Roundup Oct. 18th

This roundup should provide some interesting reading for this weekend.

First, C August at Titanic Deck Chairs likens the tactics of Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson to those of a crooked city mayor who makes America's businessmen "an offer they can't refuse."

Picture a gangster movie set in the 1920s, where businessmen from a big city are called to a meeting by the mayor. The room is dark and smoky, and the businessmen are prepared to start arguing with the mayor to get him to clean up the corrupt police department and its protection racket. Before they can start, two cops with Tommy guns walk in and flank the mayor, and he says, "Not only will your payments to the boys in blue increase, gentlemen, but I'm proud to announce that you have just become generous contributors to my reelection campaign. Do we understand each other?"

This likeness of Paulson is right on.

Second is Spark a Synapse where Loriodendron says she is considering dropping her blog in favor of forming an activist group that would advocate laissez-faire in the food and nutrition industries. Go for it! I sure can support that.

Third is Rule of Reason which has a guest editorial by Edward Cline titled "Ayn Rand Avenged." He shows how precisely Ayn Rand's 1957 "Atlas Shrugged" foretold of today's events and their causes.

"In editorials, columns, and letters to the editor, Rand is suddenly being remembered as a philosophical soothsayer. The occasion? Chickens coming home to roost. Justice rearing its awful head. The bankruptcy of not only government-regulated economies and government policies, but of their altruist and collectivist foundations. Everything Rand ever said and wrote about the perils of statism is coming to pass."

And so it is.

Fourth is Lubos Motl's The Reference Frame. Today he reports on the 'peak oil' nonsense with which we are constantly bombarded by observing that Cuba is adding 1% to world oil reserves. I found the comments interesting too.

Fifth is Noodle Food where Paul Hsieh reports that Isreal is taking a firm stand against Hezbollah. Paul also posts on a NY Times article showing that the market does better under Democrat presidents than Republican ones. I would have to agree with one of the commentors that correlation is not causation.

Sixth is Myrhaf who asks "Who Is Barack Obama?" What scares me is that any future Fuhrer's ability to subjugate Americans into a fascist dictatorship has been partially paved by Bush.

"(The foolish George W. Bush has given statist Presidents a new tool to use in any ginned up "crisis":

On October 17, 2006, President Bush signed into law the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007. The new law allows the President to declare a “public emergency” at his own discretion, and place federal troops anywhere throughout the United States. Under this law, the President also now has the authority to federalize National Guard troops without the consent of Governors, in order to restore “public order.” The President can now deploy federal troops to U.S. cities, which eliminates the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. In short, Bush can now declare Martial Law anytime he pleases.)"

Now that's really frightening.

Seventh is Rob at The Morality War who reveals that a number of small banks are rebelling against Paulson's power grab. They are sound and don't need Paulson's money forced on them.

Eighth is Kim's Play Place where homeschooling moms may be interested in her techniques for teaching phonics. Today she tells us about "Finding Words With Specific Letters."

Ninth is Sarita at Kalamazoo Objectivist who is happy that "Canadians Choose Tax Cutter; Americans Choose Tax Raiser." Evidently conservative Stephen Harper won re-election easily by promising to cut taxes. Are you listening McCain and Obama?

Tenth is Capitalism Magazine which has two articles from Ludwig von Mises. The first is why there seems to be no depressions in totalitarian states, and second is why the enemies of capitalism keep smearing the gold standard. Pertinent reading regarding today's financial mess.

Eleventh is K.M. at Applying Philosophy to Life who has an essay on poverty and its causes.

Twelfth is Kindridest where Amy Nasir posts her evaluative essay from her Astronomy class and gets positive remarks from her professor. Way to go Amy!

If that's not enough reading to keep you busy over the weekend then go to Rational Jenn and peruse the latest Objectivist Roundup. Happy reading!

stale--mates

I watched the debates last night and didn't see anything to get hopeful about. Both candidates want to establish mandatory service. Both want more government control over the economy. Both think greed rules the market place. Both have bought into the Global Warming nonsense, the obesity scare too.

I did see where McCain is in favor of Health Savings Accounts (HSA) where Obama was not. And McCain said he was in favor of vouchers and some kind of choice for parents to decide to which schools to send their kids.

I haven't been moved to vote for either one yet so I may still vote for Obama for pres and for straight Republicans for everyone else to give Obama more Resistance.

Or I'll vote for neither but since the Dems control congress, I might vote for Repubs just for balance. Republicans like to pretend they stand for something when they're not in power.

I was dismayed at how many so-called ordinary citizens who were interviewed afterward made their choice based on appearances, on how one or the other 'came across' or 'sounded.'

Sheesh! This is depressing.

Electoral Voices

I will be watching the debates tonight since I missed the first two, this despite the voice in my head saying Mike, you're wasting your time, you should watch the baseball game. Perhaps so. But another voice says maybe you'll see why it's important to vote for Obama because he is just a power craving second hander like the Clintons who may try some socialist nonsense but will cave in when resisting heat is applied ala Hillary Care. The voices went back and forth.

"You may see that McCain will be strong on defense."

"So? What good is defense if there is nothing left to defend; if all that's left is a nation of thugs, moochers and looters?"

"But McCain is the only one of the two who has said that Washington is part of the problem and he will make changes there. Obama doesn't even think in those terms."

"Ok. So he makes a few changes in Washington. So what? Reagan did that. Did it help capitalism? Nope."

"No but it did buy us about two decades in time to spread the right ideas and that's what McCain will do."

"No he won't. He's not another Reagan. Besides, it was 4 years of Carter that made the electorate embrace Reagan and that's what's got to happen now. Four years of Obama will make the people so ready for a McCain that it'll be 2 decades before another Dem is elected. EGADS! What am I saying?"

I told the voices to calm down till after the debates and I'll let them have input on my post maybe tonight or in the morning.

"A Pygmalion of the Soul"

Once again from the VanDamme Academy Newsletter. While my own education of 12 years at a private parochial school was pretty good or so I thought, I can only wish that it had been this good especially in literature.



Pedagogically Correct Volume 3, Issue 3
October 9, 2008


Follow this link for the latest VanDamme Academy Newsletter, which features the following article "A Pygmalion of the Soul."



"It is a beautiful thing to mold a statue and give it life; it is more beautiful to shape an intelligence and give it truth." - Victor Hugo

The first work of literature read in Room 4 this year was Pygmalion, by George Bernard Shaw. The musical My Fair Lady was based upon this classic play.

Pygmalion is the story of a lowly flower girl who is invited into the home of a brilliant phonetician after he makes a bet that he can teach her the elegance and speech of a proper English lady and pass her off as a duchess at a garden party.

In the play's most comical scene, a favorite among the students, Eliza, the flower girl, ventures into society for the first time. Having been told to confine her conversation to the benign and inoffensive topics of weather and health, she discusses, with the utmost elegance of manners and articulation, her suspicion that her aunt who had allegedly died from influenza had actually been murdered over a hat. And so begins a comedy of errors, in which, as Higgins the phonetician says, the problem is not "how" she says things but "what" she says.

With more training, Eliza learns to curb her coarse speech, and she becomes thoroughly polished, dignified, and charming. Her debut at the garden party is a smashing and unmitigated success. She has become a proper English lady.

But in the last and most important scene of the play, we discover that though she has learned to be a lady, she has not yet learned to be a human being—an independent, self-sufficient individual with her own judgment and her own sense of self worth. She has learned how to conform to the standards of elite society, but she has not learned how to form her own standards.

It is only when she drops her decorum and stands up self-confidently against Higgins that he says, "By George Eliza, I said I'd make a woman of you; and I have."

Because for Higgins (and for Shaw), the mark of a worthy person is not conformity to the standards of the upper classes. Rather, a worthy person is one who has-in my favorite expression of the play—his "own soul," his "own spark of divine fire."

Teaching the play this time, it struck me as metaphorical for my own view of education.

Just as Eliza was taught in a way that allowed her to be passed off as a duchess at a garden party, the best of schools today teach children in a way that allows them to be passed off as educated at a cocktail party. But have they learned to be independent, self- sufficient, clear thinking, passionate human beings? Have they gained their own "spark of divine fire"?

That is our goal at VanDamme Academy. Our aim is not to teach the children a stock set of facts that will make them culturally literate. Our aim is to empower them with the lessons of history, to equip them with the tools of math and science, to provide them the fuel and inspiration of literature—to endow them with the wisdom that will give them the means to live the life of a rational, happy, efficacious human being.

That is why the following were highlights of my week.

First, when Room 4 read that last act of Pygmalion, we came to a scene in which Higgins calls Eliza a fool and she responds that the comment is "not proper." I put down the play and asked the class what Higgins's response to that would be. 11-year-old Taylor's bright eyes became incandescent with understanding and her hand shot in the air. "He would say he doesn't care what's proper!" In that moment, she had not just grasped something deeply important about the character, she had grasped something about Shaw's philosophic perspective on life. She had understood that Shaw cares little for conformity to social standards. And her expression revealed that that kind of understanding was thrilling.

