapons, dealing with the emerging economic power of China and India and shrinking our national debt. Way down on the agenda would be such divisive issues as gun control, gay rights and abortion."
From this I get the impression that the problem really isn't divisiveness but lack of action, no one wants to "do something" about the issues. It's as if the politicians are paralyzed by a ritual of humming and hawing over trying to get the approval of a sufficient number of people, a consensus, before one lifts a finger to do anything. This fact is alluded to in the next sentence:
*"This government just doesn't know or is unwilling or unable to address what is really important," said Joe Alam, 68, a financial consultant from Grosse Pointe and formerly an active Republican.*
I would have to say Mr. Alam is right on all counts. The government is unable to do what is right because it is unwilling to justify its actions on the proper moral grounds and that is because it doesn't know what those grounds are. It is impossible to solve problems of rational self-interest while trying to justify them on grounds of self-sacrifice.
Let's take a look at the specific problems enunciated above by Mr. Dzwonkowski. It is in our rational self-interest to fight global terrorism and when Bush defended his plan to take out Afganistan and Iraq as matters of self defense, the nation was pretty much united behind him. But now he seems to have stopped half way and is leaving Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia intact while justifying military operations on the grounds that we must make sacrifices to bring freedom and prosperity to these two nations. Also, the policy of leaving those three above mentioned nations alone to send in an unlimited supply of jihadists to keep killing our soldiers and Iraqi ones too is a policy of self-sacrifice, of sacrificing coalition and Iraqi troops to the enemy and the civilian populations that support them.
It is in our rational self-interest to have a secure supply of oil at reasonable prices. To drill in Anwar and to open up the 85% of offshore land presently off limits to drilling is in our self-interest. But Americans are asked to make sacrifices to the Caribu and things swimming offshore. They are also asked to sacrifice their standard of living by giving up our desire to drive, stay cool in the summer and generally enjoy life with labor saving devices. Bush tried to achieve drilling in Anwar and offshore on the grounds that we need to lessen our dependency on foreign oil. But when congress cried that we must sacrifice for the Caribu and fishes, he didn't know how to answer them. He was paralyzed. He can't go against sacrifice because he believes in it himself.
It is in our self-interest to curtail the spread of nuclear weapons. It was not in our self-interest to negotiate with N. Korea in the 90's or with Iran now. But we are doing so on the grounds that their right to self-determination is just as valid as ours. In other words, by negotiating, our right to live is being sacrificed to their right to kill us. The proper rational self-interest thing to do with Iran and N.Korea is and would have been, to take them out. But such action cannot be justified on the grounds of self-sacrifice. Thus, no action is taken, just talks and more talks. This pattern holds true of the rest of 'important issues' as well.
I agree with Mr. Dzwonkowski that more unity would be a good thing, but only if that unity is around or about some good idea or ideal. Unity as such has no value apart from that which one seeks to unify. There is unity in a lynch mob. Is that a good thing? Of course not. In the 1930's, the German people were united behind the idea that Hitler and his Nazi party would be good for Germany. Look what that unity achieved.
There was a time when Americans were more united than today, but that unity was around a set of principles we call our Constitution. Over time we have abandoned or compromised those principles until today we are being pulled apart by those who want America to stand up for itself and do what is in its rational self-interest, and those who want America to sacrifice its interest to the interests of everyone and everything else. As Ayn Rand pointed out, the two competing moralities of self-interest and self-sacrifice cannot exist for long in the same man or the same nation. I would only add, nor the same policy.
(For those interested, the Unity08 website is here.
"I heard from a surprising number of people after writing recently about Unity08, the nascent political movement that is trying to depolarize this divided land.
I do not hold out great hope for the effort, but extrapolating the level of
local interest in it tells me that there are millions of Americans who are fed up and frustrated with the state of politics in this country and looking for an alternative to bickering, conniving Democrats and Republicans."
I think that bickering and conniving will always be part of politics. But bickering and conniving are not evil in and of themselves and have no value apart from that about which one is bickering and conniving. Mr. Dzwonkowski goes on to present a few anecdotes of people upset with the status quo then says:
"That's not what Unity08 wants. The Internet-based organization is trying to channel all this disaffection into support for a presidential ticket in '08 that would be pledged to really do something about important issues -- global terrorism, dependence on foreign oil, the spread of nuclear weapons, dealing with the emerging economic power of China and India and shrinking our national debt. Way down on the agenda would be such divisive issues as gun control, gay rights and abortion."
From this I get the impression that the problem really isn't divisiveness but lack of action, no one wants to "do something" about the issues. It's as if the politicians are paralyzed by a ritual of humming and hawing over trying to get the approval of a sufficient number of people, a consensus, before one lifts a finger to do anything. This fact is alluded to in the next sentence:
*"This government just doesn't know or is unwilling or unable to address what is really important," said Joe Alam, 68, a financial consultant from Grosse Pointe and formerly an active Republican.*
I would have to say Mr. Alam is right on all counts. The government is unable to do what is right because it is unwilling to justify its actions on the proper moral grounds and that is because it doesn't know what those grounds are. It is impossible to solve problems of rational self-interest while trying to justify them on grounds of self-sacrifice.
Let's take a look at the specific problems enunciated above by Mr. Dzwonkowski. It is in our rational self-interest to fight global terrorism and when Bush defended his plan to take out Afganistan and Iraq as matters of self defense, the nation was pretty much united behind him. But now he seems to have stopped half way and is leaving Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia intact while justifying military operations on the grounds that we must make sacrifices to bring freedom and prosperity to these two nations. Also, the policy of leaving those three above mentioned nations alone to send in an unlimited supply of jihadists to keep killing our soldiers and Iraqi ones too is a policy of self-sacrifice, of sacrificing coalition and Iraqi troops to the enemy and the civilian populations that support them.
It is in our rational self-interest to have a secure supply of oil at reasonable prices. To drill in Anwar and to open up the 85% of offshore land presently off limits to drilling is in our self-interest. But Americans are asked to make sacrifices to the Caribu and things swimming offshore. They are also asked to sacrifice their standard of living by giving up our desire to drive, stay cool in the summer and generally enjoy life with labor saving devices. Bush tried to achieve drilling in Anwar and offshore on the grounds that we need to lessen our dependency on foreign oil. But when congress cried that we must sacrifice for the Caribu and fishes, he didn't know how to answer them. He was paralyzed. He can't go against sacrifice because he believes in it himself.
It is in our self-interest to curtail the spread of nuclear weapons. It was not in our self-interest to negotiate with N. Korea in the 90's or with Iran now. But we are doing so on the grounds that their right to self-determination is just as valid as ours. In other words, by negotiating, our right to live is being sacrificed to their right to kill us. The proper rational self-interest thing to do with Iran and N.Korea is and would have been, to take them out. But such action cannot be justified on the grounds of self-sacrifice. Thus, no action is taken, just talks and more talks. This pattern holds true of the rest of 'important issues' as well.
I agree with Mr. Dzwonkowski that more unity would be a good thing, but only if that unity is around or about some good idea or ideal. Unity as such has no value apart from that which one seeks to unify. There is unity in a lynch mob. Is that a good thing? Of course not. In the 1930's, the German people were united behind the idea that Hitler and his Nazi party would be good for Germany. Look what that unity achieved.
There was a time when Americans were more united than today, but that unity was around a set of principles we call our Constitution. Over time we have abandoned or compromised those principles until today we are being pulled apart by those who want America to stand up for itself and do what is in its rational self-interest, and those who want America to sacrifice its interest to the interests of everyone and everything else. As Ayn Rand pointed out, the two competing moralities of self-interest and self-sacrifice cannot exist for long in the same man or the same nation. I would only add, nor the same policy.
(For those interested, the Unity08 website is here.
Friday, July 07, 2006
A Nation of Men...
I know almost nothing about new Mexican president-elect Filipe Calderon except that he is supposed to be a conservative, and I'm not sure what that means in Mexican politics. But I think this short article in the Detroit News of 7/07/06 by AP writer Will Weissert demonstrates one way a nation becomes a nation of men and not of laws: by intellectuals focusing on things like charisma instead of substance, appearence instead of ideas. Mr Weissert begins:
"MEXICO CITY -- Charisma is not Felipe Calderon's strong suit.
But the balding, bespectacled lawyer and technocrat proved to be a confident campaigner while steadily raising doubts about his wildly popular rival."
Mr. Weissert doesn't provide any evidence of Calderon's lack of charisma, unless balding, being a lawyer who wears glasses and is adept with technology somehow disqualifies one from having charisma. If Calderon was a confident campaigner, why didn't the headline say "Mexico's next boss confident campaigner"--a positive reference rather than the negative one he used? If his opponent was so wildly popular, why did he lose? Notice how he emphasizes the emotional--wildly. I assume that gives him charisma. See what's going on here? We are being encouraged to evaluate people by their outward appearence rather than their ideas. More appearences:
"Poised to become one of the youngest presidents in Mexican history, the 43-year-old Calderon won the official count in Mexico's disputed presidential race Thursday. He in many ways represents the new middle class that has burgeoned during the pro-business government of Vicente Fox.
But while he belongs to what many consider the party of the rich, he drives a 1993 Volkswagen Golf and is one of the country's few prominent politicians who hasn't amassed a personal fortune during a career in government."
While it may be interesting to some that he drives an old car and hasn't amassed a fortune and is only 43 years old, these are still non-essentials. Notice also how he refers to "the pro-business government of Vicente Fox." In other words, policy is just naturaly tied to the man and not a set of constitutional principles.
The only mention of ideas is in this paragraph:
"Raising his open palms at every rally to show he has "clean hands" and isn't corrupt, Calderon preached free-market values and financial stability, striking a chord with undecided middle-class voters weary of financial meltdowns that rocked Mexico throughout the 1970s, '80s and '90s."
If true about the free-market ideas, I might like Mr. Calderon. But on net balance I don't think Mr. Weissert intended to do any slanting. I think he was just doing what comes natural considering the culture today and its emphasis on the emotional rather than the conceptual. That's why I think, he focused on charisma.
My Webster's New World college dictionary isn't very helpful. Under charisma it gives the non-religous usage as "A special quality of leadership that captures the popular imagination and inspires unswerving allegiance and devotion." But what is the nature of this 'special quality'? No mention. Unswerving allegiance and devotion to what? An attitude? I think this is it.
My same dictionary says an attitude is "a bodily posture showing or meant to show a mental state, emotion, or mood." Mental state could mean ideas here but that doesn't change the fact that the object of the allegiance and devotion is the outward display of attitude, not its source.
Of course there can be a charisma of a rational nature. A person can integrate his values and emotions in such an automatized way that he projects an exuberance, an excitement. But the rational observer will focus his critical attention on the source of the excitement. That source could be ideas, feelings or some combination of these. That is what needs to be discerned. But to focus only on the charisma, as if it had value independent of its source, is a mistake.
When a culture evaluates its leaders based on non-essentials like charisma, it will eventually become a nation of men and not of laws. The government will then take on the personality of a man and not a set of constitutional principles. The pro-business government of Jones, or the pro-union government of Smith, or the tax and spend government of Brown, or the fiscally conservative government of White, are the kinds of choices such a culture will face. How can people tell which way to go? By who has the most charisma. No principles involved, just charm.
For example, Michigan's Governor Jennifer Granholm had lots of charisma when she was first elected. Michigan's economy is in the tank and while much of it is not her fault, she has done almost nothing to effectively fix things. Charisma cannot solve problems. Competence can.
One has to wonder why people find charismatic leaders appealing. Philosopher Ayn Rand in her essay Philosophical Detection (Philosophy: Who Needs It p18) writing about rationalization wrote "Men do not accept a catch phrase by a process of thought, they seize upon a catch phrase--any catch phrase--because it fits their emotions."
It makes sense then that such people will be easily swayed by those who are expert at formulating the right catch phrases and placing them in the most effective emotional context. There are other ways a nation becomes a nation of men. Focusing on non-esentials is just one.
(For more info on Ayn Rand go to ARI here.)
"MEXICO CITY -- Charisma is not Felipe Calderon's strong suit.
But the balding, bespectacled lawyer and technocrat proved to be a confident campaigner while steadily raising doubts about his wildly popular rival."
Mr. Weissert doesn't provide any evidence of Calderon's lack of charisma, unless balding, being a lawyer who wears glasses and is adept with technology somehow disqualifies one from having charisma. If Calderon was a confident campaigner, why didn't the headline say "Mexico's next boss confident campaigner"--a positive reference rather than the negative one he used? If his opponent was so wildly popular, why did he lose? Notice how he emphasizes the emotional--wildly. I assume that gives him charisma. See what's going on here? We are being encouraged to evaluate people by their outward appearence rather than their ideas. More appearences:
"Poised to become one of the youngest presidents in Mexican history, the 43-year-old Calderon won the official count in Mexico's disputed presidential race Thursday. He in many ways represents the new middle class that has burgeoned during the pro-business government of Vicente Fox.
But while he belongs to what many consider the party of the rich, he drives a 1993 Volkswagen Golf and is one of the country's few prominent politicians who hasn't amassed a personal fortune during a career in government."
While it may be interesting to some that he drives an old car and hasn't amassed a fortune and is only 43 years old, these are still non-essentials. Notice also how he refers to "the pro-business government of Vicente Fox." In other words, policy is just naturaly tied to the man and not a set of constitutional principles.
The only mention of ideas is in this paragraph:
"Raising his open palms at every rally to show he has "clean hands" and isn't corrupt, Calderon preached free-market values and financial stability, striking a chord with undecided middle-class voters weary of financial meltdowns that rocked Mexico throughout the 1970s, '80s and '90s."
If true about the free-market ideas, I might like Mr. Calderon. But on net balance I don't think Mr. Weissert intended to do any slanting. I think he was just doing what comes natural considering the culture today and its emphasis on the emotional rather than the conceptual. That's why I think, he focused on charisma.
My Webster's New World college dictionary isn't very helpful. Under charisma it gives the non-religous usage as "A special quality of leadership that captures the popular imagination and inspires unswerving allegiance and devotion." But what is the nature of this 'special quality'? No mention. Unswerving allegiance and devotion to what? An attitude? I think this is it.
My same dictionary says an attitude is "a bodily posture showing or meant to show a mental state, emotion, or mood." Mental state could mean ideas here but that doesn't change the fact that the object of the allegiance and devotion is the outward display of attitude, not its source.
Of course there can be a charisma of a rational nature. A person can integrate his values and emotions in such an automatized way that he projects an exuberance, an excitement. But the rational observer will focus his critical attention on the source of the excitement. That source could be ideas, feelings or some combination of these. That is what needs to be discerned. But to focus only on the charisma, as if it had value independent of its source, is a mistake.
When a culture evaluates its leaders based on non-essentials like charisma, it will eventually become a nation of men and not of laws. The government will then take on the personality of a man and not a set of constitutional principles. The pro-business government of Jones, or the pro-union government of Smith, or the tax and spend government of Brown, or the fiscally conservative government of White, are the kinds of choices such a culture will face. How can people tell which way to go? By who has the most charisma. No principles involved, just charm.
For example, Michigan's Governor Jennifer Granholm had lots of charisma when she was first elected. Michigan's economy is in the tank and while much of it is not her fault, she has done almost nothing to effectively fix things. Charisma cannot solve problems. Competence can.
One has to wonder why people find charismatic leaders appealing. Philosopher Ayn Rand in her essay Philosophical Detection (Philosophy: Who Needs It p18) writing about rationalization wrote "Men do not accept a catch phrase by a process of thought, they seize upon a catch phrase--any catch phrase--because it fits their emotions."
It makes sense then that such people will be easily swayed by those who are expert at formulating the right catch phrases and placing them in the most effective emotional context. There are other ways a nation becomes a nation of men. Focusing on non-esentials is just one.
(For more info on Ayn Rand go to ARI here.)
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Something Special
Steve Yzerman has retired. It's sad but inevitable I suppose. Like Al Kaline of the Tigers, Yzerman was a class act. When he became captain he didn't go around getting in teammates' faces. He led by example. Want to see how to score on these guys? Like this. Want to see how teamwork wins by assisting on a goal? Like this. And he would go and do it.
When you turned on a Red Wing game whether tv or radio, you knew you would be treated to something special, the play of Steve Yzerman, and you could see how that play often elevated the play of his teammates.
I will of course still watch Red Wing games even though that something special is gone now. But for all those awesome moments and great memories,
Thanks Steve!
When you turned on a Red Wing game whether tv or radio, you knew you would be treated to something special, the play of Steve Yzerman, and you could see how that play often elevated the play of his teammates.
I will of course still watch Red Wing games even though that something special is gone now. But for all those awesome moments and great memories,
Thanks Steve!
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
The Senate Candidates
On Aug 8th Michigan voters will vote in a Republican U.S. Senate primary to see who gets to run against Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow this November. The candidates are Michael Bouchard and Keith Butler. According to the Detroit Free Press today 7/05/06, Mr. "Bouchard is a former Beverly Hills police officer and council member who served in the state legislature from 1990-99, when he was appointed sheriff. He has twice been elected to that position."
Mr. "Butler was elected in 1989 to a 4-year term on the Detroit City Council and remains the only Republican to have served on the council in more that half a century. He is the founding pastor of Word of Faith International Christian Church."
As an aside, I would venture to say that if you're wondering why Detroit City is in bad shape, could it be that the Democrats have had almost exclusive control of council for 50 years? In a Detroit News article in its Metro section of June 21st titled "In population, Mich. a loss leader" By John Wisely and Amy Lee, there is a quote by mayoral spokesman James Canning: "For the past 50 years, people have been leaving in large numbers, and we're cutting into that. Our goal is to stabilize, if not add to, the population."
While it is true that Detroit is experiencing a housing growth, most of it in single family homes and downtown lofts, it can't last as long as jobs keep fleeing the state. But to get elected to anything in Detroit you had to be a strong pro-union democrat, which means you had to be anti-corporation. And 50 years of that attitude simply chases jobs out of the state. And that brings us to the job killing policies of most Mich. politicians like Debbie Stabenow.
Personally, if either of these guys beat Sen. Stabenow in Nov. I'll be happy if for no other reason than they both are in favor of drilling in Anwar. Sen. Stabenow voted against Anwar and voted for windfall profits tax on oil companies.
At the moment, I tend to favor Keith Butler because he said the following on immigration. "It's too hard to get into this country, and it takes too long. So that needs to be reformed so that legitimate people-people we want-can get here, and it doesn't take 14 years to do so." I like that position but I needto hear some details.
Do these gentleman have any serious drawbacks? You bet they do.
Mr. Butler: "I'm not for a national health care of the type that you have in Canada. ...I am not for socialized medicine. But as a principle, I believe everyone should have it." Huh?
Mr. Bouchard seems to be in favor of health savings accounts and against socialized medicine whan he says: "National health care with government running it, I think, would be a mess." But then he's in favor of providing affordable and accessible health insurance to small businesses and thaoe concepts usually mean subsidized.
I'll have to hear more from both candidates of course and whoever wins will have an uphill battle as Sen Stabenow will have the union vote. I wouldn't mind getting behind the winner just to get Stabenow out, I think. More to come.
Mr. "Butler was elected in 1989 to a 4-year term on the Detroit City Council and remains the only Republican to have served on the council in more that half a century. He is the founding pastor of Word of Faith International Christian Church."
As an aside, I would venture to say that if you're wondering why Detroit City is in bad shape, could it be that the Democrats have had almost exclusive control of council for 50 years? In a Detroit News article in its Metro section of June 21st titled "In population, Mich. a loss leader" By John Wisely and Amy Lee, there is a quote by mayoral spokesman James Canning: "For the past 50 years, people have been leaving in large numbers, and we're cutting into that. Our goal is to stabilize, if not add to, the population."
While it is true that Detroit is experiencing a housing growth, most of it in single family homes and downtown lofts, it can't last as long as jobs keep fleeing the state. But to get elected to anything in Detroit you had to be a strong pro-union democrat, which means you had to be anti-corporation. And 50 years of that attitude simply chases jobs out of the state. And that brings us to the job killing policies of most Mich. politicians like Debbie Stabenow.
Personally, if either of these guys beat Sen. Stabenow in Nov. I'll be happy if for no other reason than they both are in favor of drilling in Anwar. Sen. Stabenow voted against Anwar and voted for windfall profits tax on oil companies.
At the moment, I tend to favor Keith Butler because he said the following on immigration. "It's too hard to get into this country, and it takes too long. So that needs to be reformed so that legitimate people-people we want-can get here, and it doesn't take 14 years to do so." I like that position but I needto hear some details.
Do these gentleman have any serious drawbacks? You bet they do.
Mr. Butler: "I'm not for a national health care of the type that you have in Canada. ...I am not for socialized medicine. But as a principle, I believe everyone should have it." Huh?
Mr. Bouchard seems to be in favor of health savings accounts and against socialized medicine whan he says: "National health care with government running it, I think, would be a mess." But then he's in favor of providing affordable and accessible health insurance to small businesses and thaoe concepts usually mean subsidized.
I'll have to hear more from both candidates of course and whoever wins will have an uphill battle as Sen Stabenow will have the union vote. I wouldn't mind getting behind the winner just to get Stabenow out, I think. More to come.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Supporting Evidence
In my recent post "Not Good For Michigan or America" I wrote:
"The price of gas is determined by the price of crude oil, which is being bid upon daily by nations all around the globe. Most of these bidders are governments not private oil companies."
I didn't know then the numbers but thanks to HBLer Duncan Curry I now do. Mr. Curry provides a link to a Baker Institute Energy Forum article which says in part:
"Through out the 1990s and into the next century, economic liberalization, market economy reforms and Western-style corporatization management reorganizations have characterized the oil and gas industries of major energy producing countries such as Russia, Norway, Canada and Malaysia, as well as the energy industries of major consuming countries in the developing world such as China, Brazil, Japan and India. These emerging hybrid firms, together with remaining traditional oil and gas state monopolies, control the vast majority of proven resources remaining for exploitation and development. The Western international oil majors now control less than 10% of the world’s oil and gas resource base."
This means that Western oil majors now have to compete with government run companies and as Mr. Curry points out:
"...oil prices keep raising because
state-ownership and control of the world's oil reserves keeps
increasing (now 90%). Nationalization of the oil industry, by
economic law, leads to inefficiencies, production shortages, and
higher prices."
(HBL is a private email subscription only list that discusses current events from a rational self-interest perspective. Host Harry Binswanger offers a free one month trial which can be had here.)
"The price of gas is determined by the price of crude oil, which is being bid upon daily by nations all around the globe. Most of these bidders are governments not private oil companies."
I didn't know then the numbers but thanks to HBLer Duncan Curry I now do. Mr. Curry provides a link to a Baker Institute Energy Forum article which says in part:
"Through out the 1990s and into the next century, economic liberalization, market economy reforms and Western-style corporatization management reorganizations have characterized the oil and gas industries of major energy producing countries such as Russia, Norway, Canada and Malaysia, as well as the energy industries of major consuming countries in the developing world such as China, Brazil, Japan and India. These emerging hybrid firms, together with remaining traditional oil and gas state monopolies, control the vast majority of proven resources remaining for exploitation and development. The Western international oil majors now control less than 10% of the world’s oil and gas resource base."
This means that Western oil majors now have to compete with government run companies and as Mr. Curry points out:
"...oil prices keep raising because
state-ownership and control of the world's oil reserves keeps
increasing (now 90%). Nationalization of the oil industry, by
economic law, leads to inefficiencies, production shortages, and
higher prices."
(HBL is a private email subscription only list that discusses current events from a rational self-interest perspective. Host Harry Binswanger offers a free one month trial which can be had here.)
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
A Matter of Principle
Paul W. Smith is host of "The Paul W. Smith Show" on WJR (760 AM in Detroit) from 5:30 to 9 Am every weekday. He also writes an op-ed column for the Detroit News which appears every Monday. Last Monday, June 26th., Mr. Smith's op-ed was titled "Inconvenient truths prevail on helmets, drugs, schools." The first paragraph says:
"O utta' my mind on a Monday moanin':
It is never good to bash your head; however, if you are going to bash your head, better to have a helmet on it. Football, hockey, lacrosse and baseball players know it. Race car drivers and bicyclists know it. Motorcyclists know it."
True. It is safer to wear a helmet than not to at certain times like when riding bikes and motorcycles. But this isn't about persuading people of a rational idea. It's about positing a noble goal and then trying to achieve it by force. He then says:
"I don't need to go into all the arguments for and against a law making cyclists do what's best for them and for the rest of us. (We went through this already regarding seat belts in cars.)"
Yes we did. The thugs won and now they want to expand their control to helmets. But the above two sentences illustrate a point to which I will return shortly. Mr. Smith then adds:
"Now's a good time to point out that I have been a motorcycle owner. And I have been hit by a car while riding (I was a very careful, defensive driver. It did not matter.) I had my helmet on. I thank God I did.
The inconvenient truth: Everyone is better off when you wear a helmet. (It is unfortunate there has to be a law to get people to do it.)"
Yes it is, but not for his reasons. In a laissez-faire economy, most personal saftey issues would be handled privately, probably by insurance companies who would offer cheaper rates to people who wore helmets. But Mr. Smith's attitude seems to be "Why should we wait for market forces to persuade people to do that which a little force can achieve a lot faster?"
Mr. Smith is not alone. Most intellectuals and media pundits think this way. There is however a fact of reality they are all ignoring and that was hinted at in the comment above about seat belts. It is the fact that a principle once adopted, even if only in part, must eventually be adopted in its entirety or completely repealed.
In this case, it means that once you agree to the principle that the government has the right to force people to wear seat belts, it's only a matter of time before all aspects of our lives are controlled by that same government. If it's ok to force people to wear seat belts, why is it not ok to force them to wear helmets? If it is ok to force people to wear seat belts and helmets, why is it not ok to force them to drive the kind of cars the government wants them to drive as long as the government claims it "is better for everybody?" There is no reason. Why can't the government declare that single family homes are a waste of energy and begin a massive campaign of moving all Americans into high rise apartments because it "is better for everybody?"
Of course the fundamental principle under all of this is the principle that the government has the right to initiate the use of force against citizens for some social goal other than protecting citizens' rights. Once that principle is adopted it will grow of its own virtue. If a little bit of force is "good for everybody," a little bit more is better, and a little bit more, then more, until total force becomes the best for everybody. The only way to prevent total control by the government is by repudiating the principle in its entirety and returning the government to its original responsibility of controling the retaliatory use of force.
Today's thinkers like to pretend that principles don't have to work that way. It's what they are taught in college. But they do work that way. If you doubt this, look at the nature of law itself. The law works by extrapolating new conclusions from established precedents. An established precedent is an adopted principle.
"Mr. Smith goes on to complain about illicit drug use: "It angered and drove me crazy when some folks somehow blamed the police for not being more on top of the Fentanyl/heroin story. You, too?
Inconvenient truth: If you use illegal drugs, (or use legal drugs illegally) you may die."
The wisdom of the war on drugs aside, I usually don't feel sorry for people who OD on drugs. Such people are looking for an escape from reality and I am not saddened when they achieve a permanent one.
Paul W. Smith correctly complains about Detroit schools and their turn down of $200 million dollars from Bob Thompson:
"Enough time has passed since that opportunity has come and gone (in its original form) to state the obvious inconvenient truth: Politics, ego and control issues trumped what was best for the kids. What system of education, city or state in this country, would not have benefited from an infusion of $200 million?"
Aside from the question of why a government run school system needs such a bailout, it doesn't seem to have occured to Mr. Smith that "Politics, ego and control issues" would not be a factor in a completely private school system.
He then promotes breast feeding but doesn't call for the government to force that on women, yet. He then closes with these two paragraphs:
"Finally, I'm not telling you how to live your life, or if you are right or wrong in your own actions (even though I have a strong personal opinion). My (ultimate) inconvenient truth is: Human life begins at conception.
Join me as I sit in again for Rush Limbaugh on his nationwide show heard noon till 3 p.m. on WJR."
Of course this was an op-ed and Mr. Smith is entitled to all of his opinions. But I find it a bit ironic that a man who is comfortable with the principle that the government can initiate the use of force against citizens to achieve some social goal, and who does not understand that principles (precedents) always grow by way of their own virtue (merit), is sitting in for Rush Limbaugh. Rush of course is often heralded as a defender of freedom and capitalism. With defenders like this is it any wonder capitalism has a bad name? One cannot defend the principles of captalism (individual rights) while endorsing the principles of statism (iniatory coercion against citizens for some social goal--"it's good for everybody." If capitalism is to be defended properly, its defense must be based on individual rights. It's a matter of principle.
"O utta' my mind on a Monday moanin':
It is never good to bash your head; however, if you are going to bash your head, better to have a helmet on it. Football, hockey, lacrosse and baseball players know it. Race car drivers and bicyclists know it. Motorcyclists know it."
True. It is safer to wear a helmet than not to at certain times like when riding bikes and motorcycles. But this isn't about persuading people of a rational idea. It's about positing a noble goal and then trying to achieve it by force. He then says:
"I don't need to go into all the arguments for and against a law making cyclists do what's best for them and for the rest of us. (We went through this already regarding seat belts in cars.)"
Yes we did. The thugs won and now they want to expand their control to helmets. But the above two sentences illustrate a point to which I will return shortly. Mr. Smith then adds:
"Now's a good time to point out that I have been a motorcycle owner. And I have been hit by a car while riding (I was a very careful, defensive driver. It did not matter.) I had my helmet on. I thank God I did.
The inconvenient truth: Everyone is better off when you wear a helmet. (It is unfortunate there has to be a law to get people to do it.)"
Yes it is, but not for his reasons. In a laissez-faire economy, most personal saftey issues would be handled privately, probably by insurance companies who would offer cheaper rates to people who wore helmets. But Mr. Smith's attitude seems to be "Why should we wait for market forces to persuade people to do that which a little force can achieve a lot faster?"
Mr. Smith is not alone. Most intellectuals and media pundits think this way. There is however a fact of reality they are all ignoring and that was hinted at in the comment above about seat belts. It is the fact that a principle once adopted, even if only in part, must eventually be adopted in its entirety or completely repealed.
In this case, it means that once you agree to the principle that the government has the right to force people to wear seat belts, it's only a matter of time before all aspects of our lives are controlled by that same government. If it's ok to force people to wear seat belts, why is it not ok to force them to wear helmets? If it is ok to force people to wear seat belts and helmets, why is it not ok to force them to drive the kind of cars the government wants them to drive as long as the government claims it "is better for everybody?" There is no reason. Why can't the government declare that single family homes are a waste of energy and begin a massive campaign of moving all Americans into high rise apartments because it "is better for everybody?"
Of course the fundamental principle under all of this is the principle that the government has the right to initiate the use of force against citizens for some social goal other than protecting citizens' rights. Once that principle is adopted it will grow of its own virtue. If a little bit of force is "good for everybody," a little bit more is better, and a little bit more, then more, until total force becomes the best for everybody. The only way to prevent total control by the government is by repudiating the principle in its entirety and returning the government to its original responsibility of controling the retaliatory use of force.
Today's thinkers like to pretend that principles don't have to work that way. It's what they are taught in college. But they do work that way. If you doubt this, look at the nature of law itself. The law works by extrapolating new conclusions from established precedents. An established precedent is an adopted principle.
"Mr. Smith goes on to complain about illicit drug use: "It angered and drove me crazy when some folks somehow blamed the police for not being more on top of the Fentanyl/heroin story. You, too?
Inconvenient truth: If you use illegal drugs, (or use legal drugs illegally) you may die."
The wisdom of the war on drugs aside, I usually don't feel sorry for people who OD on drugs. Such people are looking for an escape from reality and I am not saddened when they achieve a permanent one.
Paul W. Smith correctly complains about Detroit schools and their turn down of $200 million dollars from Bob Thompson:
"Enough time has passed since that opportunity has come and gone (in its original form) to state the obvious inconvenient truth: Politics, ego and control issues trumped what was best for the kids. What system of education, city or state in this country, would not have benefited from an infusion of $200 million?"
Aside from the question of why a government run school system needs such a bailout, it doesn't seem to have occured to Mr. Smith that "Politics, ego and control issues" would not be a factor in a completely private school system.
He then promotes breast feeding but doesn't call for the government to force that on women, yet. He then closes with these two paragraphs:
"Finally, I'm not telling you how to live your life, or if you are right or wrong in your own actions (even though I have a strong personal opinion). My (ultimate) inconvenient truth is: Human life begins at conception.
Join me as I sit in again for Rush Limbaugh on his nationwide show heard noon till 3 p.m. on WJR."
Of course this was an op-ed and Mr. Smith is entitled to all of his opinions. But I find it a bit ironic that a man who is comfortable with the principle that the government can initiate the use of force against citizens to achieve some social goal, and who does not understand that principles (precedents) always grow by way of their own virtue (merit), is sitting in for Rush Limbaugh. Rush of course is often heralded as a defender of freedom and capitalism. With defenders like this is it any wonder capitalism has a bad name? One cannot defend the principles of captalism (individual rights) while endorsing the principles of statism (iniatory coercion against citizens for some social goal--"it's good for everybody." If capitalism is to be defended properly, its defense must be based on individual rights. It's a matter of principle.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
The Traitorous Times
Matt May links to a letter from a soldier to the NYT congratulating them for exposing the anti-terrorist funding campaign and making it possible for the terrorists to kill more of his men. Matt also has a relevent quote from Thomas Jefferson here. Gee, I didn't know the Times existed back then.