Second, I was stopped in the hall one afternoon this week by the mother of a 7-year-old girl named Emily. She told me that Emily had related to her a story from her book Adventures of the Greek Heroes. Emily told her mother the tragic tale of Admetus the king and his true love Alcestis. Admetus was dying, and the gods declared that if he were to remain with his love, someone would have to die in his place. Admetus went to his loyal subjects, his soldiers, his servants, then even to his own parents, but all feared to die for him. Finally, in a tragic twist, his own dear Alcestis, the love for whom he wanted to live, gave her life for his. As 7-year-old Emily shared the story, her voice became halting, and her mother noticed that she had tears in her eyes. (And as her mother told me this story, both she and I both had tears in ours.)

Our goal at VanDamme Academy is not to produce students who are refined, polished, and superficially educated. It is to produce students who are thoughtful, passionate, and sincerely educated.

My favorite author, Victor Hugo, has a passage in which he describes the role of a teacher. He says, "It is a beautiful thing to mold a statue and give it life; it is more beautiful to shape an intelligence and give it truth." And he captures this whole metaphor in an exquisitely poetic description, calling a teacher "a Pygmalion of the soul."




Calling All LifeLong Learners: Learn Science the VanDamme Academy Way!
Now Anyone Can Understand The Fundamental Principles of Science Better than Most Scientists
"Fundamen tals of Physical Science: A Historical, Inductive Approach"
By David Harriman, Historian and Philosopher of Physics

Learn all about it at our brand new website.

Here's what other Pedagogically Correct Readers are Saying:

"I am currently a Ph.D. candidate in physics, and I was amazed at how much I learned from David Harriman's course. This course stands head and shoulders above any other course or textbook I have encountered."

"It's perfect for someone relatively new to physics like myself; it's perfect for even advanced people who want a deeper historical perspective than is usually taught...I found Mr. Harriman's physics course to be an exciting walk through the fascinating world of physics."

"I think this type of course is needed for everyone, as in my experience, it's so far above the courses I've had throughout my life as far as the actual transmittal of knowledge is concerned...In short, this course has made science and math much more intelligible for me, and was completely worth the time and cost - I highly recommend it."

I was a physics major when I entered college, yet I can easily say that my actual understanding of physics is much greater as a result of this course than I can credit to any other class I've taken.

www.vandammescience.com

With this course you will:
* Finally understand the world around you, the world of science and technology, in a way you never thought possible. (No, you don't have to be a math wiz.)
* Learn the thinking methods of the greatest minds in history.
* Understand what all those physics equations and formulas you once memorized really mean.
* Be inspired by scientists' amazing 2500-year quest to unlock the mysteries of the physical world.
* And have a great time in the process!

All thanks to a one-of-a-kind science teaching methodology available in no other course or textbook.


www.vandammescience.com


Recommend Pedagogically Correct to five friends, get Lisa VanDamme's e-book, "Reclaiming Education," for free!
Lisa VanDamme's educational career began when a group of parents, disillusioned with standard public and private schools, hired her to educate their children. In 1998, she chronicled her successes homeschooling and explained the methods that made them possible in a lecture, "Reclaiming Education." The audience, fascinated by her insights about education, and inspired by the stories she told, gave her a standing ovation. In 1999, she made "Reclaiming Education" available in written form, to the delight of thousands of readers. Since 1999, the essay version of "Reclaiming Education" has been unavailable. Until now.

For the first time in almost 8 years, we will make this remarkable work available. And we are giving it away for FREE as an e-book to those who help us grow Pedagogically Correct by recommending it to their friends. Just send enter the email addresses of at least five friends who might appreciate an invitation to receive PC--along with a brief personal note, or our standard note below. We will not add anyone to our email database without their permission.


Click here to refer five friends and get your copy of "Reclaiming Education."

Announcement: Pedagogically Correct Blog
www.pedagogicallycorrect.com
Check out our 'blog, which will contain much (but not all) of the material we sent out in our newsletters. Spread the word!




VanDamme Academy encourages you to forward our newsletter to your friends or post it on your website or blog. If this newsletter has been forwarded to you, you can sign up to receive Pedagogically Correct for free, at www.vandammeacademy. com.

Happy Learning!

VanDamme Academy--Experience the Power of a Real Education

VanDamme Academy
email: custserv@vandammeacademy.com
phone: 949-581-1881
web: http://www.vandammeacademy.com

Greed

On HBL there was a thread on greed and whether objectivists should defend it since many in politics and the MSM are blaming it for the meltdown. I don't like the concept greed as it is used today. It has become a non-objective concept meaning different things to different people. So when we start passing laws to punish greed we are taking one group's idea of greed and forcing it on the whole country and that is wrong. I'm told that the English Oxford dictionary says greed is 'hunger' or 'thirst' or 'intense desire.' While there certainly isn't anything malevolent about those words they are certainly not the meaning ascribed to greed today.

Some people think that the desire for anything above some acceptable level of necessity is greed and immoral. Others think that the businessman's practice of maximising profits is greed and should be smacked down with windfall profits taxes or treble damages or some such. Still others think greed is a matter of numbers; if a businessman makes millions he's successful and productive but if he earns billions he's greedy. And of course there are those who think that any business failure is automatically caused by greed, no further evidence needed. Naturally I don't subscribe to any of the above.

Even before I discovered objectivism I had a definition to which I still adhere: Greed is the irrational pursuit of a value. Greed then is not a rational thirst, hunger or desire but an irrational one like a con man who lies to get possession of another's money, or a man who pursues money by robbing a bank, or a politician who craves power to the point of lying to get elected, or the scientists who fudges his statistical studies to say something pleasing or favorable to the granting agency in order to get more grants or to get published.

But the concept greed seems to be morphing into a concept applicable only to money and wealth. Greed for fame, glory, or power are routinely referred to as lust for these things. It's as if the concept greed is being characterized as a monetary crime for which government punishment should be warranted.

When someone asks me "Do you think some banks were greedy?" I usually respond 'yes but that greed was a consequence not a cause.' I also like to add that greed as such doesn't violate anyone's rights and should not be outlawed. When greed leads to fraud or robbery it is those actions that are already illegal because they are rights violations.

It is obvious to me that greed is being honed into a concept through which self-interest can be attacked and condemned. So when someone starts condemning businessmen for being greedy, I ask them to define greed and I do not accept such notions as having or desiring too much money.

A lot of people don't understand the nature of money; that money represents survival time. Even when you point this out to people they still retort that some billionaire will never need all his money to survive and he should make it available to many others who could then survive. They don't understand that this making available is exactly what the wealthy people are doing when they put their money into banks and other investments. They also don't understand that the wealthy have a moral right to do whatever they want with their money and it is the failure to understand this right that causes them to envy the well being of others.

There is probably a lot more that could be said about greed but I will always offer resistance whenever it is brought up. Even the modest "I don't agree" is the minimum I'll do.

Update: about 24 hours later.

Thinking it over, I just want to add that the only social system that can actually punish and discourage greed--that is the irrational pursuit of wealth--is laissez-faire capitalism. Irrational practices will result in enterprises going out of business. The only way the irrational pursuit of money can continue to fleece the public is if it has some government backing or encouragement as is the case with the mortgage crises. Laissez-faire has never existed anywhere on this planet. It needs to be our future.

VP Debates

I watched the VP debates last night and wasn't impressed. What I saw was a typical liberal Joe Biden being very consistent in his advocacy of statist and collectivist principles and policies. No flinching on any of them.

Sarah Palin came across to me as a Reaganesque conservative sharing the same collectivist principles as Biden but wanting to be be a kinder, gentler regulator. When Biden said that the problem was Wall Street running wild, she agreed but claimed the government had some causal role in the mess. This is true but without identifying that role her claim was unconvincing.

When Biden said that man made global warming "is a fact" she agreed again. She did say that she didn't want to debate the merits of the causes of AGW. I think she was probably coached not to discuss the merits of the GW issue and perhaps also the merits of the mortgage mess ala Fannie and Freddie and the CRA etc. And this was probably done so as to avoid putting McCain on the spot over particulars and perhaps even policy.

If Mccain/Palin get elected I don't see them having any more success than Reagan did. In fact I see them having much less. When they try to dismantle some government program they will be attacked viciously on both pragmatic and altruistic grounds by the Dems and their henchmen at the NYTimes, WAPO, etc. They will cave in because they share the same altruistic values as the Democrats.

The one thing I did like about Palin was her statement that it would be wrong to sit down and talk to those who want to destroy us. Whereas Biden said we must always sit down and talk, talk, talk with our enemies, the usual liberal preference to defending America.

Could it be that McCain/Palin really believe that AGW is not all man's fault; that government meddling in the housing market via Fannie, Freddie and the CRA really needs to be reversed; that the greed we did see in some cases was the consequence of government interference and not a cause? I sincerely doubt it.

Intellectual Cartoon

Renee at Adventures in Existence found this video on you tube of an 8 min cartoon from WWII. I agree with her that it would not be aired today. I also agree with a commenter that it is very timely today, especially since so many people don't seem to know the difference between "Reason and Emotion" the title of the cartoon.