Of course these men at the Times are getting away with betraying America simply because Americans let them get away with it. If the Bush administration tried to bring these men up on charges for printing classified info, our own Senators and Representatives would support the NYT. They would support the betrayal of America. And that is our fault for electing them.
But for now, we really don't have much choice. There just aren't any people running for congress who would demand the Times people be brought to justice. I am optomistic about the future though. As more people move from the morality of sacrifice to rational self-interest there will be positive changes.
I would like however, to see one Senator or Congressman introduce a resolution calling for the prosecution of any news organization who prints classified info just to see who would vote for and against it.
Of course these men at the Times are getting away with betraying America simply because Americans let them get away with it. If the Bush administration tried to bring these men up on charges for printing classified info, our own Senators and Representatives would support the NYT. They would support the betrayal of America. And that is our fault for electing them.
But for now, we really don't have much choice. There just aren't any people running for congress who would demand the Times people be brought to justice. I am optomistic about the future though. As more people move from the morality of sacrifice to rational self-interest there will be positive changes.
I would like however, to see one Senator or Congressman introduce a resolution calling for the prosecution of any news organization who prints classified info just to see who would vote for and against it.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Happy Days
Mrs. Eyes and I went to a graduation party for the oldest son of the family next door to us. We watched Dan grow up. He would often cut our grass and shovel the snow from the walk in the winter. Now his little brother sometimes does it.
I shook Dan's hand and congratulated him for being the Valedictorian of his school and for earning a full 4 year scholorship to a prominent technical institute. Watching him grow up from a scrawny neighborhood kid to the successful and promising adult that he is, was a beautiful experience.
I shook Dan's hand and congratulated him for being the Valedictorian of his school and for earning a full 4 year scholorship to a prominent technical institute. Watching him grow up from a scrawny neighborhood kid to the successful and promising adult that he is, was a beautiful experience.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Mixed Premises
In Michigan Republican Dick Devos is running against Democrat governor Jennifer Granholm. In today's June 23rd Detroit News there is a commentary by conservative talk show host Frank Beckmann. Mr. Beckmann quotes parts of a book written by Mr. DeVos in 1997 titled "Rediscovering American Values: The Foundations of our freedom for the 21st century."
Like most politicians, Mr. DeVos seems to be a mixture of good and bad premises:
**The DeVos book emphasizes integrity among public officials and perhaps the first hint of his political philosophy when he stresses freedom as a result of self-reliance.**
Actually, freedom is the result of government recognizing individual rights which then allows for the exercise of self-reliance.
**"When we are self-reliant," he writes, "we do not impose a burden on others by depending on them."**
It is true that relying on ourselves is good in the sense that we are not violating our neighbor's rights by forcing them to support us. None of us have that right. But the justification for self-reliance is man's right to life, not whether it imposes a burden on others. It's saying that the value of self-reliance is based on the needs or suffering of others and not the protection of their rights or the exercise of our own. It's advocating a good idea (self-reliance) for the wrong reason, service to others.
Dick DeVos is the son of Rich DeVos the founder of Amway Corp. now called Alticor Inc. He is selling himself as a businessman who understands Michigan's need for job growth and says he can improve the business climate here which would bring jobs. We'll have to see on that one. It's early and I haven't formed a firm opinion on him yet. If you're interested, the News has a front page article on him here.
Like most politicians, Mr. DeVos seems to be a mixture of good and bad premises:
**The DeVos book emphasizes integrity among public officials and perhaps the first hint of his political philosophy when he stresses freedom as a result of self-reliance.**
Actually, freedom is the result of government recognizing individual rights which then allows for the exercise of self-reliance.
**"When we are self-reliant," he writes, "we do not impose a burden on others by depending on them."**
It is true that relying on ourselves is good in the sense that we are not violating our neighbor's rights by forcing them to support us. None of us have that right. But the justification for self-reliance is man's right to life, not whether it imposes a burden on others. It's saying that the value of self-reliance is based on the needs or suffering of others and not the protection of their rights or the exercise of our own. It's advocating a good idea (self-reliance) for the wrong reason, service to others.
Dick DeVos is the son of Rich DeVos the founder of Amway Corp. now called Alticor Inc. He is selling himself as a businessman who understands Michigan's need for job growth and says he can improve the business climate here which would bring jobs. We'll have to see on that one. It's early and I haven't formed a firm opinion on him yet. If you're interested, the News has a front page article on him here.
Communist Paradise
Bruno at The Simplest Thing links to some photos of North Korea. Depressing actually. And to think this (or worse) is the standard of living enviromentalists and leftist professors want for Americans.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Round Up June 21st.
Diana Hsieh at Noodle Food takes a look a "Aristotle on Pity" in which she discerns the difference between his concept of pity and the modern concept of same. In so doing she makes a very perceptive observation:
"A justice-oriented culture cares whether a person suffers by his own hand. It scorns such voluntary suffering, reserving pity for the innocent. In contrast, an altruistic culture cares for nothing but the suffering, ignoring the cause or justice thereof."
(In my opinion, a concrete example of this would be the aftermath to Katrina.)
Yet another reason why altruism is not a morality of benevolence towards men.
I recommend reading the whole post.
*******************************************
Craig Biddle at Principles In Practice looks at an article by Diana West and discerns the difference between faith and reason as well as a look at sacrifice. On faith he points out:
"Either faith—i.e., the acceptance of ideas in support of which there is no evidence—is a valid means of knowing the truth, or it is not. The Islamists have faith that they are right and good and that Americans are wrong and evil. If faith is a valid means of knowing the truth—as many Americans continue to believe—then how can anyone say that the Islamists are wrong? What Americans need to face is the fact that faith is invalid. Man's only means of knowledge is reason. The true and the good and the right can be known only by means of observation and logic and recognition of the requirements of human life on earth. If Americans want to name and defeat their actual enemy, they must lose religion; they must embrace reason."
The whole post is worth the read.
******************************************
"A justice-oriented culture cares whether a person suffers by his own hand. It scorns such voluntary suffering, reserving pity for the innocent. In contrast, an altruistic culture cares for nothing but the suffering, ignoring the cause or justice thereof."
(In my opinion, a concrete example of this would be the aftermath to Katrina.)
Yet another reason why altruism is not a morality of benevolence towards men.
I recommend reading the whole post.
*******************************************
Craig Biddle at Principles In Practice looks at an article by Diana West and discerns the difference between faith and reason as well as a look at sacrifice. On faith he points out:
"Either faith—i.e., the acceptance of ideas in support of which there is no evidence—is a valid means of knowing the truth, or it is not. The Islamists have faith that they are right and good and that Americans are wrong and evil. If faith is a valid means of knowing the truth—as many Americans continue to believe—then how can anyone say that the Islamists are wrong? What Americans need to face is the fact that faith is invalid. Man's only means of knowledge is reason. The true and the good and the right can be known only by means of observation and logic and recognition of the requirements of human life on earth. If Americans want to name and defeat their actual enemy, they must lose religion; they must embrace reason."
The whole post is worth the read.
******************************************
Monday, June 19, 2006
On The Slightly Lighter Side.
You Dirty Healthy Rat?
Steven Milloy at Junk Science links to an AP article carried by the New York Times titled "Rat Study Shows Dirty Better Than Clean."
"Washington -- Gritty rats and mice living in sewers and farms seem to have healthier immune systems than their squeaky clean cousins that frolic in cushy antiseptic labs, two studies indicate. The lesson for humans: Clean living may make us sick.
The studies give more weight to a 17-year-old theory that the sanitized Western world may be partly to blame for soaring rates of human allergy and asthma cases and some autoimmune diseases, such as Type I diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis. The theory, called the hygiene hypothesis, figures that people's immune systems aren't being challenged by disease and dirt early in life, so the body's natural defenses overreact to small irritants such as pollen."
It doesn't surprize me that the Western world is being blamed for the above mentioned diseases and maladies. It is true that as the air in the U.S. has become cleaner the asthma rate has gone up. I do think there may be some merit in the hygiene hypothesis. However, I want to draw your attention to the phrase 'sanitized Western world' and a little later in the article this sentence:
"Human epidemiological studies have long given credence to the hygiene theory, showing that allergy and asthma rates were higher in the cleaner industrialized areas than in places such as Africa."
It seems ironic that the "Western," "industrialized" world can be referred to as "sanitized" and "cleaner" when most of the time Western industrialized nations are reviled as the dirtiest polluters on the planet. Oh Well.
The scientists did say that they wanted to find things that would "exercise the immune system" without having to expose people to actual dirt so I suppose that's a good thing.
I am told that lab mice and rats are speciffically bred to pop out tumors much faster than wild ones would.
Steven Milloy at Junk Science links to an AP article carried by the New York Times titled "Rat Study Shows Dirty Better Than Clean."
"Washington -- Gritty rats and mice living in sewers and farms seem to have healthier immune systems than their squeaky clean cousins that frolic in cushy antiseptic labs, two studies indicate. The lesson for humans: Clean living may make us sick.
The studies give more weight to a 17-year-old theory that the sanitized Western world may be partly to blame for soaring rates of human allergy and asthma cases and some autoimmune diseases, such as Type I diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis. The theory, called the hygiene hypothesis, figures that people's immune systems aren't being challenged by disease and dirt early in life, so the body's natural defenses overreact to small irritants such as pollen."
It doesn't surprize me that the Western world is being blamed for the above mentioned diseases and maladies. It is true that as the air in the U.S. has become cleaner the asthma rate has gone up. I do think there may be some merit in the hygiene hypothesis. However, I want to draw your attention to the phrase 'sanitized Western world' and a little later in the article this sentence:
"Human epidemiological studies have long given credence to the hygiene theory, showing that allergy and asthma rates were higher in the cleaner industrialized areas than in places such as Africa."
It seems ironic that the "Western," "industrialized" world can be referred to as "sanitized" and "cleaner" when most of the time Western industrialized nations are reviled as the dirtiest polluters on the planet. Oh Well.
The scientists did say that they wanted to find things that would "exercise the immune system" without having to expose people to actual dirt so I suppose that's a good thing.
I am told that lab mice and rats are speciffically bred to pop out tumors much faster than wild ones would.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Our Tax Dollars At Work?
Saturday's 06/17/06 Detroit News has a report titled "U-M Gets $70M for study on aging" by Marisa Schultz. It starts with:
"The University of Michigan is on the verge of receiving a $70 million grant -- the largest research award in the university's history -- to study America's aging population.
Funded by the federal National Institute on Aging, which is part of the National Institutes of Health, the study will provide information on what Americans are spending their money on and how they're saving and living longer, said U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, who is expected to formally announce the grant Monday."
I have never been in favor of using taxpayer money to study aging or anything else. What seniors are spending their money on is info that should be paid for by private companies like Sears or Wal-Mart, not taxpayers.
Besides, all this is doing is providing politicians and policy makers with information on which way to vote on specific issues regarding seniors. In other words, how to win the senior vote on any given issue. This is of crucial importance of course because millions of baby boomers will start to retire in about 4 years and politicians like Rep. Dingell need to know how to buy their votes.
Philosophically, this is an admission that our government makes no decisions by reference to wider principles (i.g. individual rights) but bases them on concrete-bound, range-of-the-moment polls, surveys and studies, like studying a herd of cows without the knowledge of what is a cow and what is its nature.
The article then gives a little overview of U.M.s research programs:
"The huge gift comes at time when academic institutions are in fierce competition for limited federal research dollars, especially for social science survey research grants, according to the university. Typically, research at U-M's Institute for Social Research accounts for just 12 percent of all research expenditures at U-M, with the medical school bringing in the bulk of the grant money.
University officials had little to say Friday about the grant, although people familiar with Monday's announcement confirmed the amount of the award.
The university institute is among the world's oldest survey research organizations. It produces some of the most widely-cited studies, such as the Survey of Consumer Attitudes and the National Election Studies. Established in 1948, the institute produces nationally recognized research on diverse topics such as poverty, drug use, income and aging."
While the above may sound almost impressive, I still don't think taxpayer money should fund it. There are lots of private organizations that deal with the elderly who could fund this kind of research. Besides, we seem to be getting into a paradigm of research for research's sake which can lead to this:
"Earlier this month, it (the university institute-ME) released a widely publicized index measuring how fast the happiness level of hurricane victims rebounded." !!!!
Hmmmm. I'd like to see a study of how fast the happiness level of government funded researchers rebound when all their grant money is cut off. I'd pay for that. Oh well, there is one piece of certainty that came out of this award:
"Meanwhile, the U-M regents reappointed President Mary Sue Coleman, a strong advocate for research and development, to a second five-year term."
Mission accomplished.
"The University of Michigan is on the verge of receiving a $70 million grant -- the largest research award in the university's history -- to study America's aging population.
Funded by the federal National Institute on Aging, which is part of the National Institutes of Health, the study will provide information on what Americans are spending their money on and how they're saving and living longer, said U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, who is expected to formally announce the grant Monday."
I have never been in favor of using taxpayer money to study aging or anything else. What seniors are spending their money on is info that should be paid for by private companies like Sears or Wal-Mart, not taxpayers.
Besides, all this is doing is providing politicians and policy makers with information on which way to vote on specific issues regarding seniors. In other words, how to win the senior vote on any given issue. This is of crucial importance of course because millions of baby boomers will start to retire in about 4 years and politicians like Rep. Dingell need to know how to buy their votes.
Philosophically, this is an admission that our government makes no decisions by reference to wider principles (i.g. individual rights) but bases them on concrete-bound, range-of-the-moment polls, surveys and studies, like studying a herd of cows without the knowledge of what is a cow and what is its nature.
The article then gives a little overview of U.M.s research programs:
"The huge gift comes at time when academic institutions are in fierce competition for limited federal research dollars, especially for social science survey research grants, according to the university. Typically, research at U-M's Institute for Social Research accounts for just 12 percent of all research expenditures at U-M, with the medical school bringing in the bulk of the grant money.
University officials had little to say Friday about the grant, although people familiar with Monday's announcement confirmed the amount of the award.
The university institute is among the world's oldest survey research organizations. It produces some of the most widely-cited studies, such as the Survey of Consumer Attitudes and the National Election Studies. Established in 1948, the institute produces nationally recognized research on diverse topics such as poverty, drug use, income and aging."
While the above may sound almost impressive, I still don't think taxpayer money should fund it. There are lots of private organizations that deal with the elderly who could fund this kind of research. Besides, we seem to be getting into a paradigm of research for research's sake which can lead to this:
"Earlier this month, it (the university institute-ME) released a widely publicized index measuring how fast the happiness level of hurricane victims rebounded." !!!!
Hmmmm. I'd like to see a study of how fast the happiness level of government funded researchers rebound when all their grant money is cut off. I'd pay for that. Oh well, there is one piece of certainty that came out of this award:
"Meanwhile, the U-M regents reappointed President Mary Sue Coleman, a strong advocate for research and development, to a second five-year term."
Mission accomplished.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Here We Go Again
The Michigan State Board of Education's social studies advisors are in the news again. In an excellent 6/13/06 column by Detroit News writer Laura Berman, we are advised:
"An Oakland County judge and some of the state's social studies directors are protesting the lack of standards in the new standards, which omit Ford, and are scheduled for approval by the State Board of Education at a meeting today.
"There is little history in the (proposed) history content," wrote Oakland County Circuit Judge Michael Warren, a former State Board of Education member in a scathing June 13 memorandum to the board that cited the absence of -- among others -- Henry Ford, the Presidents Roosevelt (Theodore and Franklin), Rosa Parks, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.
A few key historical moments are also missing: the Spanish American War, the Holocaust, Watergate, September 11."
Presumably, these historic people and events aren't on the test so they don't need to be taught.
"The 21-page proposal, if approved, is what high school students will be expected to learn and know.
"What gets tested is what gets taught," said Amy Bloom, the social studies consultant for Oakland Schools."
A more obvious hatred of testing students to see if they know anything would be hard to find.
What is it with these social studies consultants? Readers of this blog will remember my post The Little Witch Doctors in which I wrote about social studies consultant Karen Todorov who wanted to drop the word 'American' when referring to the United States. I concluded that post with:
"In my essay The Science Establishment II ( Feb archives), I mentioned the fact that the essence of government is force and the essence of science is reason and to mix the two will result in reason being forced out. Just substitute education for science. The principle is the same. The only way to prevent the corruption of education is to get the government completely out of it."
A good start towards that end would be tax credits for education and vigorous support for private schools.
"An Oakland County judge and some of the state's social studies directors are protesting the lack of standards in the new standards, which omit Ford, and are scheduled for approval by the State Board of Education at a meeting today.