CRA and Government Enforced Altruism

Via a post on HBL I learned of this article written 8 yrs ago and how forboding it was. Regarding the mortgage mess it could have been written yesterday. It takes a detailed look at the history of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and its impact on the housing market.

It also shows how disastrous the morality of altruism and its requirement of sacrifice is so destructive of human values. Being sacrificed were the profits of businessmen, their shareholders and investors. Thanks to the Fed's implicit promise to bail out any company who fails, the homes and futures of thousands of Americans who would lose those homes to foreclosure and whose taxes will pay for the bailouts are now also being sacrificed.

Whenever you hear some congressman or senator or governor make altruistic pleas for sacrificing businessmens' profits, remind him of the housing mess caused by that same intention and that intentions don't mean squat in this world. Facts do. And when their intentions hurt people as they are now, these people need to be opposed.

I agree with Harry Binswanger and Yaron Brook, this collapse is the failure of a regulated economy. It's time for laissez-faire capitalism

Math Magic

I believe it was Dr. Piekoff who said that the most critical need today is education. So in keeping with that value I repost an email I received from the VanDamme Academy today.


Pedagogically Correct Volume 3, Issue 2
September 24, 2008

"Pedagogy": The art and science of teaching.
:: Calling All LifeLong Learners: Learn Science the VanDamme Academy Way!
:: Recommend Pedagogically Correct to five friends, get Lisa VanDamme's e-book, "Reclaiming Education," for free!
:: Announcement: Pedagogically Correct Blog


Most math curricula are an absolute pedagogical mess.

I have long known that math programs treat children like human calculators, programming them with processes they use to input numbers and churn out results. But this became poignantly clear to me when I tried to teach my daughter long division this summer.

Confronted with a problem such as 2,832 divided by 8, I began my "explanation," hearkening back to the process that had been drilled into me in third grade. "8 goes into 28 how many times? 3. So you write a 3 above the 8. 8 times 3 is 24. Subtract 24 from 28 and you get 4. Then bring down the 3. 8 goes into 43 how many times?..." and so on. At the conclusion of my presentation, she said something simple but telling: "That is going to be a lot for me to remember."

Indeed, it is a lot for her to remember, because she is remembering, and not understanding.

If you want to grasp the poverty of your own education in math, I offer you the following challenge: explain long division. Explain it to a child, to an adult, to yourself—but really explain it. Use words to describe not the process, but the reason for the process: why each number goes where it does; why you subtract, or divide, or bring down; why the process works. It won't be easy. I maintain that if you had been educated properly in math, it would be.

One of the defining principles of the VanDamme method is a concerted effort to ensure that every item of knowledge possessed by the child is true knowledge, to ensure that he understands it thoroughly, independently, conceptually. To realize this goal in math will require a total overhaul of the standard curriculum. It will require that someone strip the program down to essentials, arrange the material with total faithfulness to hierarchy, and design assessments that are true tests of the child's understanding.

Meanwhile, we can take moderate steps in that direction, by requiring, for example, that the children give complete, verbal explanations for all that they do in math.

Mr. Steele, VanDamme Academy math teacher for a group of 7 & 8-year-olds, demands of his students that they not just blurt out answers, or crank through mechanical processes. He makes them explain the processes using the proper terminology and demonstrating that they understand what they are doing and why.

If, for example, he is teaching subtraction with borrowing, and puts a problem on the board such as 2700 – 350, someone in the class will invariably ask, "Can I just tell you the answer?" Mr. Steele's answers are charming—and pedagogically correct.

Sometimes he says, "I don't want you to do 'magic math.' I don't want you stare up at the sky, come up with a number, and blurt it out to the class. That doesn't help us understand, and that doesn't show me that you understand. I want you to explain how you arrived at your answer."

At other times, he says, "Let's play a game called 'Mr. Steele bumped his head and can't remember math.' Don't just give me the answer, teach me the process by which you arrived at your answer."

The students proceed with explanations that demand, among other things, that they use concepts of place value (if they begin the problem above by saying, "0 minus 0 is 0," he says, "That's true," and waits for them to tell him that you put a 0 in the ones' place before he writes a 0 on the board), and that they explain what they are doing when they borrow (if they say, "Cross out the 5 and put a 4, and put a 10 in the tens' place," he will ask, "What does that 10 represent? 10 what? 10 monkeys?" which will make them giggle and offer the correction, "10 tens silly!").

These children are not treated like human calculators, they are treated like thinking beings. And when they truly grasp the concepts they are using, when they can explain them fully and articulately, when they retain them because they are not memorizing, but understanding—that is real math magic.




Calling All LifeLong Learners: Learn Science the VanDamme Academy Way!
Now Anyone Can Understand The Fundamental Principles of Science Better than Most Scientists
"Fundamen tals of Physical Science: A Historical, Inductive Approach"
By David Harriman, Historian and Philosopher of Physics

Learn all about it at our brand new website.

Here's what other Pedagogically Correct Readers are Saying:

"I am currently a Ph.D. candidate in physics, and I was amazed at how much I learned from David Harriman's course. This course stands head and shoulders above any other course or textbook I have encountered."

"It's perfect for someone relatively new to physics like myself; it's perfect for even advanced people who want a deeper historical perspective than is usually taught...I found Mr. Harriman's physics course to be an exciting walk through the fascinating world of physics."

"I think this type of course is needed for everyone, as in my experience, it's so far above the courses I've had throughout my life as far as the actual transmittal of knowledge is concerned...In short, this course has made science and math much more intelligible for me, and was completely worth the time and cost - I highly recommend it."

I was a physics major when I entered college, yet I can easily say that my actual understanding of physics is much greater as a result of this course than I can credit to any other class I've taken.

www.vandammescience.com

With this course you will:
* Finally understand the world around you, the world of science and technology, in a way you never thought possible. (No, you don't have to be a math wiz.)
* Learn the thinking methods of the greatest minds in history.
* Understand what all those physics equations and formulas you once memorized really mean.
* Be inspired by scientists' amazing 2500-year quest to unlock the mysteries of the physical world.
* And have a great time in the process!

All thanks to a one-of-a-kind science teaching methodology available in no other course or textbook.


www.vandammescience.com


Recommend Pedagogically Correct to five friends, get Lisa VanDamme's e-book, "Reclaiming Education," for free!
Lisa VanDamme's educational career began when a group of parents, disillusioned with standard public and private schools, hired her to educate their children. In 1998, she chronicled her successes homeschooling and explained the methods that made them possible in a lecture, "Reclaiming Education." The audience, fascinated by her insights about education, and inspired by the stories she told, gave her a standing ovation. In 1999, she made "Reclaiming Education" available in written form, to the delight of thousands of readers. Since 1999, the essay version of "Reclaiming Education" has been unavailable. Until now.

For the first time in almost 8 years, we will make this remarkable work available. And we are giving it away for FREE as an e-book to those who help us grow Pedagogically Correct by recommending it to their friends. Just send enter the email addresses of at least five friends who might appreciate an invitation to receive PC--along with a brief personal note, or our standard note below. We will not add anyone to our email database without their permission.


Click here to refer five friends and get your copy of "Reclaiming Education."

Announcement: Pedagogically Correct Blog
www.pedagogicallycorrect.com
Check out our 'blog, which will contain much (but not all) of the material we sent out in our newsletters. Spread the word!




VanDamme Academy encourages you to forward our newsletter to your friends or post it on your website or blog. If this newsletter has been forwarded to you, you can sign up to receive Pedagogically Correct for free, at www.vandammeacademy. com.

Happy Learning!

VanDamme Academy--Experience the Power of a Real Education



VanDamme Academy
email: custserv@vandammeacademy.com
phone: 949-581-1881
web: http://www.vandammeacademy.com

Obama Supporter Advises: Dumb it Down

The anti-conceptual nature of the left has been obvious for some time. But the Obama supporters in the media not only support such a mindset, they advocate it. The 9/19/08 editorial page of the Detroit News carries an op-ed by Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page titled "Obama must learn to give short, forceful answers." Notice the headline does not say correct or right answers but 'forceful' ones. The appeal here is not to reason but to emotion. The concern is not what Obama says but how he says it. He starts:

"As we enter the season of highest political advice, here's my advice to the Democrats: Dumb it down."

Why? Because it works for Republicans.

"I don't need to give that advice to the Republicans. They've been dumbing it down for years. That's why they keep winning."

So Dems need to stop being so intellectual and be more crass and mundane?

"Do I sound condescending? No way. It takes smarts to dumb the issues down well enough to help people to make an intelligent choice."

Huh? So to make an intelligent choice, the data must have a certain amount of dumbness? If an objectivist were to write that paragraph, it would say something like "It takes intelligence to deduce from a principle a concrete example of what that principle would look like in reality, or to infer from a concrete issue the principle on which it is based." But Mr. Page doesn't speak or think in those terms. What he's really complaining about is that Republican conservatives have been using (some) concretization over the years while Dems have been avoiding it like the plague preferring fog, obfuscation, and altruistic platitudes. So when Republicans use concrete examples, speak in plain English, they are dumbing down their communications. So us eloquent, educated people must dumb down our rhetoric so the simpleton masses can understand us like they do the Republicans. But there's more:

"Elite is a dirty word these days. It sounds too much like "elitist," which to most people is the same as a snob. Nobody likes snobs. Not even snobs."