"There is little history in the (proposed) history content," wrote Oakland County Circuit Judge Michael Warren, a former State Board of Education member in a scathing June 13 memorandum to the board that cited the absence of -- among others -- Henry Ford, the Presidents Roosevelt (Theodore and Franklin), Rosa Parks, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.
A few key historical moments are also missing: the Spanish American War, the Holocaust, Watergate, September 11."
Presumably, these historic people and events aren't on the test so they don't need to be taught.
"The 21-page proposal, if approved, is what high school students will be expected to learn and know.
"What gets tested is what gets taught," said Amy Bloom, the social studies consultant for Oakland Schools."
A more obvious hatred of testing students to see if they know anything would be hard to find.
What is it with these social studies consultants? Readers of this blog will remember my post The Little Witch Doctors in which I wrote about social studies consultant Karen Todorov who wanted to drop the word 'American' when referring to the United States. I concluded that post with:
"In my essay The Science Establishment II ( Feb archives), I mentioned the fact that the essence of government is force and the essence of science is reason and to mix the two will result in reason being forced out. Just substitute education for science. The principle is the same. The only way to prevent the corruption of education is to get the government completely out of it."
A good start towards that end would be tax credits for education and vigorous support for private schools.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Fatal Flaw
Alan Germani at Principles in Practice has an essay "Somalia and Our Fatal Flaw." Evidently, America, via the CIA, has been supporting the warlords there in the hopes of keeping islamists from taking over the country and to get info on suspected al-Qeada hiding there. Well, the islamists just ran the warlords out of town and are now imposing Sharia Law. The U.S. loses again.
Mr. Germani correctly points out why such misguided policies are doomed to failure by identifying our fatal flaw as:
"The tragic flaw inherent in the "War on Terror" is its focus on individual enemy combatants. We are wasting money, munitions—and, worst of all, American soldiers—trying to eliminate these combatants while ignoring the states that produce and sustain them (primarily Iran and Saudi Arabia). As long as these regimes and their supporting populations believe that they can triumph over the West, there will be an endless supply of terrorists to fill the sandals of the few that we're able to track down and kill."
So very true. It's like trying to destroy a large anthill by killing one ant at a time, except that American soldiers are dying in the process. The anthill should have been destroyed in one fell swoop. I urge reading the whole article.
Mr. Germani correctly points out why such misguided policies are doomed to failure by identifying our fatal flaw as:
"The tragic flaw inherent in the "War on Terror" is its focus on individual enemy combatants. We are wasting money, munitions—and, worst of all, American soldiers—trying to eliminate these combatants while ignoring the states that produce and sustain them (primarily Iran and Saudi Arabia). As long as these regimes and their supporting populations believe that they can triumph over the West, there will be an endless supply of terrorists to fill the sandals of the few that we're able to track down and kill."
So very true. It's like trying to destroy a large anthill by killing one ant at a time, except that American soldiers are dying in the process. The anthill should have been destroyed in one fell swoop. I urge reading the whole article.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Not Good For Michigan or America
My U.S. Congressman Sander Levin has a newsletter his office sends out about once a week informing constituents of the latest congressional action. In the week of May 22 – 26, 2006 issue was a headline saying:
“House Narrowly Approves Oil Drilling in Arctic refuge.”
I think drilling in ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) is long over due and a small step on the path of reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, Mr. Levin voted against the legislation. I think his reasons are misguided in the extreme.
First, he says, “Drilling in ANWR will not bring down gas prices—not today and not tomorrow….” While this is probably true, it is not the sole or even the main reason for drilling in ANWR. Oil companies should have the right to buy the drilling rights to any property at market prices. But, not counting ANWR, the government has placed 85% of offshore oil fields off limits to any drilling. If people would like to know the why behind high gas prices, that is one reason. Placing most of the oil fields off limits then crying about a dependency on foreign oil is being less than honest with the American people.
Lets look at another claim by Mr. Levin. “Although over 95% of the recommendations in that plan (Bush’s 2001 energy plan) have been implemented, our nation still confronts sky-high gas prices, growing dependence on foreign sources of energy, and record pro! fits (sic) for the oil industry.” Notice how he names two maladies, high prices and dependency on foreign energy and then lumps in “record profits” as if they were of equal malevolence.
In other words, Mr. Levin believes that morality is a matter of numbers; if you earn millions of dollars you’re virtuous or at least amoral. But if you earn billions you become evil and are placed alongside other undesirable human conditions.
This kind of thinking is known to economists as the intrinsic theory of wealth. It holds that wealth is a static amount and therefore if someone has a lot of it then it must be at the expense of someone else thus government must step in and redistribute the wealth more fairly. Of course this theory was thoroughly discredited long ago. Wealth creation is a very dynamic process. Yet it is sad to see Congressman Levin still believing in it and pandering to one of the worst human emotions, envy, the hatred of success for being success.
But Congressman Levin is not alone. His brother, Michigan Senator Carl Levin and colleague Debbie Stabenow have both said they will support a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. Consider the kind of message this sends to large corporations. “You had better not be too successful, too efficient, too profitable or we’ll nail you”
I understand that the price of gasoline is a national problem but consider what thoughts might be going through the minds of CEOs of large corporations thinking about moving to Michigan. “Do you think it’s a good idea to set up shop in Michigan since the main politicos there are so hostile to profits and corporations in general?”
I’ve heard the argument “I wouldn’t care how much money the oil companies make if they would just keep the price of gas nice and low.” This argument ignores the fact that market prices are set by how much people are actually willing to pay, not by how much they’d prefer to pay. It also supposes that oil execs sit in their offices and every morning say “Well, how much should we charge for gas today?” That is ridiculous.
The price of gas is determined by the price of crude oil, which is being bid upon daily by nations all around the globe. Most of these bidders are governments not private oil companies. The OPEC cartel controls most of the oil out of the Mideast. Most South-American oil companies are state owned and Russia recently nationalized their oil industry. Yet the Levins and Ms. Stabenow want you to believe it’s all the fault of evil, greedy private enterprise, and that governments are faultless, especially ours.
A myriad of regulations and laws have prevented the building of refineries for about 30 years. But Congressman Levin and Michigan Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow are not about to get the government out of the way. That is why keeping these politicians in office is not good for America or Michigan.
“House Narrowly Approves Oil Drilling in Arctic refuge.”
I think drilling in ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) is long over due and a small step on the path of reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil. Unfortunately, Mr. Levin voted against the legislation. I think his reasons are misguided in the extreme.
First, he says, “Drilling in ANWR will not bring down gas prices—not today and not tomorrow….” While this is probably true, it is not the sole or even the main reason for drilling in ANWR. Oil companies should have the right to buy the drilling rights to any property at market prices. But, not counting ANWR, the government has placed 85% of offshore oil fields off limits to any drilling. If people would like to know the why behind high gas prices, that is one reason. Placing most of the oil fields off limits then crying about a dependency on foreign oil is being less than honest with the American people.
Lets look at another claim by Mr. Levin. “Although over 95% of the recommendations in that plan (Bush’s 2001 energy plan) have been implemented, our nation still confronts sky-high gas prices, growing dependence on foreign sources of energy, and record pro! fits (sic) for the oil industry.” Notice how he names two maladies, high prices and dependency on foreign energy and then lumps in “record profits” as if they were of equal malevolence.
In other words, Mr. Levin believes that morality is a matter of numbers; if you earn millions of dollars you’re virtuous or at least amoral. But if you earn billions you become evil and are placed alongside other undesirable human conditions.
This kind of thinking is known to economists as the intrinsic theory of wealth. It holds that wealth is a static amount and therefore if someone has a lot of it then it must be at the expense of someone else thus government must step in and redistribute the wealth more fairly. Of course this theory was thoroughly discredited long ago. Wealth creation is a very dynamic process. Yet it is sad to see Congressman Levin still believing in it and pandering to one of the worst human emotions, envy, the hatred of success for being success.
But Congressman Levin is not alone. His brother, Michigan Senator Carl Levin and colleague Debbie Stabenow have both said they will support a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. Consider the kind of message this sends to large corporations. “You had better not be too successful, too efficient, too profitable or we’ll nail you”
I understand that the price of gasoline is a national problem but consider what thoughts might be going through the minds of CEOs of large corporations thinking about moving to Michigan. “Do you think it’s a good idea to set up shop in Michigan since the main politicos there are so hostile to profits and corporations in general?”
I’ve heard the argument “I wouldn’t care how much money the oil companies make if they would just keep the price of gas nice and low.” This argument ignores the fact that market prices are set by how much people are actually willing to pay, not by how much they’d prefer to pay. It also supposes that oil execs sit in their offices and every morning say “Well, how much should we charge for gas today?” That is ridiculous.
The price of gas is determined by the price of crude oil, which is being bid upon daily by nations all around the globe. Most of these bidders are governments not private oil companies. The OPEC cartel controls most of the oil out of the Mideast. Most South-American oil companies are state owned and Russia recently nationalized their oil industry. Yet the Levins and Ms. Stabenow want you to believe it’s all the fault of evil, greedy private enterprise, and that governments are faultless, especially ours.
A myriad of regulations and laws have prevented the building of refineries for about 30 years. But Congressman Levin and Michigan Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow are not about to get the government out of the way. That is why keeping these politicians in office is not good for America or Michigan.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Some Good News Last Week
Like the color green, some headlines were soothing to Mike's Eyes last week.
First was the headline Zarqawi Dead. This will probably be followed by a power struggle between Zarqawi wannabes who will then kill each other until one of them takes over. More good news.
Second, is a report by Little Green Footballs titled "Don't Wanna Be Zarqawi" about a young Jewish man who was kidnapped by Palistinians but as soon as they discovered he was an American they turned him over to the Isrealis.
Third, was the report by Yahoo news that Goldman Sachs had lowered its stock rating of New York Times to 'Underperform' causing NYT share price to fall. How sweet it is!
Now if I could just see a headline like "Iranians Overthrow Mullahs" or "Syria Falls," that would make for a good year.
First was the headline Zarqawi Dead. This will probably be followed by a power struggle between Zarqawi wannabes who will then kill each other until one of them takes over. More good news.
Second, is a report by Little Green Footballs titled "Don't Wanna Be Zarqawi" about a young Jewish man who was kidnapped by Palistinians but as soon as they discovered he was an American they turned him over to the Isrealis.
Third, was the report by Yahoo news that Goldman Sachs had lowered its stock rating of New York Times to 'Underperform' causing NYT share price to fall. How sweet it is!
Now if I could just see a headline like "Iranians Overthrow Mullahs" or "Syria Falls," that would make for a good year.
Friday, June 09, 2006
The Pragmatic Senate
Donald Luskin at Conspiracy To Keep You Poor and Stupid was sent a note by Daniel Clifton of Americans For Tax Reform. Evidently, Mr. Clifton is upset over the duplicity of the Democratic Senators who defeated a motion to only consider bringing the Estate Tax Reform bill to the floor. The duplicity consists of:
**Interestingly, Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, and Ron Wyden voted for full repeal in 2002. Today, they voted against even considering the legislation for some type of reform. Hence they went from supporting a 0 percent estate tax to a 55 percent rate. That’s because this is not whether you support or oppose estate tax repeal. The Dems have actively traded votes to let their vulnerable members up for reelection support the legislation and have other members not up for reelection vote against the legislation, even if they support estate tax repeal/reform. This ensures incumbent protection while also ensuring 60 votes can never be reached.
As an example, Sen. John Breaux, the prime sponsor of the legislation for repeal, voted no in 2002 so Mary Landrieu can vote yes.**
The blatent deception of the American voters, openly on the Senate floor demonstrates how no one takes principles seriously anymore. In their minds, hypocrisy is not a bad thing because you are supposed to go with whatever works for now and don't worry about consequences. Thus, if you don't want to repeal the Estate Tax, but your constituents do, then come election time you can fool them by voting for repeal and ignoring your NO votes of the past.
I was reminded of Senator John Kerry's statement "I have never waivered" during the 04 presidential debates. I wondered how he could say that with a straight face on national television. I have decided that such behavior is that of a pure pragmatist, a person who has bought into the primacy of consciousness completely and believes reality is whatever he wills it to be on a daily basis. Whenever reality doesn't conform to his will, it is because, for some unknown reason, reality has conformed to someone else's will. (Considering the implications of that thought process could make for an interesting essay, but for another time.)
Of course, a pure pragmatist is to be differentiated from a partial pragmatist like a George Bush. Mr. Bush seems to go back and forth from pragmatic behavior to that based on his religous principles. Mr. Kerry is 100% tunnel vision on the here and now.
In fairness I have to assume the Republicans do the same thing when the Dems are running things. Anyway, I'm glad there are men like Mr. Clifton keeping track of such insanity.
**Interestingly, Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, and Ron Wyden voted for full repeal in 2002. Today, they voted against even considering the legislation for some type of reform. Hence they went from supporting a 0 percent estate tax to a 55 percent rate. That’s because this is not whether you support or oppose estate tax repeal. The Dems have actively traded votes to let their vulnerable members up for reelection support the legislation and have other members not up for reelection vote against the legislation, even if they support estate tax repeal/reform. This ensures incumbent protection while also ensuring 60 votes can never be reached.
As an example, Sen. John Breaux, the prime sponsor of the legislation for repeal, voted no in 2002 so Mary Landrieu can vote yes.**
The blatent deception of the American voters, openly on the Senate floor demonstrates how no one takes principles seriously anymore. In their minds, hypocrisy is not a bad thing because you are supposed to go with whatever works for now and don't worry about consequences. Thus, if you don't want to repeal the Estate Tax, but your constituents do, then come election time you can fool them by voting for repeal and ignoring your NO votes of the past.
I was reminded of Senator John Kerry's statement "I have never waivered" during the 04 presidential debates. I wondered how he could say that with a straight face on national television. I have decided that such behavior is that of a pure pragmatist, a person who has bought into the primacy of consciousness completely and believes reality is whatever he wills it to be on a daily basis. Whenever reality doesn't conform to his will, it is because, for some unknown reason, reality has conformed to someone else's will. (Considering the implications of that thought process could make for an interesting essay, but for another time.)
Of course, a pure pragmatist is to be differentiated from a partial pragmatist like a George Bush. Mr. Bush seems to go back and forth from pragmatic behavior to that based on his religous principles. Mr. Kerry is 100% tunnel vision on the here and now.
In fairness I have to assume the Republicans do the same thing when the Dems are running things. Anyway, I'm glad there are men like Mr. Clifton keeping track of such insanity.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
A is non-A
According to my Comcast home page there is an Associated Press news article by AP writer Ali Akbar Dareini reporting that Iran has agreed to consider an "incentive" package offered by the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany.
**The incentives package offers economic and political rewards if Tehran relinquishes domestic uranium enrichment, which is used to generate power but can also produce weapons-grade uranium for nuclear warheads. It also contains the implicit threat of U.N. sanctions if Iran remains defiant.**
So we are giving "rewards" to thugs in return for the thugs' promise not to be too thugish with us! There is no difference between this "package" and the package reached by a homeowner who offers to give some of his money to a thief in return for the thief's promise not to try and steal the rest of it.
The evasion of reality by the West in these so-called negotiations is astounding. The thief doesn't care about the homeowner's property rights. When the homeowner agrees to "negotiate" with the thief, the homeowner doesn't care about them either and deserves to lose them all.
The West's desire to live and the Mullah's desire to kill the West is something that cannot be negotiated. The attempt to do so demonstrates how completely the West has adopted the epistomology (method of thinking) of the primacy of consciousness where reality becomes whatever we can will it to be if we just all agree to the willing.
Just as the homeowner's epistomology was "Giving my money to the thief is not a surrender if I don't call it by that name," so the West's epistomology is "What Iran is doing is not extortion if we all agree not to call it by that name."
But wait. Are we even getting the thug's promise to stop being thugish? No. Iran has only agreed to "study" the package.
**"The proposals contain positive steps and also some ambiguities," (Iran's nuclear negotiator Ali) Larijani said.
He did not identify the "ambiguities," but he said he had discussed them with (EU negotiator) Solana and that more talks would be required.
"We hope we will have negotiations and deliberations again after we have carefully studied the proposals," he said.**
"Ambiguities" are absolutely essential in modern "diplomacy." They assure more "negotiations" and thus avoid the necessity of taking action. In fact, in the minds of Western intellectuals, "diplomacy" is action and it is entirely devoted to making sure no other action ever takes place.
But what are these "positive steps" the West is offering?
**Details of the proposals have not been made public, but an early draft indicated that if Iran agrees to abandon uranium enrichment, the world would offer it help in building nuclear reactors, a guaranteed supply of nuclear fuel and European Airbus aircraft.