Notice he is not discussing the relationship of elite to elitist so that we may understand it. He is concerned about how it 'sounds.' He's operating on the sensory/perceptual level. Also, the idea that snobs don't like snobs is false else Manhattan would be at war with itself.

After telling us how Reagan 'smiled' his way to two election victories--no examples of Reagan's dumbed down rhetoric, he just smiled his way into office--he says that Republicans have a chance to win because:

"A big reason, as everyone seems to know these days, is how McCain-Palin has outmatched Obama's elegant charisma in winning the support of working-class white voters."

How did Mc/P out match Obama? With more charisma? No answer. Notice the nudge phrase 'as everyone seems to know these days'--therefore you should know it too.... So why can't the Dems win these voters?

"It's not that Democrats don't share the values of ordinary hard-working Americans. It's just that their candidates sometimes have a hard time expressing those values."

Now that's very true but why do they have such a hard time? Could it be that the Dems in fact don't share those middle class values at all? Ayn Rand was right when, talking about the erosion of the American sense of life, she said that

"This is prevalent among the two groups that are the main supporters of the statist trend: the very rich and the very poor--the first, because they want to rule; the second because they want to be ruled. (The leaders of the trend are the intellectuals, who want to do both.)"*

This is true. Notice how today's intellectuals want to tell everyone else how to live, and get the government to enforce it, but also want to be led by 'charismatic' leaders like Obama. It is the middle class to whom the liberals cannot relate. So what does Mr. Page suggest Obama do about it?

"That makes the upcoming debates an acid test for Obama. He has shown great eloquence at speeches but uneven performances in past debates. He does not speak in bumper stickers. His speech often hesitates and ponders too much -- like someone who is still reconsidering their views. Debates are a time to speak not just eloquently but strategically. Even when you're uncertain, try to sound certain."

In other words, fake it. Notice too that Obama doesn't have bad performances, only uneven ones. And when he hesitates (stumbles, stammers and stutters), it's because he's too deep in thought (pondering). {So that's what Bush has been doing all these years!}

The last two paragraphs give a glimpse of the elitist mentality of our intellectuals:

That vision came to mind as I watched Governor Palin try to answer ABC's Charles Gibson's question about "the Bush doctrine." She obviously didn't know much about what Gibson was talking about, but she gave a decent boilerplate version of Bush's foreign policy. Synopsis: We got to get them terrorists.

That's the kind of answer voters tend to like. Short and strong. It sounds resolute, even if it lacks the nuance or flexibility that virtues like wisdom and experience bring.

Observe that Mr. Page is still on the emotional level; answers that are short and strong are the kind voters--not understand--but like. Their value lies in the fact that they sound resolute. Observe further that speaking in 'bumper stickers' or dumbed down rhetoric--Republican speak I suppose, lacks "...the nuance and flexibility that virtues like wisdom and experience[which liberal Dems like Obama-ME] bring." If you re-read that op-ed looking for nuance and flexibility, for slanting words and nudge phrases, you will find lots of them. But the theme of the op-ed is that the essence of successful political campaigns is to be as anti-conceptual and concrete bound as one can get. Such advice is doomed to fail though. Today's intellectuals can't go back and forth from what they see as their conceptual level, one of eternal nuance and flexibility, to the concrete, precise level of objective conceptualization which they see as only the dumbed down perceptual level of the masses. It is this op-ed that is an example of dumbed down conceptual level.


*(The above Rand quote is from her essay "Don't Let It Go" in the book "Philosophy-Who Needs It" which can be purchased here. A deal at $6.95.)

Spotted By Mike's Eyes Sept. 08

Donald Luskin at Conspiricy to Keep You Poor and Stupid ( Isn't that a fair description of all political campaigns?) posts on the truth of all the pessimistic, it's worse than the great depression, cries of Obama, his MSM, and even McCain with some interesting facts. One example:

"The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) database, which allows rigorous apples-to-apples comparisons, only goes back to 1979. It shows that today's delinquency rate is only a little higher than the level seen in 1985. As to the foreclosure rate, it was setting records for the day -- the highest since the Great Depression, one supposes -- in 1999, at the peak of the Clinton-era prosperity that Obama celebrated in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention late last month. I don't recall hearing any Democratic politicians complaining back then."

*****************************************************

Next is a Monday Sept 15th Detroit News article "Hospitals gave $2.6B for care."

Last year, hospitals provided:

• $2.1 billion in un-reimbursed medical care to state residents, including $209 million in charity care for low-income patients who qualify for free services and $605 million written off as bad debt for unpaid patient bills.

• $94.5 million on voluntary programs and services such as free clinics, health screenings, immunizations and prescription drugs.

• $331.5 million for research, education and in-kind contributions.

• 224,000 free visits to hospital- and community-based health clinics at a value of $35 million.

And:

The spending break down on this year's report is similar to new reporting requirements set to go into effect in 2009 on tax forms filed by nonprofit hospitals. The new forms will require health systems to report detailed data about their community contributions to justify their tax-exempt status to the Internal Revenue Service.

So they have to buy their tax-exempt status with sacrifices to the 'community.' Government altruism always means forced sacrifices, and higher prices.

Caroline Sallee, a consultant and health care researcher with the Anderson Economic Group in Lansing, said the report puts a dollar figure on these community contributions.

However, it fails to point out that many of these hospital programs are also supported through taxpayer funding in the form of state and federal grants, she said. And many hospitals tend to raise rates for privately insured and uninsured patients to offset some of the losses incurred by bad debt.

"It's not that this is all free," Sallee said. "This isn't the sort of thing the hospitals are taking a hit. They have to make the money some way."

I'm reminded of Rand's phrase "How? Somehow."
*******************************************

A tiny bit of good news: "Budget shortfall cuts spots in Peace Corps." Same edition of Det. News.

At a time when both presidential candidates have pledged to promote and expand national service, the popular humanitarian assistance program that sends thousands of Americans abroad annually is now planning to cut 400 volunteer positions in the face of an unexpected multimillion-dollar budget shortfall. With fewer spots, an increasing number of Peace Corps nominees who were expecting to begin service this fall have seen their deployments delayed at least until next year -- and in some cases indefinitely.

Should be permanently. Now there's a program that needs to be shut down.
*******************************************

J. Kendall has a post titled "How NOT to Teach China a Lesson" at Crucible and Column. When other countries see things like the mortgage crises they will conclude that capitalism doesn't work and a planned economy is best. It will be because of capitalism's defenders. Sad.

Announcing VanDamme Academy Newsletter

I have posted notices and letters from the VanDamme Academy before and will continue to do so. But now Lisa VanDamme is announcing a new newsletter:

Pedagogically Correct Volume 3, Issue 1
September 15, 2008


Dear "Pedagogically Correct" Subscribers,

The new school year is underway, and an exciting year of curriculum lies ahead, including: Ancient history, physical science, and classic literature from D'Aulaires' Book of Greek Myths in the elementary classrooms to Antigone and Shakespeare's Julius Caesar in junior high.

This year, I will be sending a monthly newsletter to parents, telling stories from the classroom, highlighting aspects of the VanDamme method, and answering parents' questions about the school's philosophy and curriculum. Follow the link for the first issue of this new newsletter.

VDA Newsletter

Sincerely,

Lisa VanDamme
Head of School
VanDamme Academy

The rest of her notice is below but I recommend checking out her newsletter. I for one am looking forward to her next one.

Calling All LifeLong Learners: Learn Science the VanDamme Academy Way!
Now Anyone Can Understand The Fundamental Principles of Science Better than Most Scientists
"Fundamen tals of Physical Science: A Historical, Inductive Approach"
By David Harriman, Historian and Philosopher of Physics

Learn all about it at our brand new website.

Here's what other Pedagogically Correct Readers are Saying:

"I am currently a Ph.D. candidate in physics, and I was amazed at how much I learned from David Harriman's course. This course stands head and shoulders above any other course or textbook I have encountered."

"It's perfect for someone relatively new to physics like myself; it's perfect for even advanced people who want a deeper historical perspective than is usually taught...I found Mr. Harriman's physics course to be an exciting walk through the fascinating world of physics."

"I think this type of course is needed for everyone, as in my experience, it's so far above the courses I've had throughout my life as far as the actual transmittal of knowledge is concerned...In short, this course has made science and math much more intelligible for me, and was completely worth the time and cost - I highly recommend it."

I was a physics major when I entered college, yet I can easily say that my actual understanding of physics is much greater as a result of this course than I can credit to any other class I've taken.

www.vandammescience.com

With this course you will:
* Finally understand the world around you, the world of science and technology, in a way you never thought possible. (No, you don't have to be a math wiz.)
* Learn the thinking methods of the greatest minds in history.
* Understand what all those physics equations and formulas you once memorized really mean.
* Be inspired by scientists' amazing 2500-year quest to unlock the mysteries of the physical world.
* And have a great time in the process!

All thanks to a one-of-a-kind science teaching methodology available in no other course or textbook.


www.vandammescience.com


Recommend Pedagogically Correct to five friends, get Lisa VanDamme's e-book, "Reclaiming Education," for free!
Lisa VanDamme's educational career began when a group of parents, disillusioned with standard public and private schools, hired her to educate their children. In 1998, she chronicled her successes homeschooling and explained the methods that made them possible in a lecture, "Reclaiming Education." The audience, fascinated by her insights about education, and inspired by the stories she told, gave her a standing ovation. In 1999, she made "Reclaiming Education" available in written form, to the delight of thousands of readers. Since 1999, the essay version of "Reclaiming Education" has been unavailable. Until now.

For the first time in almost 8 years, we will make this remarkable work available. And we are giving it away for FREE as an e-book to those who help us grow Pedagogically Correct by recommending it to their friends. Just send enter the email addresses of at least five friends who might appreciate an invitation to receive PC--along with a brief personal note, or our standard note below. We will not add anyone to our email database without their permission.


Click here to refer five friends and get your copy of "Reclaiming Education."

Announcement: Pedagogically Correct Blog
www.pedagogicallycorrect.com
Check out our 'blog, which will contain much (but not all) of the material we sent out in our newsletters. Spread the word!




VanDamme Academy encourages you to forward our newsletter to your friends or post it on your website or blog. If this newsletter has been forwarded to you, you can sign up to receive Pedagogically Correct for free, at www.vandammeacademy. com.

Happy Learning!

VanDamme Academy--Experience the Power of a Real Education



VanDamme Academy
email: custserv@vandammeacademy.com
phone: 949-581-1881
web: http://www.vandammeacademy.com

More Blogroll Additions

After recently updating my blogroll with objectivist additions, I'm happy to add even more. The first two of these are oversights on my part, the rest I discovered this week.

First is Armchair Intellectual hosted by Gideon Reich. His last post laments the shamefully low level of intelligence of the educated class manifested by its refusal to identity our real enemy, instead calling it "war on terrorism."

Second is Ari Armstrong who reports that "Kristi Burton, sponsor of Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution, intentionally obfuscates the facts of the measure."

Third is Adam Reed's blog Born to Identify at which he addresses "The Church's preposterously dishonest abuse of biology." The dishonesty is in the Church's claim "While ancient thinkers had little verifiable knowledge to help them answer this question, today embryology textbooks confirm that a new human life begins at conception... The Catholic Church does not teach this as a matter of faith; it acknowledges it as a matter of objective fact." Obviously, the Church is counting on its flock not understanding the concept 'fact' or 'rights' or 'objective.'

Fourth is Applying Philosophy to Life at which KM posts on "Property Rights and Philosophy-Applied philosophy 2."

Fifth to be added is Ragnar Danneskjold whose last post "Taboo" looks at some grotesquely irrational and primitive superstitions.

Sixth is a Canadian blog Paul McKeever of the Canadian Freedom Party. I liked his post on "Freedom vs Freedumb"

Seventh and last for today is Adventures in Existence hosted by Renee Katz. Sometimes today's accepted beliefs are so obviously irrational they need to be ridiculed, made fun of, treated with the disrespect they deserve. Renee does a good job of that with her cartoons in addition to her well reasoned posts and comments.

I know there are other objectivist blogs out there but I haven't had time to peruse them. I'm working on it though.

Undercurrent Announcement

The Undercurrent (TU) is an independent, student-run Objectivist newsletter distributed twice a year to college campuses across America. TU is currently looking for distributors and donors for its fall edition, and will stop taking orders on or about September 22, 2008.
If you would like to distribute, please visit http://the-undercurrent.com/subscribe/ and buy your copies of TU today. If money is an issue, please contact Guy Barnett, our head of distribution, at guy@the-undercurrent.com. There is limited funding from donors for students who want to buy and distribute TU but cannot afford to do so. If you're part of an Objectivist campus club, you may want to see if your college will fund distribution of TU as a club activity.

If you would like to donate, please visit http://the-undercurrent/donate/ and contribute directly using PayPal. If you have any questions about donating, please contact Guy Barnett, our head of distribution, at guy@the-undercurrent.com.

Spreading rational ideas on college campuses is critical to making this world a better place. Your assistance is necessary for the achievement of that goal.

Thank you for your support.

Asinine!

My comcast news page also reports that a mass killer is too unstable to be executed!! With judgements like this, America is in deep trouble.

Yea! Rah Rah! and Three Cheers!

I'm probably a little late with this but my comcast news page reports that MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews have been demoted from anchoring the debates to commentators. Couldn't happen to a more deserving pair! Evidently, their style was abrasive to the "..,impartial newsgatherers at NBC." Of course!

Thoughts on Conceptualization and Perception

Back in May I posted an observation that my granddaughter had not yet grasped the concept of number; that she was treating number as if it were a kind of name and thus when a thing was given a number such as '3' that thing was always a three. Fast forward to July 4th when she turned 3. When told that a cousin will turn 2 next month, she said "I don't want to give him my 2. I want to give it to..." (another cousin). She still wasn't getting it. Fast forward again to last week when we were sitting her at our house. We had cooked and sliced up a hot dog for her. She stabbed two pieces with her fork but before she could eat them I asked "How many slices are on your fork?" She replied 'two'. I said 'How do you know?' She then pointed at them and counted 'one, two.' "Good job!" I commented. She is now grasping that numbers refer to quantities.

One of the things I enjoy as I babysit my four grandchildren, the oldest of which is 3 yrs, is watching them play and perceive reality around them. I've often wondered what those little percepts looked like in their little minds. Babies can perceive entities directly. That's simple enough to understand. But how do they perceive actions and relationships since they cannot conceptualize them as such? It seems to me that the baby would have to treat all attributes, actions and relationships as properties of the entity involved. This possession of attributes, actions and relationships by entities means that Rand's identification that "... (Attributes cannot exist by themselves, they are merely the characteristics of entities; motions are motions of entities; relationships are relationships among entities.)" is being perceived, right from these early stages of awareness. When the child's conceptual faculty awakens, he will reclassify these properties as attributes, actions and relationships.

I think that when a child perceives a pushed ball rolling he perceives that the ball possess pushability, the sofa does not. He perceives that the ball has rollability but the sofa does not. He will also perceive that pushability must precede rollability. Later when he learns to speak in full sentences he will eventually reclassify not the action of the ball, but the sequence of which action must come first, as cause and effect and will assign this concept to all such sequences he later encounters.

Another past example I want to relate. When my youngest grandson was about 6 months old he could sit up but not yet crawl. I would place him on a blanket on the floor and place some of his favorite toys around him, mostly stuffed animals. He would routinely toss them out of reach. Unable to reach them he would cry in frustration and grampa would come to the rescue. One day though, a toy was out of reach and he tried several times to grab it. Then he paused for a few short seconds, grabbed the blanket and pulled it toward him bringing the toy within reach. I was amazed. "How did he know to do that?" I wondered. He can't possibly conceptualise a thought process of 'if this then that' can he? No. He's too young for that. What kind of perceptual dots did he connect to perceive that something he didn't want-the blanket-could bring him what he did want, the toy?

There had to be some antecedent perceptual knowledge at work here I thought. But what kind? Anyone who ever raised or sat a baby knows that if you put something in the baby's hand, he will grab it with his fingers and, with his arm, pull it toward him, usually right to his mouth. So the baby knows from past perceptual repetitions that his hand has graspability and his arm has moveability and will bring whatever is in his hand closer. So sitting there looking at his out of reach toy, he must have perceived that the blanket, like his arm, also has moveability, and if he grasped it, he could bring it closer. Then he acted on that perception.

One last anecdote. When my oldest boy was around 6 months old, he would sometimes jabber himself to sleep at night. One night however, he was jabbering then he stopped. There was silence. Then a sound. Then silence. Then another sound but this one was followed by laughter. Then a louder sound followed by louder laughter. This went on for a few more minutes. The wife and I looked at each other and I commented "He's just discovered that it is he who is making those sounds and that's making him happy." I never experienced this with any other child or grandchild, just him.

For me, observing such experiences is priceless.

(The above Rand quote is from "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology".)

Blogroll Additions

The time has come to update my blogroll with the addition of more quality Objectivist blogs. First is 'Try Reason!' moderated by John Drake. In his latest post he provides more evidence showing why the U.S. was not founded on Christian principles. He starts with a quote from the Tripoli Treaty of 1797

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;..."

I had the pleasure of meeting John in person at a meeting of a study group called The Great Lakes Objectivists or GLO of which I am a member. It is the second site I'm adding to the roll. It's a good way to study the philosophic principles of Objectivism.

(I belong to a few other study groups as well and may be adding their sites soon.)

Third is Aesthetic Capitalist. The blog's theme is

Supporting art with capitalism, glorifying capitalism with art, and defending both with philosophy.

Sounds like a well integrated aproach.

Fourth is Morality War, The hosted by Rob whose theme is

Politics is an effect: morality is the cause
The clash of civilizations observed from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

After pointing out that the conflict today is between selfishness and altruism, he proudly declares:

For the record, I side with selfishness.