The United States has reportedly sweetened the offer by saying it would lift some bilateral sanctions on Iran, such as a ban on Boeing passenger aircraft and related parts.**
So we are trying to get Iran to give up its nuclear bomb intentions by giving it a guaranteed supply of nuclear fuel! No wonder Iran is willing to "study" the package. They probably can't believe it either. That's like the homeowner offering the thief a guaranteed supply of crowbars in the hopes the thief will use them for "peaceful purposes."
Of course, the homeowner (West) refuses to identify the fact that such a policy will result in all other thieves (thugs) noticing what works and presenting the same demands to the homeowner (West) until one day he discovers that his money and silverware (freedom) and whatever else he had to negotiate away, are gone. Such is the logical result of ignoring the existence of, and compromising on, principles.
**The incentives package offers economic and political rewards if Tehran relinquishes domestic uranium enrichment, which is used to generate power but can also produce weapons-grade uranium for nuclear warheads. It also contains the implicit threat of U.N. sanctions if Iran remains defiant.**
So we are giving "rewards" to thugs in return for the thugs' promise not to be too thugish with us! There is no difference between this "package" and the package reached by a homeowner who offers to give some of his money to a thief in return for the thief's promise not to try and steal the rest of it.
The evasion of reality by the West in these so-called negotiations is astounding. The thief doesn't care about the homeowner's property rights. When the homeowner agrees to "negotiate" with the thief, the homeowner doesn't care about them either and deserves to lose them all.
The West's desire to live and the Mullah's desire to kill the West is something that cannot be negotiated. The attempt to do so demonstrates how completely the West has adopted the epistomology (method of thinking) of the primacy of consciousness where reality becomes whatever we can will it to be if we just all agree to the willing.
Just as the homeowner's epistomology was "Giving my money to the thief is not a surrender if I don't call it by that name," so the West's epistomology is "What Iran is doing is not extortion if we all agree not to call it by that name."
But wait. Are we even getting the thug's promise to stop being thugish? No. Iran has only agreed to "study" the package.
**"The proposals contain positive steps and also some ambiguities," (Iran's nuclear negotiator Ali) Larijani said.
He did not identify the "ambiguities," but he said he had discussed them with (EU negotiator) Solana and that more talks would be required.
"We hope we will have negotiations and deliberations again after we have carefully studied the proposals," he said.**
"Ambiguities" are absolutely essential in modern "diplomacy." They assure more "negotiations" and thus avoid the necessity of taking action. In fact, in the minds of Western intellectuals, "diplomacy" is action and it is entirely devoted to making sure no other action ever takes place.
But what are these "positive steps" the West is offering?
**Details of the proposals have not been made public, but an early draft indicated that if Iran agrees to abandon uranium enrichment, the world would offer it help in building nuclear reactors, a guaranteed supply of nuclear fuel and European Airbus aircraft.
The United States has reportedly sweetened the offer by saying it would lift some bilateral sanctions on Iran, such as a ban on Boeing passenger aircraft and related parts.**
So we are trying to get Iran to give up its nuclear bomb intentions by giving it a guaranteed supply of nuclear fuel! No wonder Iran is willing to "study" the package. They probably can't believe it either. That's like the homeowner offering the thief a guaranteed supply of crowbars in the hopes the thief will use them for "peaceful purposes."
Of course, the homeowner (West) refuses to identify the fact that such a policy will result in all other thieves (thugs) noticing what works and presenting the same demands to the homeowner (West) until one day he discovers that his money and silverware (freedom) and whatever else he had to negotiate away, are gone. Such is the logical result of ignoring the existence of, and compromising on, principles.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
round up on June 3rd update
Donald Luskin at Conspiricy to Keep You Poor and Stupid reports on Paul Krugman's standing in the eyes of a few. I especially liked the 2nd update where an emailer says he makes money by betting against Krugman because Krugman is wrong so often. Hmmm. I wonder if he's onto something there.
round up on June 3rd
Diana Hsieh at Noodle Food has a good analysis of an article by Julian Edney in which she identifies his use of the fallacy identified by Ayn Rand as "the frozen abstraction."
Gus at Gus Van Horn also has a critique on a James Taranto article in which Mr. Taranto is obviously confused about the nature of self-interest. Although he has written some rational articles in the past he is nevertheless a strong believer in forced sacrifices as his belief that under certain circumstances, the military draft is ok.
Gus at Gus Van Horn also has a critique on a James Taranto article in which Mr. Taranto is obviously confused about the nature of self-interest. Although he has written some rational articles in the past he is nevertheless a strong believer in forced sacrifices as his belief that under certain circumstances, the military draft is ok.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Blogging and the Tigers
Blogging has been a little light what with the holidays and my oldest son's 40th birthday.(man does that make me feel old!) Blogging may become lighter yet because my house needs work and Iv got to do most of it this summer. But I'll try to post every three days or so.
In the meantime, I decided to watch the Tigers play host the the New York Yankees for the last 3 days at Comerica park. I wanted to see how the Tigers would stack up against a proven quality ballclub and I found out: They don't. There is no way the Detroit Tigers can compete with the big boys and I predict they will be at or below 500 by the end of the season. There are several reasons why I believe this.
Watching the two teams hit I noticed that the bat speed of the Tiger hitters seemed to be a lot faster than the NY hitters. Yankee bat speed seemed to be less than max. Of course a slower bat speed leaves the bat in the strike zone just a tad longer increasing the chances of making contact.
Mike Mussina is not a power pitcher. He throws a lot of off speed stuff and if hitters can't hit the off speed pitches they will go nowhere as a team. He was literally lobing the ball over the plate and the Tiger hitters were trying to kill it. The Tigers had the same problem with Randy Johnson on Monday.
Some Tiger hitters have little or no self discipline. Chris Shelton has a habit of swinging at a pitch up around the eyes. Of course you can't hit that kind of pitch. The natural tendency is to swing under it. I only saw one NY hitter swing at such a pitch.
I think the Tigers' impressive win total was the result of a scheduling quirk. For the first 40 or so games The Tigers played mostly cream puff teams who were struggling and couldn't hit or pitch. We got a glimpse of what is to come when the Tigers played the White Sox and lost all three games. I wanted to see if those losses were just a fluke or the norm for the Tigers against good teams. They are the norm. The Tigers will finish with a better record than last year for sure but they are not contenders. Not yet. They need more talent.
In the meantime, I decided to watch the Tigers play host the the New York Yankees for the last 3 days at Comerica park. I wanted to see how the Tigers would stack up against a proven quality ballclub and I found out: They don't. There is no way the Detroit Tigers can compete with the big boys and I predict they will be at or below 500 by the end of the season. There are several reasons why I believe this.
Watching the two teams hit I noticed that the bat speed of the Tiger hitters seemed to be a lot faster than the NY hitters. Yankee bat speed seemed to be less than max. Of course a slower bat speed leaves the bat in the strike zone just a tad longer increasing the chances of making contact.
Mike Mussina is not a power pitcher. He throws a lot of off speed stuff and if hitters can't hit the off speed pitches they will go nowhere as a team. He was literally lobing the ball over the plate and the Tiger hitters were trying to kill it. The Tigers had the same problem with Randy Johnson on Monday.
Some Tiger hitters have little or no self discipline. Chris Shelton has a habit of swinging at a pitch up around the eyes. Of course you can't hit that kind of pitch. The natural tendency is to swing under it. I only saw one NY hitter swing at such a pitch.
I think the Tigers' impressive win total was the result of a scheduling quirk. For the first 40 or so games The Tigers played mostly cream puff teams who were struggling and couldn't hit or pitch. We got a glimpse of what is to come when the Tigers played the White Sox and lost all three games. I wanted to see if those losses were just a fluke or the norm for the Tigers against good teams. They are the norm. The Tigers will finish with a better record than last year for sure but they are not contenders. Not yet. They need more talent.
Friday, May 26, 2006
The Little Witch Doctors
John Lewis has an excellent post at his blog Principles in Practice titled "The Little Dictators."
These little dictators could be local building inspectors, health inspectors, code enforcers and so on. Mr. Lewis explains their power thusly:
"These Little Dictators have the power of government guns to enforce their decisions. To avoid their wrath, a productive individual must suppress his rational judgment, and go by the rules they enforce. They are enemies of independent thought and comrades of conformity. Their whims and their rules coercively substitute for reality in the minds of their victims."
So very true. But as Ayn Rand pointed out in the title essay of her book "For The New Intellectual" behind every Attila is a Witch Doctor. The job of the Witch Doctor is to provide Attila with a moral justification or at least a rationalization for his continued rule by force.
Mostly, such Witch Doctors are to be found in our universities as professors of the humanities, as media pundits and in government bureaucracies as advisors. We in Michigan got to see one such advisor in action this week. Karen Todorov is a social studies consultant to the Michigan Dept. of Education. In the May 24th Detroit News is an op-ed by Michael Warren urging "Keep America in Michigan schools."
Evidently, Ms. Todorov sent out e-mails to teachers advising:
"I have promised teachers that we would delete the use of American [when we are really ONLY referring to the United States] from the GLCEs (grade level content expectations) so that everything is consistent and correct as soon as it was feasible."
"It is ethnocentric for the United States to claim the entire hemisphere."
"Consistent and correct" according to what standard? Ethnocentrism? I don't see how. What is an American to say, I'm a United Statesian? Or USian? Obviously this is just another attempt to obliterate "American" in the minds of children.
The next day the News ran an editorial "Keep our schools safe for 'Americans.'" The first paragraph says in part: "Fortunately, state school Superintendent Mike Flanagan says he is stopping this nonsense. But taxpayers and parents must remain vigilant against this dumbing down of our students."
It is refreshing to see the News understand that this was an attempt to dumb down the students. But the fact that one man, Mr. Flanagan, stood between reason and dumbing down the students means that we are now a nation of men and not of laws. In a letter to the editor Mr. Flanagan declares in part:
"The conversations and internal communications between diverse members of an independent association of social studies supervisors have been misconstrued as Department of Education policy. I would never approve the removal of "America" or "American" from use in our classrooms. Not on my watch."
But what about the next guy's watch? That's what I mean by "we are a nation of men and not of laws."
The News makes another good obversation: "Flanagan may soft pedal her comments as an innocent "conversation," but they had the blunt force of the state behind them. That explains why educators we talked to Wednesday were reluctant to go on the record -- for fear of angering state officials."
I'm glad the News understands that anything governmental is backed up by "blunt force." I'm also glad they see that educators won't question the Witch Doctors (consultants) for fear of angering the little dictators (officials). Unfortunately, the News won't take the next step and ask why is education subordinate to "blunt force" in the first place?
In my essay The Science Establishment II ( Feb archives), I mentioned the fact that the essence of government is force and the essence of science is reason and to mix the two will result in reason being forced out. Just substitute education for science. The principle is the same. The only way to prevent the corruption of education is to get the government completely out of it.
These little dictators could be local building inspectors, health inspectors, code enforcers and so on. Mr. Lewis explains their power thusly:
"These Little Dictators have the power of government guns to enforce their decisions. To avoid their wrath, a productive individual must suppress his rational judgment, and go by the rules they enforce. They are enemies of independent thought and comrades of conformity. Their whims and their rules coercively substitute for reality in the minds of their victims."
So very true. But as Ayn Rand pointed out in the title essay of her book "For The New Intellectual" behind every Attila is a Witch Doctor. The job of the Witch Doctor is to provide Attila with a moral justification or at least a rationalization for his continued rule by force.
Mostly, such Witch Doctors are to be found in our universities as professors of the humanities, as media pundits and in government bureaucracies as advisors. We in Michigan got to see one such advisor in action this week. Karen Todorov is a social studies consultant to the Michigan Dept. of Education. In the May 24th Detroit News is an op-ed by Michael Warren urging "Keep America in Michigan schools."
Evidently, Ms. Todorov sent out e-mails to teachers advising:
"I have promised teachers that we would delete the use of American [when we are really ONLY referring to the United States] from the GLCEs (grade level content expectations) so that everything is consistent and correct as soon as it was feasible."
"It is ethnocentric for the United States to claim the entire hemisphere."
"Consistent and correct" according to what standard? Ethnocentrism? I don't see how. What is an American to say, I'm a United Statesian? Or USian? Obviously this is just another attempt to obliterate "American" in the minds of children.
The next day the News ran an editorial "Keep our schools safe for 'Americans.'" The first paragraph says in part: "Fortunately, state school Superintendent Mike Flanagan says he is stopping this nonsense. But taxpayers and parents must remain vigilant against this dumbing down of our students."
It is refreshing to see the News understand that this was an attempt to dumb down the students. But the fact that one man, Mr. Flanagan, stood between reason and dumbing down the students means that we are now a nation of men and not of laws. In a letter to the editor Mr. Flanagan declares in part:
"The conversations and internal communications between diverse members of an independent association of social studies supervisors have been misconstrued as Department of Education policy. I would never approve the removal of "America" or "American" from use in our classrooms. Not on my watch."
But what about the next guy's watch? That's what I mean by "we are a nation of men and not of laws."
The News makes another good obversation: "Flanagan may soft pedal her comments as an innocent "conversation," but they had the blunt force of the state behind them. That explains why educators we talked to Wednesday were reluctant to go on the record -- for fear of angering state officials."
I'm glad the News understands that anything governmental is backed up by "blunt force." I'm also glad they see that educators won't question the Witch Doctors (consultants) for fear of angering the little dictators (officials). Unfortunately, the News won't take the next step and ask why is education subordinate to "blunt force" in the first place?
In my essay The Science Establishment II ( Feb archives), I mentioned the fact that the essence of government is force and the essence of science is reason and to mix the two will result in reason being forced out. Just substitute education for science. The principle is the same. The only way to prevent the corruption of education is to get the government completely out of it.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Take My er, Their Word For It
Gus Van Horn has an excellent post on the so called "consensus" on global warming. He responds to a NYT article by Gregg Easterbrook who champions the idea global warming is "case closed." Gus nails it when he says:
**So the liberal media, already known as a giant echo chamber, has now adopted, to bolster its appeals to authority, the argument, "If it weren't true, it wouldn't be so loud."** I recommend reading the whole thing.
In the same vein, the May 23rd edition of the Detroit News carries an article by Associated Press writer Terence Hunt titled "Bush snubs Gore on global warming." He quotes Gore as saying:
**"The entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming and he has today again expressed personal doubt that that is true," Gore said in an interview from France where he attended the Cannes Film Festival.**
Mr. Hunt ends the aticle with this Gore quote:
**"Why should we set aside the global scientific consensus," Gore said. "is it because Exxon Mobile wants us to set it aside?"**
The smear of Exxon Mobil is just more evidence of Gore's anti-capitalism ideology.
Aside from that, there is no global scientific "consensus." Even if there were, it would mean nothing. Albert Einstein was once told that over 100 scientists disagreed with his theory of relativity. His response, if I remember correctly, was "If I had been wrong, one would have been enough." Einstein knew that the validity of a theory is not determined by the number of people who support it (or for that matter, oppose it). He knew that a theory must stand or fall on its own merits and that head counts mean nothing. A supposedly educated Al Gore lacks this knowledge.
**So the liberal media, already known as a giant echo chamber, has now adopted, to bolster its appeals to authority, the argument, "If it weren't true, it wouldn't be so loud."** I recommend reading the whole thing.
In the same vein, the May 23rd edition of the Detroit News carries an article by Associated Press writer Terence Hunt titled "Bush snubs Gore on global warming." He quotes Gore as saying:
**"The entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming and he has today again expressed personal doubt that that is true," Gore said in an interview from France where he attended the Cannes Film Festival.**
Mr. Hunt ends the aticle with this Gore quote:
**"Why should we set aside the global scientific consensus," Gore said. "is it because Exxon Mobile wants us to set it aside?"**
The smear of Exxon Mobil is just more evidence of Gore's anti-capitalism ideology.
Aside from that, there is no global scientific "consensus." Even if there were, it would mean nothing. Albert Einstein was once told that over 100 scientists disagreed with his theory of relativity. His response, if I remember correctly, was "If I had been wrong, one would have been enough." Einstein knew that the validity of a theory is not determined by the number of people who support it (or for that matter, oppose it). He knew that a theory must stand or fall on its own merits and that head counts mean nothing. A supposedly educated Al Gore lacks this knowledge.
Monday, May 22, 2006
Enshrine the Good
Gideon Reich has a positive essay at his blog The Armchair Intellectual titled "The Good: The Objective Standard" in which he points out the need not just to identify evil but to champion the good. Here is a quote:
**I recently had the privilege to attend and enjoy Tara Smith's talk on Justice in Irvine where I work. The talk was excellent but ironically it was primarily during the Q&A that Dr. Smith was able to put increased emphasis on the greater need to praise the good. Of course, it is important to identify and judge evil but as anybody who has studied Objectivism in some detail knows, evil is metaphysically impotent -- it is far more important to express appreciation to the good people one encounters as they are the life-givers."