Fifth is The Rational Capitalist hosted by Doug Reich. In his last post he talks about how the religious left is getting front row seats at the Dems convention.

Sixth will be Rational Passion whose recent post discusses keeping and/or aborting a fetus with Downs Syndrome. Thought provoking.

The seventh addition is Leonard Peikoff. He has a podcast of his radio show where he takes questions from listeners and applies the principles of objectivism to them. He's been getting so many questions that he's gone from posting a podcast every other Monday to every Monday.

The eighth site is Powell History Recommends by Scott Powell. I highly recommend this site for anyone seeking a rational history.

The ninth and last addition for today is Cogito's Thoughts which is hosted by a young student of Objectivism, Shea Levy. Objectivism needs to spread among the young and Shea's site looks very promising.

That's it for today. I've been very busy this summer what with cleaning the garage, fixing up the house, babysitting my 4th grand child and trying to do an occasionsal post inter alia. So, my blogroll updating has been neglected. I am happy though to see Objectivist blogs spreading like this. I hope it keeps up.

Palin for GOP VP

On Friday I was driving home from a little practice bowling, getting ready for the season's start next week when I heard on the radio that McCain was going to pick Palin for his VP. I watched the announcement on TV at home. My voting options have been narrowed down. Right now it looks like I'll be voting for Obama or no one.

From what I could discern, Ms. Palin is a statist, collectivist, altruist. She is firmly against a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. She is for concepts like the common good and said so in her acceptance speech.

Sure, Ms.Palin has some positive aspects: she is a non-intellectual, which in today's climate is an asset, she is a soccer mom, PTA and NRA member, fisherlady and generally a doer and go getter. But in an interview video on CNBC with Maria Bartiromo, Palin said that the people of Alaska own all the oil and lease it to oil companies. It's true that if the state owns something, it has the right of use and disposal. But the question is should the state own it? Alaska's state constitution calls for the public ownership of natural resources like oil and gas so that's not her doing but she seems quite comfortable with the idea of public ownership of property.

I'll wait until after the GOP convention to make a final decision. But as I watched the speech and the Bartiromo interview I didn't hear her mention mandatory public service. Then again, I didn't hear her mention individual rights either.

"Sustainability" Another Floating Abstraction

On August 15th WJR radio talk show host Frank Beckmann had an op-ed in the Detroit News titled "'Sustainable' curriculum teaches kids to envy success." In it Mr. Beckmann reports:

"This curriculum is called Sustainability Education and nowhere in the syllabus can one find any inspirational themes that use the success stories of American entrepreneurs as role models to be admired by students.

Instead, groups like Creative Change Educational Solutions in Ypsilanti emphasize the creation of a "humane and environmentally sustainable future."

Several schools in Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor have committed to Sustainability Education and crow about projects that have students compare "wages and working conditions in factories in China and Vietnam (to) corporate profits...and compensation for chief executive officers." In other words, kids aren't taught to admire and emulate success -- they're taught to envy such outcomes and "evaluate campus boycotts...and workers rights movements."

Obviously another attempt to indoctrinate children to hate the good for being the good, more concretely, to hate capitalism.

In Wednesday's 8/27/08 Detroit News is a LTE from two members of Bloomfield Hills School Board taking Mr. Beckmann's op-ed to task. In it they claim

"It's a given that our children face a dramatically different future than we did. Global workforce needs will require competence in reading, writing, math, science and computer literacy. But Beckmann misses the point: While it's worthwhile to honor our industrial past and important to create knowledgeable technicians, job success will demand both comprehensive knowledge and highly discerning thinking."

I hate to break it to my Bloomfield Hills neighbors but 'comprehensive knowledge and highly discerning thinking' is what our elementary and high schools are supposed to be about and would be if it weren't for the anti-conceptual, educational philosophy of former intellectuals like John Dewey et el. Nowhere in this attempted rebuttal did they refute Mr. Beckmann's charge that their curriculum teaches kids to envy success.

The home page of the above mentioned organization provides ready made curricula to teachers for the advancement of collectivism which is hidden in the candy wrapper of environmentalism. One of their ready made courses is called "Economics for the Common Good."

But I would like to apply a little 'discerning thinking' to their core ideal 'sustainability.' Sustainability is a meaningless concept by itself. It gains meaning only when attached to a thing or process one wants to sustain. My dictionary says sustain means to 'maintain or 'prolong.' To sustain then means to resist or prevent change. The call for 'sustainability' therefore means to call for stagnation or maintaining the status quo. In the above case it would be a government controlled stagnation which of course, we already have in education. This stagnant school system---government controlled indoctrination--is one of the things they seek to sustain. The rest is the environment, the economy, the culture etc.

The two school board members claim that the UN had no influence on their program. This is flat out false. Maybe no direct input but the ideal that 'sustainability' is a 'practical' goal was started by the UN in a paper called Agenda 21 in which it declared that modern Western industrial and technological society is unsustainable, even in your neighborhood. The supporting evidence was based on false assumptions which I won't go into here. But the main false premise is that everyone thought that our way of living was sustainable in that no more progress would be needed, that the standard of living we had in the 80s and 90s would last forever. I don't know of anyone who thought that way except maybe some union leaders and some liberals.

If people were polled back in the 80s or 90s and asked if they thought their standard of living were sustainable to which they would say yes, it does not mean they were thinking of freezing time at that moment or living that lifestyle unchanged forever and that this should be condemned as unsustainable. People understood that in a free society, things change generally for the better. It is this progress they would refer to as sustainable. They did not believe that their lifestyle would destroy the planet. They had to be convinced otherwise.

Like the concept extremism, sustainability is a floating abstraction. It is never defined explicitly. No clear evidence is ever given as to why a 'sustainable' environment or economy is a good thing or why an unsustainable one is bad. In a universe whose nature is constant change, 'sustainability' is a defiance of reality.

The purpose of the concept is to appeal to those who are in the habit of always thinking in terms of the approximate. No one wants to be for unsustainability right? Who would argue for things that don't last? So sustainability is something everyone should obviously be for. All they want from their approximate-minded public is an approximate "I guess so."

Notice the words used by environmentalists. They always want to 'save' this or 'preserve' that and 'protect' some other thing. From what? Change. (Which, when initiated by humans, environmentalists equate with destruction.) Progress is a form of change. Growth is a form of progress. Even nature sustains itself by a constant process of change. Species evolve while others go extinct. To teach children that sustainability is an ideal is to set them against the requirements of their own survival.

For thousands of years man has lived in abject poverty which is easily sustainable. So is a 25 year lifespan and slavery. The only change open to man in such societies is death which is permanently sustainable.

If we want sustainable progress, then laissez-faire capitalism should be demanded loudly. It is the only system that can provide it. And it can only exist in a constitutional rights-respecting republic. The one social system that's not sustainable is democracy. And neither is a sustainability curriculum designed to sustain that democracy.

Force Needed to Get Altruist's Utopia

In the same edition of the Detroit Free Press as my last post, is an article pointing out that "Michigan No. 10 in obesity". My initial reaction to such stories is usually So what? But this short news story demonstrates the antagonism of 2 NGOs' altruistic agenda to individual rights. First it tells us the statistics:

"For the five years ending in 2007, waistlines in Michigan have slowly expanded with nearly two-thirds of the state needing to lose weight. According to state data and the report, titled "F as in Fat," 27.7% of state residents are obese, and 36% are overweight."

First, I want to point out how routinely obesity and overweight are equated in the media. The above headline "Michigan No. 10 in obesity" was on the front page. The continuation on page 5 has the headline "State makes top ten in overweight." No it didn't. The first headline was accurate. Also, these figures are a far cry from the alleged national average of 60% of Americans being obese often touted in the media.

The article then admits:

"Two positive policies adopted by the state include a Web-based healthy lifestyle portal called Michigan Steps Up, www.mfia.state.mi.us/surGeneral/. Since its inception, about 25,600 people have created online healthy eating profiles, said state Department of Community Health spokesman James McCurtis."

But alas, such voluntary advice programs just aren't enough:

"But for all the forward thinking, said Dr. James Marks, the foundation's senior vice president, without adequate funding in a state with a long-troubled economy, the programs can only help so much."

This of course is a plea for government looted tax dollars. But wait. There's more:

"'Permissive legislation without action doesn't get it done,' he said."(bold mine)

So advising people and 'permitting' them make their own decisions will not provide us with our utopia. We must take 'action' to get our ideal world in which everyone looks like Barbie and Ken.

We next learn something about the study:

"The study gathers self-reported height and weight information from a large national behavior survey. The authors calculate body-mass index from the weight-height measurements. Those with BMIs of 30 or higher are considered obese, and those with BMIs between 25 and 30 are considered overweight."

Studies that use self-reported data are notoriously unreliable as the article admits, to a degree. The BMI is unreliable too as it was put together in a somewhat arbitrary manner.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is a tax exempt charity which regularly lobbies congress on behalf of some of its biggest donors. They would be makers of weight loss machinery and equipment, drug companies selling weight loss pills and publishers pushing diet and weight loss advice. I have no problem with these companies selling, even hyping their wares but I very much resent them lobbying government through RWJF to force me to buy their products.

I have to wonder how many Michiganders read this article and saw nothing wrong with it or even felt a little unearned guilt.

Michigan's Savior?

Yesterday's Aug 20th. Detroit Free Press has an op-ed by Presidential candidate Barak Obama titled "Obama: New stimulus and energy packages will revive Michigan." In it Obama gives the reader all the grim statistics on Michigan's and the auto industry's sad state. No news there. He then proposes a new second stimulus package:

" It includes energy rebates of $1,000 for more than 5 million Michigan workers and their families, and $1.7 billion dollars to keep Michigan’s essential state and local government services running."

Exactly what are these 'essential' services is nowhere mentioned. He continues:

"In addition to this immediate relief, I will, as president, also provide a middle class tax cut that is three times larger than the one my opponent offers — putting a $1,000 tax cut directly into the pockets of 95% of workers and their families. And I will end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create good-paying jobs here in America."

Nevermind the fact that jobs in America will cost more which will raise prices of those products especially hurting the poor, where does he propose to get this money for $1000 checks? Why it's a tax cut he's generously putting in your pocket. He does say how we're going to secure this new prosperity:

"That starts with solving our energy crisis once and for all. This isn’t just a challenge to meet; it’s an opportunity to seize[Freudian slip?-ME] — an opportunity that will create new businesses, new industries and millions of new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced."

Pay well? Can't be outsourced? This will be music to union ears. Obviously he plans to force companies to pay well and stay home ignoring why they outsourced in the first place. So what is his preferred method for achieving this domestic paradise? The goal is complete energy independence in a decade.

"To do this, we’ll invest $150 billion over the next ten years and leverage billions more in private capital to build a new energy economy that harnesses American energy and creates 5 million new American jobs."

When a politician uses the word 'leverage' think of Ayn Rand's metaphor "Have gun will nudge" except that I think we are moving beyond the stage of just 'nudging' to outright intimidation and threats. And how does one 'harness' American energy? All dictatorships try to 'harness' their citizens' energy. It doesn't work. But 'leverage' is his preferred terminology because he uses it again regarding getting more fuel efficient cars:

"We’ll leverage private sector funding to bring these cars directly to American consumers, and we’ll give consumers a $7,000 tax credit to buy these vehicles. That’s how we’ll get one million 150-m.p.g. hybrids on our roads within six years. That’s how we’ll not only protect our auto industry and our auto workers, but help them thrive in a 21st Century economy; and that is how we will finally lower gas prices, secure our energy future, and save this planet for our children."

Yep. Piece of cake! There's that magic word 'leverage' again. Notice the statist attitude regarding money. The government is going to 'give' us $7000 of its money, not our tax money returned, to buy those cars from those well paid workers. You see, money really does grow on trees, at the Fed and the mint.

Sometimes elementary school kids are asked to write a short paper on how to make the world a better place and their responses are run in the local papers. Have you ever read any of those? See any resemblance to the above? I sure do.

The Ubiquitous Nanny State

Below is a post I thought I posted in July but can now see that I never hit the publish button. Better late....

If one wants to see how the U.S. Gov--just the House in this case--wants to micromanage every aspect of the economy, go here and read the titles of the 1000 or so bills and resolutions put forth since Jan 2007. I only read about 150 of the titles but I think I can safely say none of them had anything to do with protecting individual rights. What's sad is that none of the Senators or Congressmen understand that America can't keep piling on one restriction and regulation after another and expect America to stay free. But they all look the other way and seek only an excuse to claim "I couldn't help it."

I can see congress passing resolutions honoring great achievements by someone, but "Supporting the goals and ideals of National Wear Red Day."? Sure this is intended to show support for womens' health but what are some of these 'goals and ideals'?

Encourages: (1) Americans nationwide to wear red on that day to show support for women's heart disease awareness; (2) all American women to embrace the goals of The Heart Truth campaign and take action to modify, prevent, and control their risk factors for heart disease; and (3) all Americans to exercise regularly and maintain a healthy weight, develop good eating habits, avoid tobacco, drugs, and excessive alcohol, and have regular checkups to take advantage of screenings that can detect heart disease-related problems early.

Reaffirms our nation's commitment to fighting heart disease by promoting awareness about its causes, risks, and prevention and by promoting new education programs, supporting research, and expanding access to medical treatment.

They need to reaffirm our nation's commitment to individual rights. The rest would take care of itself.

Just a Thought on Rights

Ayn Rand once said that the concept individual rights was a redundancy since rights can only belong to individuals. In the same way I think the concept human rights is also a redundancy since rights can only belong to rational beings i.e. humans. I raised this question at a study group meeting and it was agreed that human rights could have a valid use when used to differentiate from invalid rights like for example animal rights or plant rights.

But I still don't like the concept human rights. It's too collectivist and could mean individual rights and/or group rights. Politicians routinely use 'human rights' to hide the fact that they support group rights in violation of individual rights.

I think I'll have to settle for the fact that its validity depends on how it is used.

Light At End of Tunnel?

The Thursday 8/14/08 Macomb Daily, a Detroit suburban newspaper had an article of interest to me on which I thought I would comment. It is a news article by Christy Strawser titled 'Foreclosures Scooped Up In Macomb [County-ME].'According to the article:

For the seventh straight month, metro Detroit increased overall in sales volume over the same month last year, including a 39 percent hike in sales in Livingston County, 36 percent in Detroit, and 23 percent in Wayne County.

No this isn't the end of the housing crises:

Experts said growth was fueled by a glut of foreclosed homes on the market, short sales, and sellers willing to take a loss - so while sales are up, prices continued to plummet.

But I see the increase in buying not as an end to the crises but as a light at the end of the tunnel. At least I hope so.

It shows that supply and demand still work despite massive interference in our economy by the government, that when prices come down to meet demand sales will result--without the help of government.

Preparing the Sacrificial Altar

My U.S. Congressman Sander Levin's latest newsletter to constituents was a head shaker. The letter starts with the usual statist fare. First, he tells us that the House passed a paycheck fairness act which closes loopholes that allowed employers to avoid penalties for discriminatory pay.

Then we're told the house adopts overhaul of product safety rules. It is pointless to tell him that these are not legitimate functions of government. But I sometimes do it anyway just to let him know there is a difference of opinion out there. But these things are not the point of this post. Mr. Levin ended the letter with this paragraph:

Oil Companies Post $44 Billion in Profits

While American families continue to struggle with high energy costs, the oil companies recently reported record profits for the 2nd quarter of 2008. In just 3 months, oil companies reported a whopping $44 billion in profits. ExxonMobil reported earnings of $11.68 billion over the three-month period, the largest quarterly profit by a U.S. company in history. Other 2nd quarter oil industry profits include: Shell – $11.56 billion; BP – $9.47 billion; ConocoPhillips – $5.4 billion; and Chevron – $6 billion. Profits for the top five oil companies are projected to top $160 billion this year.

Notice how this shameful appeal to envy and hatred of the good for being the good doesn't explicitly come out and say that profits are evil or should be taken away. It simply states the fact that huge profits are made by oil companies while other people suffer. This is very close to the "picturism" that Dr. Peikoff discusses in his excellent CD lecture "A Picture Is Not An Argument" which can be purchased here.

This simple paragraph projects two images rather clearly; the image of billions of dollars on one hand and people struggling on the other. No argument is being made. Mr. Levin is hoping the images will provoke an emotional or psychological 'no' in the mind of the reader which he, Levin, hopes in turn will translate into positive support for any action he takes against the oil companies. I fired off the following e-mail to the Congressman and as you can see I'm finding it difficult to maintain the required politeness towards people with such animosity towards businessmen in general.

I was disappointed in the ending to your Congressional Connector of Aug 11th. which declared that oil companies made $44 billion while people struggled. This was a most shameful display of what Ayn Rand called 'hatred of the good for being the good.'

It displays an ignorance of economics, ignorance that profits are how wealth is created, ignorance that profits mean purchased survival time, ignorance in that wealth is not a static quantity in which the wealth of some is achieved at the expense of others but rather is created by the free minds of productive individuals.

The paragraph is immoral in that it appeals to one of the worst elements of human nature, envy and resentment of the successful. For over a century oil companies have, through the profit motive, provided America with abundant and cheap energy. They don't deserve this kind of vilification. If energy costs are high, it is because of congressional activities.

I have always had some respect for you and Carl as members of the old left who in turn had some respect for individual freedom and rights. It now looks like you are abandoning even that as you attack profits in the billions. Do you know what that says? It says that you believe that morality is a matter not of principle but of numbers. In your eyes, if a man makes millions he is productive but if he makes billions he is evil and must be smashed in some way for the benefit of those who did not make it.

I urge you not to make such appeals to envy in the future and reconsider your position. It is very un-American.

I see that Congress has adjourned for a few weeks so he probably won't see it for awhile. That's good. Perhaps it will be fresh in his mind when the House reconvenes.