I couldn't agree more. I had just finished rereading (in The Fountainhead) Ellsworth Toohey's confession to Peter Keating on how he Toohey, aquired his power. I was thinking about the technique Toohey used to destroy the good:
**Don't set out to raze all shrines--you'll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity--and the shrines are razed.**
This technique has been used to destroy all forms of the good. To paraphrase Toohey:
"Want to destroy the hero? Don't attack the hero. Enshrine the anti-hero, the zero, and you have destroyed hero. Want to destroy individual rights? Don't attack individual rights. Enshrine needs over rights (by moving the context of rights from the individual to the collective and declaring these needs to be group rights.) This process can be used to destroy any good.
But this technique can be used in reverse. Want to destroy collectivism? Enshrine individualism. For example, want to destroy diversity? Enshrine peoples' similarities not their differences. But I don't want to be misleading. There is a difference. Toohey wanted to destroy the good not to enshrine any particular evil but to create a void which he would fill. The rational man doesn't seek to destroy anything. He creates the good which blocks the existence of evil. That is why Tara Smith and Gideon are right is saying that is is more important to enshrine the good than to just oppose evil.
**I recently had the privilege to attend and enjoy Tara Smith's talk on Justice in Irvine where I work. The talk was excellent but ironically it was primarily during the Q&A that Dr. Smith was able to put increased emphasis on the greater need to praise the good. Of course, it is important to identify and judge evil but as anybody who has studied Objectivism in some detail knows, evil is metaphysically impotent -- it is far more important to express appreciation to the good people one encounters as they are the life-givers."
I couldn't agree more. I had just finished rereading (in The Fountainhead) Ellsworth Toohey's confession to Peter Keating on how he Toohey, aquired his power. I was thinking about the technique Toohey used to destroy the good:
**Don't set out to raze all shrines--you'll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity--and the shrines are razed.**
This technique has been used to destroy all forms of the good. To paraphrase Toohey:
"Want to destroy the hero? Don't attack the hero. Enshrine the anti-hero, the zero, and you have destroyed hero. Want to destroy individual rights? Don't attack individual rights. Enshrine needs over rights (by moving the context of rights from the individual to the collective and declaring these needs to be group rights.) This process can be used to destroy any good.
But this technique can be used in reverse. Want to destroy collectivism? Enshrine individualism. For example, want to destroy diversity? Enshrine peoples' similarities not their differences. But I don't want to be misleading. There is a difference. Toohey wanted to destroy the good not to enshrine any particular evil but to create a void which he would fill. The rational man doesn't seek to destroy anything. He creates the good which blocks the existence of evil. That is why Tara Smith and Gideon are right is saying that is is more important to enshrine the good than to just oppose evil.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Post-Katrina Thoughts
Saturday's Detroit News has an article titled "Rebuilding in storm belts defies forcasts" by AP writer Allen G. Breed. The article shows how some people don't want to give up the paradise of living on or by the water. Instead of moving inland where it is safer, especially from storm surges of 30 feet, they would rather rebuild on sand and silt that is sinking under the weight and require taxpayer funded levees to protect their little piece of eden.
But what makes it all possible?
**Much of that construction -- along with today's rebuilding -- was made possible by the National Flood Insurance Program, the subject of much post-Katrina debate.
Subsidizing beachfront homes
It is madness for the government to continue subsidizing coastal development by providing infrastructure and flood insurance, says ocean advocate David Helvarg.
Repeat claims account for 40 percent of all payments from the program, although they represent just 2 percent of covered properties, says Helvarg, president of the Blue Frontier Campaign.
As of last year, he says, $763 billion worth of real estate was insured by the federal flood program, 40 percent of it in Florida alone.
"This is the biggest exposure we have after Social Security," says Helvarg. "It's nuts to think we can keep building in harm's way."**
Yes it is. But such is the result of allowing government to become a great altruistic benefactor to society instead of being the protector of individual rights as our constitution requires. One has to wonder how many politicians got re-elected by promising voters "Want to have a little piece of paradise? No problem. I will just pass laws that will force your fellow citizens to pay for special levees just for you and for replacement costs if anything bad should happen to your dream world."
Is the government even trying to rein in any of this insanity? Well, they've made a feeble attempt at it but the temptation to play the great altruistic dispenser of goodies is proving too great for some politicians.
**The federal government has tried to discourage building in sensitive coastal areas. The Reagan-era Coastal Barrier Resources Act excluded 3 million acres of sand spits and barrier islands from federal flood insurance programs and other infrastructure assistance, but lawmakers have been steadily chipping away at it.
When Katrina came ashore, there were bills pending to cover 50,000 previously excluded acres in Florida, Georgia and Texas. That's unfair to taxpayers, Houck says, adding, "You can go over Niagara in a barrel if you want -- but we don't have to buy the barrel."**
But we are buying the barrel, along with the lock and stock.
In a laissez-faire capitalist society, Katrina would still have happened. But the human disaster that was New Orleans would not. In such a society, the government would not be allowed to buy votes by promising favors to some people at the expense of others.
Also in such a society, all insurance would be privately owned. No insurance company in its right mind would insure the building of a city on nothing but sand and silt.
The only way it could happen is if the businessmen were willing to pay the higher premiums that the insurers would certainly demand. It is also likely the insurance companies would not settle for levees built to withstand catagory 3 hurricanes. With that much money involved, both businessmen and insurance companies would demand levees be built to withstand max strength storms. It is also likely that the levees would be built by private companies.
But none of these conditions exist in our welfare statist economy and we saw the results of letting the government run things. Only a system of laissez-faire capitalism would prevent such a disaster from happening.
But what makes it all possible?
**Much of that construction -- along with today's rebuilding -- was made possible by the National Flood Insurance Program, the subject of much post-Katrina debate.
Subsidizing beachfront homes
It is madness for the government to continue subsidizing coastal development by providing infrastructure and flood insurance, says ocean advocate David Helvarg.
Repeat claims account for 40 percent of all payments from the program, although they represent just 2 percent of covered properties, says Helvarg, president of the Blue Frontier Campaign.
As of last year, he says, $763 billion worth of real estate was insured by the federal flood program, 40 percent of it in Florida alone.
"This is the biggest exposure we have after Social Security," says Helvarg. "It's nuts to think we can keep building in harm's way."**
Yes it is. But such is the result of allowing government to become a great altruistic benefactor to society instead of being the protector of individual rights as our constitution requires. One has to wonder how many politicians got re-elected by promising voters "Want to have a little piece of paradise? No problem. I will just pass laws that will force your fellow citizens to pay for special levees just for you and for replacement costs if anything bad should happen to your dream world."
Is the government even trying to rein in any of this insanity? Well, they've made a feeble attempt at it but the temptation to play the great altruistic dispenser of goodies is proving too great for some politicians.
**The federal government has tried to discourage building in sensitive coastal areas. The Reagan-era Coastal Barrier Resources Act excluded 3 million acres of sand spits and barrier islands from federal flood insurance programs and other infrastructure assistance, but lawmakers have been steadily chipping away at it.
When Katrina came ashore, there were bills pending to cover 50,000 previously excluded acres in Florida, Georgia and Texas. That's unfair to taxpayers, Houck says, adding, "You can go over Niagara in a barrel if you want -- but we don't have to buy the barrel."**
But we are buying the barrel, along with the lock and stock.
In a laissez-faire capitalist society, Katrina would still have happened. But the human disaster that was New Orleans would not. In such a society, the government would not be allowed to buy votes by promising favors to some people at the expense of others.
Also in such a society, all insurance would be privately owned. No insurance company in its right mind would insure the building of a city on nothing but sand and silt.
The only way it could happen is if the businessmen were willing to pay the higher premiums that the insurers would certainly demand. It is also likely the insurance companies would not settle for levees built to withstand catagory 3 hurricanes. With that much money involved, both businessmen and insurance companies would demand levees be built to withstand max strength storms. It is also likely that the levees would be built by private companies.
But none of these conditions exist in our welfare statist economy and we saw the results of letting the government run things. Only a system of laissez-faire capitalism would prevent such a disaster from happening.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Global Warming Racket
Bruno at The Simplest Thing has links to a good article on global warming at Capitalism Magazine. Here is one quote:
**The money is in global warming because it’s being pushed by a political agenda that wants power. Power in Washington. Power on the international stage. Power over economic development. Power over international monetary decisions. Power over energy. In short, power over the motor of the world. It’s driven by literally thousands of large and small non-governmental organizations (NGOs) sanctioned by the United Nations, and implemented by a horde of bureaucrats, university academics and an ignorant but pliable news media.**
The author Tom Deweese, is right about the ignorant and pliable media. But some scientists contribute to the misinformation also. Today, establishment scientists use the field of statistics to conduct "studies." As readers of this site know, statistics is a science that studies probabilities. It cannot prove cause and effect because it is not designed to. The best statistics can do is narrow down a causal factor to one or two possibilities. At that point science steps in to perform an experiment to prove or disprove causation.
A statistical study will usually show that there is a correlation between A and B.
A correlation means only that B happened on or about the same time as A. It does not mean that A is connected to B. It could be that both A and B were caused by C. Or there is no connection and A and B happening together was just a coincidence.
The misleading of the public happens when scientists and reporters decide not to use the correct terms 'correlation' or 'association' but instead use the word link. My dictionary says one of the meanings of link is "that which serves to connect or tie." When the word link is used, a lot of the public will think there is a connection between A and B even though no connection has been demonstrated, only suggested.
Gullable reporters then print articles with bold headlines shouting "A linked to B." Politicians will then wave said media articles around claiming we must save B from A. They promise to allocate more money to study the link between A and B. Scientists begin lining up to fill out grant applications to further study A and B. Some will want to study the effects of global warming on A. Others will want to study the effects of sprawl on B and on and on forever. The only losers in this con game are the taxpayers who have to keep paying and paying no matter what. And in six weeks or months there will appear on page 6A of that same paper a small article saying "A not linked to B new study shows."
By then, not too many people will notice. The hype will have died down. The original article will have served its purpose, a means to many ends. The scientists will have your money. The politicians will be re-elected for trying to save B. The reporters will have had another good day at the office, and you, you will be presented with a new set of "crises" that demand more sacrifices.
This process won't stop until the taxpayers realize that wherever sacrifices are being demanded, someone is collecting them; that when they regret not being able to send their children to a good college or care for their aging parents properly, or buy that bigger house in a better neighborhood, somewhere there is a scientist or politician who says "thank you very much."
When the taxpayers realize that they are being had by incompetent scientists, irresponsible politicians and reporters, maybe the jig will be up. Maybe.
**The money is in global warming because it’s being pushed by a political agenda that wants power. Power in Washington. Power on the international stage. Power over economic development. Power over international monetary decisions. Power over energy. In short, power over the motor of the world. It’s driven by literally thousands of large and small non-governmental organizations (NGOs) sanctioned by the United Nations, and implemented by a horde of bureaucrats, university academics and an ignorant but pliable news media.**
The author Tom Deweese, is right about the ignorant and pliable media. But some scientists contribute to the misinformation also. Today, establishment scientists use the field of statistics to conduct "studies." As readers of this site know, statistics is a science that studies probabilities. It cannot prove cause and effect because it is not designed to. The best statistics can do is narrow down a causal factor to one or two possibilities. At that point science steps in to perform an experiment to prove or disprove causation.
A statistical study will usually show that there is a correlation between A and B.
A correlation means only that B happened on or about the same time as A. It does not mean that A is connected to B. It could be that both A and B were caused by C. Or there is no connection and A and B happening together was just a coincidence.
The misleading of the public happens when scientists and reporters decide not to use the correct terms 'correlation' or 'association' but instead use the word link. My dictionary says one of the meanings of link is "that which serves to connect or tie." When the word link is used, a lot of the public will think there is a connection between A and B even though no connection has been demonstrated, only suggested.
Gullable reporters then print articles with bold headlines shouting "A linked to B." Politicians will then wave said media articles around claiming we must save B from A. They promise to allocate more money to study the link between A and B. Scientists begin lining up to fill out grant applications to further study A and B. Some will want to study the effects of global warming on A. Others will want to study the effects of sprawl on B and on and on forever. The only losers in this con game are the taxpayers who have to keep paying and paying no matter what. And in six weeks or months there will appear on page 6A of that same paper a small article saying "A not linked to B new study shows."
By then, not too many people will notice. The hype will have died down. The original article will have served its purpose, a means to many ends. The scientists will have your money. The politicians will be re-elected for trying to save B. The reporters will have had another good day at the office, and you, you will be presented with a new set of "crises" that demand more sacrifices.
This process won't stop until the taxpayers realize that wherever sacrifices are being demanded, someone is collecting them; that when they regret not being able to send their children to a good college or care for their aging parents properly, or buy that bigger house in a better neighborhood, somewhere there is a scientist or politician who says "thank you very much."
When the taxpayers realize that they are being had by incompetent scientists, irresponsible politicians and reporters, maybe the jig will be up. Maybe.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Good Sign and More Same-old Nonsense
Good Sign
I see the Competitive Enterprise Institute will be running tv ads trying to counter Al Gore's propaganda documentary "An Inconvienient Truth" due to be released next week. The story, by Deborah Zabarenko, can be found here. (hat tip JunkScience.com) We need more efforts like this if Americans are ever to be exposed to the truth instead of just the establishment orthodoxy.
***************************************
A Head Shaker
The Thursday May 18th edition of the Detroit News has an article by Marc Sandalow of the San Francisco Chronicle titled "GOP says: 'We have to produce.'" The sixth paragraph says:
**"We have to produce," said Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif. "What have we done on energy that produces more energy? What have we done on immigration that solves the immigration problem? What did we do on the deficit when we let spending get out of control and we ran up the deficit?"**
How true. But isn't almost 6 years into Bush's two term presidency a little late to start acting like Republicans?
***************************************
Another Head Shaker
On the same page is an article by Richard Simon of the Los Angeles Times titled "Catchy titles help legislation stand out." The subtitle is "Lawmakers tailor names of proposals to acronyms that will be noticed, win supporters."
You can read the article here but this is nothing more than an attempt by our lawmakers to put a brighter shade of lipstick on their legisative pigs.
I see the Competitive Enterprise Institute will be running tv ads trying to counter Al Gore's propaganda documentary "An Inconvienient Truth" due to be released next week. The story, by Deborah Zabarenko, can be found here. (hat tip JunkScience.com) We need more efforts like this if Americans are ever to be exposed to the truth instead of just the establishment orthodoxy.
***************************************
A Head Shaker
The Thursday May 18th edition of the Detroit News has an article by Marc Sandalow of the San Francisco Chronicle titled "GOP says: 'We have to produce.'" The sixth paragraph says:
**"We have to produce," said Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif. "What have we done on energy that produces more energy? What have we done on immigration that solves the immigration problem? What did we do on the deficit when we let spending get out of control and we ran up the deficit?"**
How true. But isn't almost 6 years into Bush's two term presidency a little late to start acting like Republicans?
***************************************
Another Head Shaker
On the same page is an article by Richard Simon of the Los Angeles Times titled "Catchy titles help legislation stand out." The subtitle is "Lawmakers tailor names of proposals to acronyms that will be noticed, win supporters."
You can read the article here but this is nothing more than an attempt by our lawmakers to put a brighter shade of lipstick on their legisative pigs.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Can't make this stuff up
In addition to the Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press, I also accasionally read a third paper, The Macomb Daily. I'll buy 2 to 4 copies a month of this paper that serves Macomb County which abuts the north east border of Detroit City limits.
Today's 5/15/06 headlines caught my eyes;
Psychics, astrologers may soon need license
The subtitle of the article by Mitch Hotts reads: "Eastpointe councilwoman wants to avoid further complaints of customers getting ripped off."
So how are the police to tell the difference between honest psychics and dishonest ones? Is there a difference? The third and fourth paragraphs say:
**We've read stories in the news about these psychics ripping off people of a large amount of money and we hope to avoid anything like that in Eastpointe," said City Councilwoman Veronica Klinefelt.
Under the ordinance that is being considered, anyone opening an astrology or fortune telling business in Eastpointe would have to apply for a psychic's license and a regular business license that all businesses must receive before opening.**
So the crimes aren't being committed in Eastpointe but rather in nearby suburbs and Eastpointe just wants to be preemptive. It looks to me like just another attempt for the city government to get its greedy hands on more money forceably taken from its citizens. The story goes on:
**It also would require the names and residences of all employees. The applicant would have to include information on his or her height, weight, hair color, along with a criminal history, a recent photograph, and a set of fingerprints.
The business operator also would have to undergo a police inspection and provide records on all customers with their name, age, address and service requested.**
This last will go over big with the public. How many customers want it known that they visit psychics?
Evidently though it seems they are having trouble drafting an honest ordinance:
**(City Attorney Robert)Hribar said the ordinance has not been finalized and a number of items have already been removed from the draft copy, including an inspection by the health department. He also removed a clause defining fortune tellers as someone who "pretends to be able to reveal the future."
"I think we can come up with something a little less offensive, but won't change the definition," he said.**
In other words, we're going to pretend that fortune tellers don't pretend to tell the future! Oh well. More supporting arguements:
**Eastpointe officials said they were alarmed by news reports of a psychic in Utica whose customers said they received oils and candles in exchange for cash and merchandise. Another psychic in Eastpointe was accused of sexually assaulting neighborhood boys.**
Now we already have laws against sexually assaulting people. We don't need to regulate psychics to enforce those laws. This is a clear cop-out by Eastpointe city leaders. We also have laws against fraud and don't need to regulate psychics to enforce those either. On the other hand, how would you adjudicate something like a fraud claim? "My future didn't turn out the way she said it would"?
Considering all the above, you just knew this was coming:
**Kelly MacLeod, a psychic and owner of Enchanted Soul, which recently moved to Roseville from Eastpointe, said she objects to paying licensing fees, but admits the process could eliminate scam artists.
"There are fraudulent people out there," MacLeod said. "It makes it difficult for honest readers such as myself when we have to compensate for the wackos out there claiming to be in touch with evil spirits and black auras."**
Of course.
I predict you will be able to read the entire article if you just click on this.
Today's 5/15/06 headlines caught my eyes;
Psychics, astrologers may soon need license
The subtitle of the article by Mitch Hotts reads: "Eastpointe councilwoman wants to avoid further complaints of customers getting ripped off."
So how are the police to tell the difference between honest psychics and dishonest ones? Is there a difference? The third and fourth paragraphs say:
**We've read stories in the news about these psychics ripping off people of a large amount of money and we hope to avoid anything like that in Eastpointe," said City Councilwoman Veronica Klinefelt.
Under the ordinance that is being considered, anyone opening an astrology or fortune telling business in Eastpointe would have to apply for a psychic's license and a regular business license that all businesses must receive before opening.**
So the crimes aren't being committed in Eastpointe but rather in nearby suburbs and Eastpointe just wants to be preemptive. It looks to me like just another attempt for the city government to get its greedy hands on more money forceably taken from its citizens. The story goes on:
**It also would require the names and residences of all employees. The applicant would have to include information on his or her height, weight, hair color, along with a criminal history, a recent photograph, and a set of fingerprints.
The business operator also would have to undergo a police inspection and provide records on all customers with their name, age, address and service requested.**
This last will go over big with the public. How many customers want it known that they visit psychics?
Evidently though it seems they are having trouble drafting an honest ordinance:
**(City Attorney Robert)Hribar said the ordinance has not been finalized and a number of items have already been removed from the draft copy, including an inspection by the health department. He also removed a clause defining fortune tellers as someone who "pretends to be able to reveal the future."
"I think we can come up with something a little less offensive, but won't change the definition," he said.**
In other words, we're going to pretend that fortune tellers don't pretend to tell the future! Oh well. More supporting arguements:
**Eastpointe officials said they were alarmed by news reports of a psychic in Utica whose customers said they received oils and candles in exchange for cash and merchandise. Another psychic in Eastpointe was accused of sexually assaulting neighborhood boys.**
Now we already have laws against sexually assaulting people. We don't need to regulate psychics to enforce those laws. This is a clear cop-out by Eastpointe city leaders. We also have laws against fraud and don't need to regulate psychics to enforce those either. On the other hand, how would you adjudicate something like a fraud claim? "My future didn't turn out the way she said it would"?
Considering all the above, you just knew this was coming:
**Kelly MacLeod, a psychic and owner of Enchanted Soul, which recently moved to Roseville from Eastpointe, said she objects to paying licensing fees, but admits the process could eliminate scam artists.
"There are fraudulent people out there," MacLeod said. "It makes it difficult for honest readers such as myself when we have to compensate for the wackos out there claiming to be in touch with evil spirits and black auras."**
Of course.
I predict you will be able to read the entire article if you just click on this.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Things Spotted by Mike's Eyes
A Good Essay.
Jason Pappas has a good essay about the war on terror at Liberty and Culture titled Establishing a Deterrent. Here are a few quotes:
"Our problem isn’t a willingness to risk our lives but a difficulty risking their lives. Unlike them we have a hard time killing our foes." And:
"A deterrent isn’t established by our willingness to help our enemies but our willingness to kill our enemies."
I strongy recommend reading the whole thing.
*****************************************
Some sarcazm.
In the Sunday May 14th editorial page of the Detroit Free Press is a section called "Extra Points" in which people in the public eye are quoted on current events.
There are nine such quotes today. The #2 quote is headlined "Dems should take to the street." and it reads:
"The Democrats are thinking too much and doing too little. This is a party in need of a moxie transplant. It's time for the patient to climb off the couch, walk outside and mix it up with the gang that has made a complete and utter mess of the country that was entrusted to it." Bob Herbert, New York Times
"The Democrats are thinking too much..." Hee Hee Haw Haw Thanks Bob, you made my day. That's a good one. Seriously Bob, used car salesmen wouldn't try to sell me that.
Hmmm. What exactly is meant by "mix it up"? Is this a call to arms? An incitement to violence? Are hostilities the result of "thinking too much"?
Bob, your party doesn't need moxie. It needs a rational ideology. Dump your Marxist/collectivist/altruist philosophy for individualism/capitalism/egoism and the republicans will never win another election. Now isn't that a pleasant thought?
****************************************
She can see it.
Item #3 in the above collection is titled "Political choices with no options." It says:
"It is odd to live in the age of options, when everyone's exhausted by choice, and feel your options for securing political progress are so limited. One party has beliefs it doesn't act on. The other doesn't seem to have beliefs, only impulses." Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal
Right on. The question is, why are the Dems such feelers and the Repubs such pretenders? Both have abandoned reason.
***************************************
Guys like this give aid to Objectivism's enemies.
Jim Woods at Words by Woods has a defense of Objectivism regarding the antics of the recently arrested dj "Star."
Evidently this guy made threats and racial slurs over the air about a competitor's family. He also said he had an ideology and it is Objectivism.
Jason Pappas has a good essay about the war on terror at Liberty and Culture titled Establishing a Deterrent. Here are a few quotes:
"Our problem isn’t a willingness to risk our lives but a difficulty risking their lives. Unlike them we have a hard time killing our foes." And:
"A deterrent isn’t established by our willingness to help our enemies but our willingness to kill our enemies."
I strongy recommend reading the whole thing.
*****************************************
Some sarcazm.
In the Sunday May 14th editorial page of the Detroit Free Press is a section called "Extra Points" in which people in the public eye are quoted on current events.
There are nine such quotes today. The #2 quote is headlined "Dems should take to the street." and it reads:
"The Democrats are thinking too much and doing too little. This is a party in need of a moxie transplant. It's time for the patient to climb off the couch, walk outside and mix it up with the gang that has made a complete and utter mess of the country that was entrusted to it." Bob Herbert, New York Times
"The Democrats are thinking too much..." Hee Hee Haw Haw Thanks Bob, you made my day. That's a good one. Seriously Bob, used car salesmen wouldn't try to sell me that.
Hmmm. What exactly is meant by "mix it up"? Is this a call to arms? An incitement to violence? Are hostilities the result of "thinking too much"?
Bob, your party doesn't need moxie. It needs a rational ideology. Dump your Marxist/collectivist/altruist philosophy for individualism/capitalism/egoism and the republicans will never win another election. Now isn't that a pleasant thought?
****************************************
She can see it.
Item #3 in the above collection is titled "Political choices with no options." It says:
"It is odd to live in the age of options, when everyone's exhausted by choice, and feel your options for securing political progress are so limited. One party has beliefs it doesn't act on. The other doesn't seem to have beliefs, only impulses." Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal
Right on. The question is, why are the Dems such feelers and the Repubs such pretenders? Both have abandoned reason.
***************************************
Guys like this give aid to Objectivism's enemies.
Jim Woods at Words by Woods has a defense of Objectivism regarding the antics of the recently arrested dj "Star."
Evidently this guy made threats and racial slurs over the air about a competitor's family. He also said he had an ideology and it is Objectivism.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
A Few Pet Peeves
There is a technique of biased reporting that I hear now and then that really gets my ire. It is the practice of a reporter ending his or her report with the phrase "But there's no guaranty this (or it) will be easy (or *a piece of cake* or *a snap* or some such).
I have heard this at the end of several reports on the war on terror. One was just before the Nov. 04 presidential election. A reporter was doing a story on the increase in suicide bombings during the build up to the election. He ended his piece with something like "The Bush administration (or coalition) is trying to maintain order but there's no guaranty this will by easy." I'm going on memory here.
So the reporter is trying to get his listeners to believe that the administration thinks restoring order will be easy and are looking for guarantees of same. Naturally, in the mind of anyone goofy enough to believe this tripe, there will be projected the image of an administration that is irrational, foolish, and incompetent in the extreme and
that is what that sentence is designed to accomplish.
I have been tempted to put a footer at the end of each post saying something like:
"Ever since the Jason Blair (or Janet Cooke) incident, the New York Times (or Wapo) has been trying to put forth an honest reporting staff, but there's no guarantee this will be easy." Heh, I get pleasure from such thoughts.
Another peeve I have is when reportors cover a science event or press release and refer to certain scientists as "reputable scientists." This is a head shaker for me.
I mean, no reporter in his right mind is going to quote "disreputable scientists," at least not yet. It is assumed by most normally rational people that if you're going to quote a scientist, he will be a reputable one.
Now there is nothing wrong with citing a scientist's actual credentials. Knowing that a scientist is a phd or holds a chair or other such credentials can be helpful. But such knowledge is not the purpose of that adjective.
Reputable means having a reputation which means there are a number of other people who think said scientist is right which means "consensus." The use of the term "reputable scientists" is designed to smuggle into the minds of readers the notion that truth is determined by consensus. The reporter is saying in essence: "Lots of others think he's right, and because of that, you should too."
In other words, don't concern yourself with the facts, go along with the consensus.
One more. The issue of credentials. There are a lot of scientists and reporters who think that a person's credentials alone should be ample evidence of truth. Not so.
I have seen professors on tv talk shows, and reporters too, waving credentials around and indulging in what I call a "My credentials can beat up your credentials" contest. It is saddening to witness such intellectual deterioration.
I've always believed that a person's credentials mean he or she should be listened to. They do not mean he should be believed. Belief depends strictly on the merits of the person's arguements, not on his credentials.
I have heard this at the end of several reports on the war on terror. One was just before the Nov. 04 presidential election. A reporter was doing a story on the increase in suicide bombings during the build up to the election. He ended his piece with something like "The Bush administration (or coalition) is trying to maintain order but there's no guaranty this will by easy." I'm going on memory here.
So the reporter is trying to get his listeners to believe that the administration thinks restoring order will be easy and are looking for guarantees of same. Naturally, in the mind of anyone goofy enough to believe this tripe, there will be projected the image of an administration that is irrational, foolish, and incompetent in the extreme and
that is what that sentence is designed to accomplish.
I have been tempted to put a footer at the end of each post saying something like:
"Ever since the Jason Blair (or Janet Cooke) incident, the New York Times (or Wapo) has been trying to put forth an honest reporting staff, but there's no guarantee this will be easy." Heh, I get pleasure from such thoughts.
Another peeve I have is when reportors cover a science event or press release and refer to certain scientists as "reputable scientists." This is a head shaker for me.
I mean, no reporter in his right mind is going to quote "disreputable scientists," at least not yet. It is assumed by most normally rational people that if you're going to quote a scientist, he will be a reputable one.
Now there is nothing wrong with citing a scientist's actual credentials. Knowing that a scientist is a phd or holds a chair or other such credentials can be helpful. But such knowledge is not the purpose of that adjective.
Reputable means having a reputation which means there are a number of other people who think said scientist is right which means "consensus." The use of the term "reputable scientists" is designed to smuggle into the minds of readers the notion that truth is determined by consensus. The reporter is saying in essence: "Lots of others think he's right, and because of that, you should too."
In other words, don't concern yourself with the facts, go along with the consensus.
One more. The issue of credentials. There are a lot of scientists and reporters who think that a person's credentials alone should be ample evidence of truth. Not so.
I have seen professors on tv talk shows, and reporters too, waving credentials around and indulging in what I call a "My credentials can beat up your credentials" contest. It is saddening to witness such intellectual deterioration.
I've always believed that a person's credentials mean he or she should be listened to. They do not mean he should be believed. Belief depends strictly on the merits of the person's arguements, not on his credentials.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Congratulations
Belated congratulations to Diana and Paul Hsieh for 7 years of marriage. Congratulations are also in order for Rule of Reason for reaching 100,000 visit plateau.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Aid to Palistinians
I see the U.S. has joined the EU, the UN and Russia in announcing they'll give aid to the Palistinian people directly, that is, bypassing the Palistinian government.
Clearly a case of primacy of consciousness. The U.S. is saying in effect "We'll pretend that there is a complete disconnect between a people and their government, that one has no causal relationship to the other and that by helping feed some of the people we are not removing that responsibility from the shoulders of that government and thus supporting that government even though it sure looks that way."
Or: "If we all agree that we are not helping the Hamas government, then, in fact, we will not be helping that government. Reality is created by consensus right?"
This is also of course, another example of Performing the Altruistic Ritual. If you declare that you do it not for yourself but for others, then you can do anything including prolong the rule of a gang of thugs like Hamas. You don't actually have to help the Palistinians. Just declare your pure intentions and you can condemn the Palistinians to eternal subjugation by that same gang. That of course is not helping the Palistinians at all. In fact, it helps the thugs stay in power and that is what altruism is all about. Politically, altruism is a morality of, by and for those who would rule by force.
So, what kind of message is our government sending? "Your government, Hamas, doesn't want to institute the principles that will lead to your freedom and prosperity. We Americans will help Hamas stay in power by feeding you just enough to stay alive so Hamas will still have someone to rule. We will help sustain your life but enhancing your life is out of the question. Stagnation and death is your future. We will help you postpone it but not change it."
Without that aid, the palistinians would see that their values only bring them death.
They would starve without the food created by those they want to destroy. The Palistinians themselves must discover that their chozen values are irrational. Feeding them postpones the need to make that discovery.
Clearly a case of primacy of consciousness. The U.S. is saying in effect "We'll pretend that there is a complete disconnect between a people and their government, that one has no causal relationship to the other and that by helping feed some of the people we are not removing that responsibility from the shoulders of that government and thus supporting that government even though it sure looks that way."
Or: "If we all agree that we are not helping the Hamas government, then, in fact, we will not be helping that government. Reality is created by consensus right?"
This is also of course, another example of Performing the Altruistic Ritual. If you declare that you do it not for yourself but for others, then you can do anything including prolong the rule of a gang of thugs like Hamas. You don't actually have to help the Palistinians. Just declare your pure intentions and you can condemn the Palistinians to eternal subjugation by that same gang. That of course is not helping the Palistinians at all. In fact, it helps the thugs stay in power and that is what altruism is all about. Politically, altruism is a morality of, by and for those who would rule by force.
So, what kind of message is our government sending? "Your government, Hamas, doesn't want to institute the principles that will lead to your freedom and prosperity. We Americans will help Hamas stay in power by feeding you just enough to stay alive so Hamas will still have someone to rule. We will help sustain your life but enhancing your life is out of the question. Stagnation and death is your future. We will help you postpone it but not change it."
Without that aid, the palistinians would see that their values only bring them death.
They would starve without the food created by those they want to destroy. The Palistinians themselves must discover that their chozen values are irrational. Feeding them postpones the need to make that discovery.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Little Round Up
Ed Cline has a great guest article at Rule of Reason demonstrating the principle that evil can only win with the cowardice of the good. A sample paragraph:
**One must wonder just how dumb are the likes of Chavez and Morales. Surely they know that nationalized, government controlled industries invariably fail and require the eventual reintroduction of hated foreign technicians to maintain the value of their loot. The record is quite clear. Perhaps they do know it, and this is their way of deliberately destroying values in order to destroy a greater value, such as the U.S. Perhaps, like James Taggart in "Atlas Shrugged," they want to hear us scream.**
Indeed. When you hate the goood for being the good, you will want it's creators destroyed even if you perish in the process. I urge reading the whole thing.
********************************************
Mark Steyn has a Western Standard article on America's so-called imperialism here. A quote I like:
"Many Americans feel that they came to their conclusions about the value of liberty on their own and that other peoples should, too. While this might be philosophically admirable, the practical drawback is that power abhors a vacuum. If America won't export its values, others will export theirs. Almost all the supranational bodies--from the EU to the International Criminal Court--are, if not explicitly hostile to American values, at the very least antipathetic to them. This, too is historically unprecedented. Multilateral institutions set up and largely funded by America are now one of the principal incubators of anti-Americanism."
Right on. And It's because of their anti-life morality of altruism.
********************************************
I see via DRUDGE that Rupert Murdoch will be holding a fund raiser for Hillary this summer. Why am I not surprised? I never had Mr. Murdoch pegged as a conservative anyway. IMO, he backs Fox because it is a money maker, not because it has conservative leanings. If Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly stop making money, they'll be gone faster than his previous disdain for Hillary. As far as Hillary is concerned, she is a power luster extraordinaire. She stayed with Bill through the Monica scandal to play the "stand by your man" theme to the hilt. (Where was the outrage from the feminists?) Now she is trying to tell conservatives and moderates whatever they want to hear. Some are falling for it.
*********************************************
**One must wonder just how dumb are the likes of Chavez and Morales. Surely they know that nationalized, government controlled industries invariably fail and require the eventual reintroduction of hated foreign technicians to maintain the value of their loot. The record is quite clear. Perhaps they do know it, and this is their way of deliberately destroying values in order to destroy a greater value, such as the U.S. Perhaps, like James Taggart in "Atlas Shrugged," they want to hear us scream.**
Indeed. When you hate the goood for being the good, you will want it's creators destroyed even if you perish in the process. I urge reading the whole thing.
********************************************
Mark Steyn has a Western Standard article on America's so-called imperialism here. A quote I like:
"Many Americans feel that they came to their conclusions about the value of liberty on their own and that other peoples should, too. While this might be philosophically admirable, the practical drawback is that power abhors a vacuum. If America won't export its values, others will export theirs. Almost all the supranational bodies--from the EU to the International Criminal Court--are, if not explicitly hostile to American values, at the very least antipathetic to them. This, too is historically unprecedented. Multilateral institutions set up and largely funded by America are now one of the principal incubators of anti-Americanism."
Right on. And It's because of their anti-life morality of altruism.
********************************************
I see via DRUDGE that Rupert Murdoch will be holding a fund raiser for Hillary this summer. Why am I not surprised? I never had Mr. Murdoch pegged as a conservative anyway. IMO, he backs Fox because it is a money maker, not because it has conservative leanings. If Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly stop making money, they'll be gone faster than his previous disdain for Hillary. As far as Hillary is concerned, she is a power luster extraordinaire. She stayed with Bill through the Monica scandal to play the "stand by your man" theme to the hilt. (Where was the outrage from the feminists?) Now she is trying to tell conservatives and moderates whatever they want to hear. Some are falling for it.
*********************************************
Friday, May 05, 2006
Sound Science Under Attack
In the Friday edition of the Detroit Free Press is a supposed news story on the Nation & World page titled "What constitutes sound science? No one can really say."
The subtitle is "For Bush, term is all about politics."
Not only is this a Bush bashing effort, it is also an attempt to obliterate the concept of "sound science." Also, in a 2 page section on Nation and World news, you'd think there would be somthing more important in the world to report on than an opportunity to bash Bush, but, silly me, there obviously isn't. Knight Ridder reporter Iris Kuo begins:
**Washington-- The Bush administration, senators, industrialists and farmers repeatedly invoke the term sound science to delay or deep-six policies they oppose and dismiss criticism of those they favor.
The administration has waved it at such diverse issues as global warming, beef imports, air pollution and arsenic in drinking water.
Last Thursday, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta used the phrase to slow a congressional bid to raise the U.S. passenger vehicle mileage standard. "An administrative process based on sound science" should precede any change, Mineta said.
No one, however, is sure what the term means.**
I'm sure. At least in fundamental terms, "sound science" is science that conforms to reality. Unsound science would be science that does not conform to reality. My Webster's New World Dictionary College Edition gives several definitions of sound.
Aside from audio meanings and wide channel and measuring ocean depth meanings, there is this: "based on truth or valid reasoning, reliable..." So why is Ms. Kuo confused?
**The phrase has more to do with antiregulatory lobbying than with laboratory results, said Donald Kennedy, the former head of the Food and Drug Administration and now the editor-in-chief of the influential magazine Science.
"Sound science is whatever somebody likes," Kennedy said. "It's essentially a politically useful term, but it doesn't have any normative meaning whatsoever. My science is sound science, and the science of my enemies is junk science."**
There you have it. Right from the horses mouth, sound science is not rooted in reality but in feelings, whatever someone "likes." And sound science has "no normative meaning whatsoever." So scientific truth is to be determined how? Obviously by whatever the establishment scientists and their mouthpieces like Kennedy, say it is.
Ms. Kuo goes on to show several instances where the bush administration has used its demand for sound science to slow or stop environmental regulations. But instead of framing this practice in the context of the president demanding that the American people be told the truth, she frames it in the context that the president is obstructing the science establishment's desire to indulge in their feelings. She then goes on to repeat a popular lie:
**For example, while there's nearly unanimous agreement that global warming is caused largely by human activity, the administration, in the name of sound science, has stressed the arguments of a few dissenters.**
Actually, there is not near unanimous agreement. In fact the agreement is lessening every day as new evidence comes in and as more people find out about the dishonesty of the IPCC in all of their assessment reports to date. For more info on the so-called "consensus," Professor Philip Stott has more at EnviroSpin Watch here. (Scroll down to Monday, May 1.)
Not only is it distressing to see a reporter defending the establishment against the American people, it is also disappointing to see a reporter champion the idea that truth is to be determined by numbers (consensus). Reporters should know better. In fact, there's an inside saying in science that says, "If you need a consensus, your evidence isn't good enough."
Mr. Donald Kennedy, by the way, has recently been the target of criticism from climate experts for championing the establishment's global warming agenda and giving only scant access to papers by scientists who disagree with said agenda. For more on this, SEPP has a good article here.
Readers may still be wondering how it is that an educated reporter and the editor of a supposedly prominent science journal could not know the meaning of sound (true).
It's been common practice in philosophy departments to teach students that concepts don't have refferents in reality; that a concept (like sound) is just an arbitrary construct and can have any meaning anyone "likes" to give it. We now know there are two people who have learned their lesson well.
The subtitle is "For Bush, term is all about politics."
Not only is this a Bush bashing effort, it is also an attempt to obliterate the concept of "sound science." Also, in a 2 page section on Nation and World news, you'd think there would be somthing more important in the world to report on than an opportunity to bash Bush, but, silly me, there obviously isn't. Knight Ridder reporter Iris Kuo begins:
**Washington-- The Bush administration, senators, industrialists and farmers repeatedly invoke the term sound science to delay or deep-six policies they oppose and dismiss criticism of those they favor.
The administration has waved it at such diverse issues as global warming, beef imports, air pollution and arsenic in drinking water.
Last Thursday, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta used the phrase to slow a congressional bid to raise the U.S. passenger vehicle mileage standard. "An administrative process based on sound science" should precede any change, Mineta said.
No one, however, is sure what the term means.**
I'm sure. At least in fundamental terms, "sound science" is science that conforms to reality. Unsound science would be science that does not conform to reality. My Webster's New World Dictionary College Edition gives several definitions of sound.
Aside from audio meanings and wide channel and measuring ocean depth meanings, there is this: "based on truth or valid reasoning, reliable..." So why is Ms. Kuo confused?
**The phrase has more to do with antiregulatory lobbying than with laboratory results, said Donald Kennedy, the former head of the Food and Drug Administration and now the editor-in-chief of the influential magazine Science.
"Sound science is whatever somebody likes," Kennedy said. "It's essentially a politically useful term, but it doesn't have any normative meaning whatsoever. My science is sound science, and the science of my enemies is junk science."**
There you have it. Right from the horses mouth, sound science is not rooted in reality but in feelings, whatever someone "likes." And sound science has "no normative meaning whatsoever." So scientific truth is to be determined how? Obviously by whatever the establishment scientists and their mouthpieces like Kennedy, say it is.
Ms. Kuo goes on to show several instances where the bush administration has used its demand for sound science to slow or stop environmental regulations. But instead of framing this practice in the context of the president demanding that the American people be told the truth, she frames it in the context that the president is obstructing the science establishment's desire to indulge in their feelings. She then goes on to repeat a popular lie:
**For example, while there's nearly unanimous agreement that global warming is caused largely by human activity, the administration, in the name of sound science, has stressed the arguments of a few dissenters.**
Actually, there is not near unanimous agreement. In fact the agreement is lessening every day as new evidence comes in and as more people find out about the dishonesty of the IPCC in all of their assessment reports to date. For more info on the so-called "consensus," Professor Philip Stott has more at EnviroSpin Watch here. (Scroll down to Monday, May 1.)
Not only is it distressing to see a reporter defending the establishment against the American people, it is also disappointing to see a reporter champion the idea that truth is to be determined by numbers (consensus). Reporters should know better. In fact, there's an inside saying in science that says, "If you need a consensus, your evidence isn't good enough."
Mr. Donald Kennedy, by the way, has recently been the target of criticism from climate experts for championing the establishment's global warming agenda and giving only scant access to papers by scientists who disagree with said agenda. For more on this, SEPP has a good article here.
Readers may still be wondering how it is that an educated reporter and the editor of a supposedly prominent science journal could not know the meaning of sound (true).
It's been common practice in philosophy departments to teach students that concepts don't have refferents in reality; that a concept (like sound) is just an arbitrary construct and can have any meaning anyone "likes" to give it. We now know there are two people who have learned their lesson well.
Medicine
Every Friday the Detroit News editorial page runs a column called Labor Voices. It is rotated between 4 labor leaders. This week's column is by Ron Gettelfinger President United Auto Workers Union. Today he calls for socialized medicine in the form of national health insurance. He starts:
**You've probably noticed more media attention than usual focused on America's dysfunctional health care system during the past several days thanks to "Cover the Uninsured Week," an initiative of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
"Cover the Uninsured Week" is a uniquely American event -- uniquely American because the United States is the only advanced industrialized nation without some form of universal health care coverage.
Why? The conventional wisdom, of course, is that we can't afford it. Well, the conventional wisdom is just plain wrong. It's not that we don't have the money; it's that we're spending our health care dollars inefficiently and foolishly.**
This means that all the millions of people who go to their doctors and hospitals when needed are making "foolish" and "inefficient" decisions and that a much wiser approach would be to introduce the power of governmental force into the American "system" of health insurance. Two paragraphs later he says:
**What's more, despite having the best doctors, nurses and other health care professionals in the world, the United States ranks near the bottom among industrialized nations on life expectancy, infant mortality and virtually every other measure. In fact, the infant mortality rate in our nation's capital is more than double the infant mortality rate in Beijing.**
First, the notion that the quality of American health care ranks "near the bottom" is flat out wrong. People from all over the world come here to be treated. They are not flocking to Beijing.
Second, why are we trusting numbers from a communist dictatorship which censors any data that would make it look bad?
Third, how can we have the "best doctors and nurses" whose work ranks "near the bottom"?
And fourth, Mr. Gettelfinger doesn't seem to realize the reason America has "the best doctors, nurses and other health care professionals" is precisely because America is the "only advanced industrialized nation without some form of universal health care coverage." (from above)
If one really wanted to help the uninsured one would do whatever it takes to get the government out of the way. This would make medicine more affordable and as a result, insurance would be more affordable. For a good example of this go to Thrutch which links to a good article in the WSJ on what medical tort reform has done for Texas. A sample paragraph:
"So what has happened since September of 2003, when the new law went into effect? After years of losing doctors, Texas has added nearly 4,000 since passage of Proposition 12, including 127 orthopedic surgeons, almost 300 anesthesiologists, over 200 emergency room physicians, 146 new obstetricians, 58 neurologists and 24 neurosurgeons. The Texas Medical Board is anticipating some 4,000 applicants for new physician licenses this year alone--double last year's numbers, and 30% more than the greatest growth year ever."
Laissez-faire is a system where everyone is able to be responsible for himself. Mr Gettelfinger wants each of us to be responsible for everyone else too and that won't work as other industrial nations are now discovering.
**You've probably noticed more media attention than usual focused on America's dysfunctional health care system during the past several days thanks to "Cover the Uninsured Week," an initiative of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
"Cover the Uninsured Week" is a uniquely American event -- uniquely American because the United States is the only advanced industrialized nation without some form of universal health care coverage.
Why? The conventional wisdom, of course, is that we can't afford it. Well, the conventional wisdom is just plain wrong. It's not that we don't have the money; it's that we're spending our health care dollars inefficiently and foolishly.**
This means that all the millions of people who go to their doctors and hospitals when needed are making "foolish" and "inefficient" decisions and that a much wiser approach would be to introduce the power of governmental force into the American "system" of health insurance. Two paragraphs later he says:
**What's more, despite having the best doctors, nurses and other health care professionals in the world, the United States ranks near the bottom among industrialized nations on life expectancy, infant mortality and virtually every other measure. In fact, the infant mortality rate in our nation's capital is more than double the infant mortality rate in Beijing.**
First, the notion that the quality of American health care ranks "near the bottom" is flat out wrong. People from all over the world come here to be treated. They are not flocking to Beijing.
Second, why are we trusting numbers from a communist dictatorship which censors any data that would make it look bad?
Third, how can we have the "best doctors and nurses" whose work ranks "near the bottom"?
And fourth, Mr. Gettelfinger doesn't seem to realize the reason America has "the best doctors, nurses and other health care professionals" is precisely because America is the "only advanced industrialized nation without some form of universal health care coverage." (from above)
If one really wanted to help the uninsured one would do whatever it takes to get the government out of the way. This would make medicine more affordable and as a result, insurance would be more affordable. For a good example of this go to Thrutch which links to a good article in the WSJ on what medical tort reform has done for Texas. A sample paragraph:
"So what has happened since September of 2003, when the new law went into effect? After years of losing doctors, Texas has added nearly 4,000 since passage of Proposition 12, including 127 orthopedic surgeons, almost 300 anesthesiologists, over 200 emergency room physicians, 146 new obstetricians, 58 neurologists and 24 neurosurgeons. The Texas Medical Board is anticipating some 4,000 applicants for new physician licenses this year alone--double last year's numbers, and 30% more than the greatest growth year ever."
Laissez-faire is a system where everyone is able to be responsible for himself. Mr Gettelfinger wants each of us to be responsible for everyone else too and that won't work as other industrial nations are now discovering.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Getting Behind
If you haven't done it already, go to Noodle Food and read Greg Perkins' in-depth analysis of the libertarian view on Intellectual Property rights (IP). You may have to scroll down to "Don't steal this article."
Blogging may be light for a few days. The stack of books waiting for me to read is getting out of hand. I get depressed looking at it. So, I just finished reading "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" by Michael Savage. No I didn't buy it. It was a gift from a loving in-law who knew I read political "stuff." I am now reading "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" the second expanded edition with Q and A by Ayn Rand compliments of Harry Binswanger and Leonard Peikoff. I really like this book.
Blogging may be light for a few days. The stack of books waiting for me to read is getting out of hand. I get depressed looking at it. So, I just finished reading "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder" by Michael Savage. No I didn't buy it. It was a gift from a loving in-law who knew I read political "stuff." I am now reading "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" the second expanded edition with Q and A by Ayn Rand compliments of Harry Binswanger and Leonard Peikoff. I really like this book.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Good Global Warming Articles
For a good common sense article on global warming, go here. It is about why a meteorologist Augie Auer has decided to back a new science coalition in New Zealand. The coalition has launched a new website here. (Hat tip junkscience.com) I've added it to my favorites list.
There is still another very good one in the London Telegraph by Ruth Lea here. This article also shows why a local anecdote cannot by used as evidence of global warming. A few months ago articles appeared showing that frogs in South America were victimized by a fungus that was decimating the frog population. It was hailed as proof of global warming. But, as Ms. Lea shows, England had one of the coldest winters in a decade and spring thaw was two weeks late threatening their frog population. So, according to establishment logic, England's winter would be proof of global cooling. Obviously it isn't and neither is South America's problem proof of global warming. (Again, thanks to junkscience.com)
With reports like this from New Zealand and England, there's hope that reason just might win out.
There is still another very good one in the London Telegraph by Ruth Lea here. This article also shows why a local anecdote cannot by used as evidence of global warming. A few months ago articles appeared showing that frogs in South America were victimized by a fungus that was decimating the frog population. It was hailed as proof of global warming. But, as Ms. Lea shows, England had one of the coldest winters in a decade and spring thaw was two weeks late threatening their frog population. So, according to establishment logic, England's winter would be proof of global cooling. Obviously it isn't and neither is South America's problem proof of global warming. (Again, thanks to junkscience.com)
With reports like this from New Zealand and England, there's hope that reason just might win out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)