The Ominous Parallels, book recommendation

I just finished reading "The Ominous Parallels" by Leonard Peikoff and I can't recommend it highly enough. It is subtitled "The end of freedom in America." The parallels of course are those ideas that exist in America today and the German people in the 40 or so years leading up to the arrival of the Nazis and Hitler.

He showed how pragmatism destroyed the Germans' ability to think in terms of principles just as it's doing in America today, and how it reduces a human mind to the perceptual level of animals. But it isn't just pragmatism. Dr Peikoff discusses dogmatism, subjectivism--both individual and social versions, nihilism, romanticism, relativism and others.

I've heard people say that Hitler was insane, a madman. This is a mistake. Hitler was loyal to his principles. He and his lieutenants studied philosophy, mostly that of Plato, Kant and Hegal on whose principles Nazism was based.

If there was ever any doubt about the power of philosophy to create of destroy an entire nation, this book will remove it.

Anti-Social Medicine?

The Telegraph.co.uk in their 'your views' section asks "Should doctors be paid bonuses for saving lives?" This isn't just a rhetorical question. British hospitals are planning to do just that.

All the government has to do is get out of the way and the doctors will have all the incentive they need and then some. Sad.

(Right now there is about 160 comments but I especially like #5 by Pinkie

Nurse: Doctor, this patient has a cut on his leg which could get infected.

Doctor: we'd better act straight away before it gets any worse.

Manager: Our life-saving target is down this month. You know what it would mean; our funding could be cut.

Doctor: Hmmm... and with Christmas on the way... could do with that bonus. On second thoughts, leave it till it gets gangrene. We can then lop it of and save his life.

How to bring out the worst in people. Labour knows how.)

Electoral College Under Attack Again

The 7/20/08 Detroit Free Press has its Sunday editorial section On Point mostly devoted to getting rid of the Electoral College. Its main editorial "Graduate the Electoral College" is mostly a plea for straight 'democracy,' the so-called one man,one vote idea. The editorial looks at the recent efforts of the NPV (National Popular Vote) movement where states would form co-ops and all their electoral votes would go to the popular vote leader. But it correctly points out:

"And it could mean that a candidate gets the votes of a state he or she didn't carry."

The paper's solution then is a plan of reapportionment.

"Apportioning electoral votes is a compromise between direct election and preserving the Electoral College. It would force candidates to pay more attention to every state and give voters on the short side of politically lopsided states a chance to have their ballots count for something."

I'm not an expert in Constitutional Law so I can't say if any of these apportionment plans are even feasible. My own guess is that such plans will get knocked down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

The editorial is joined by an op-ed by Clyde Frazier, professor of political science at Meredith College in Raleigh, N.C. who argues a justification for this side-stepping of the Constitution:

"State action has one enormous advantage over constitutional amendment; it is much more easily reversible. The most serious concern about any change in election procedures is the possibility of unintended consequences. If NPV does cause problems, individual states can withdraw from the compact at any time, except right before and after an election, forcing a return to the current system. We aren't locked into change, as we would be with an amendment."

Personally, I don't like the idea of a 'living constitution' of which this set up smacks. It also introduces pure democracy into the voting process. Eventually such democracy will spread to other voting issues and eventually our Constitutional Republic will be replaced by a full democracy. These always devolve into chaos or dictatorship.

Offering the contrary view is Robert Hardaway, professor of law at the University of Denver and the author of "The Electoral College and the Constitution: the Case for Preserving Federalism" who writes:

"In 1956, a Republican proposal to abolish the Electoral College was defeated after a vigorous defense by Sen. John F. Kennedy, who declared that "direct election would break down the federal system under which most states entered the union, which provides a system of checks and balances to ensure that no area or group shall obtain too much power.""

This idea of breaking down the federal system under which most states entered the union is the right argument and is elaborated upon by Jeff Jacoby in a July 16 Boston Globe op-ed. Mr. Jacoby says:

"Such concerns didn't trouble the framers of the Constitution, who did not believe that political contests should be decided by majority rule. They rejected "pure democracy," as James Madison explained in Federalist No. 10. They knew that with "nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual," blind majoritarianism can become as great a menace to liberty as any king or dictator. The term "tyranny of the majority" was coined for good reason."

And also points out:

"The Electoral College (like the Senate) was designed to preserve the role of the states in governing a nation whose name - the United States of America - reflects its fundamental federal nature. We are a nation of states, not of autonomous citizens, and those states have distinct identities and interests, which the framers were at pains to protect. Too many Americans today forget - or never learned - that the states created the central government; it wasn't the other way around. The federal principle is at least as important to American governance as the one-man-one-vote principle, and the Electoral College brilliantly marries them: Democratic elections take place within each state to determine that state's vote for president in the Electoral College."

I agree. To do away with the EC is to dissolve state borders and I think any politician who gives it a second thought would reject the idea. I urge reading all of Mr. Jacoby's article.


Update. Gus Van Horn comments on this subject here. Thanks Gus

Confusion is Illegal?

The Detroit News of 7/15/08 has a front page article titled "New Law: gift cards to be good for 5 years." Aside from the fact that this is just another violation of businessmens' rights, this is also clear evidence of how government regulations create an ignorant, helpless and irresponsible citizenry utterly dependent on the government to do their thinking for them.

Governor Granholm signed the bill into law saying it will "...protect citizens pocketbooks and makes sure consumers are getting the most from their dollars." This is precisely the responsibility that should lie on the shoulder of every citizen, not the government. In a laissez-faire economy, papers, like the Detroit News for example, and magazines would report on whose gift cards offered the best or worst value. People who cared about their money and their gift giving would make the effort to learn this information. Those who don't care deserve to get burned.

The new law says:

"Among provisions of the new laws:

• Michigan retailers can't alter the terms or conditions of a gift card or certificate after it's issued.

• Inactivity fees and other charges can't be applied.

• Stores can't refuse to accept cards or certificates during sales, close-outs or liquidations.

• Retailers can't refuse gift cards or certificates as partial payment for items that cost more than the remaining balances on them."

Proof that this law is not about justice or fairness of any kind is found in the last paragraph:

"The legislation responded to complaints that some retailers issue gift certificates or gift cards with expiration dates, and some charge fees or discount the value if a card isn't redeemed by a certain time. The bills' sponsors said that's confusing and inconvenient."

The Governor and the Michigan legislature are catering to and encouraging one of the worst elements of human nature, laziness.

I don't know if they'll print it but I sent the following LTE to the News yesterday:

Dear Editor:
"The Detroit News Article of 7/15, "New Law: gift cards to be good for 5 years" is a violation of every businessman's rights. It denies him the right to decide how to run his business as he sees fit. This law is not about justice or fairness of any kind. It's about the State government's desire to exercise political power (force) on behalf of the confused and inconvenienced. Perhaps there should only be one kind of tomato or car on the market because having to choose between many can be confusing and inconvenient. When the government is eager to initiate force against businessmen for something as frivolous as 'inconvenience', it is no wonder Michigan's economy is in the tank. It is of such seemingly trivial laws that the destruction of America will be made."

Stealth Advertising?

For those who worry that cell phones will fry their brain, and haven't seen the CNN report on it, check out this video. Then see what Snopes says about it here. To see the CNN report on how it was done scroll down to the last paragraph to the CNN link. I gather this is called 'stealth advertising.' Seems quite irrational to me. I didn't see a product identification in the video.

I agree with Dr. Piekoff in his lecture "A Picture is not an Argument" (which can be purchased here) in which he opined that today's advertising looks the way it does mainly because of our income tax laws. I couldn't agree more.

Pants pull-up law or Bag the sags.

The July 9th Detroit Free Press has a front page article titled "Flint police crackdown on saggy pants." The city of Flint Michigan has a new police chief, David Dicks, who issued a memo to all officers informing them that:

The crime, he says, is disorderly conduct or indecent exposure, both misdemeanors punishable by 93 days to a year in jail and/or fines up to $500.

The chief's justification is:

On June 27, the chief issued a departmental memorandum telling officers: "This immoral self expression goes beyond freedom of expression."

The new law's form will be:

Dicks, 41, broke down his interpretation of the laws as such: Pants pulled completely below the buttocks with underwear showing is disorderly conduct; saggy pants with skin of the buttocks showing is indecent exposure, and saggy pants, not completely below the buttocks, with underwear exposed results in a warning.

As a rule, I'm against any laws that try to legislate 'decency.' I can see laws that prohibit genitalia exposure, maybe even underwear exposure on the grounds of a threat to the health of others. But if this new rule on pants is accepted, what will be next? Skirts and/or shorts above the knees being deemed indecent? In the same paper, Freep writer Rochelle Riley op-eds that she hopes thongs will be next.

My main point is that if the pants law can't be based on the principle of protecting the rights of citizens e.g. a health threat, it shouldn't exist. The pressure to wear pants above the hip should come from the private sector. An example of this would be a sign I saw on the door of a family owned grocery store which read, IIRC, "Pull your pants up before entering or no service." That is a proper use of private social pressure.

Some of these kids will out grow this fad as did the black chief. Others won't but all are second handed conformists. They can't wait to 'fit in' to the latest socially tolerated method of expressing their social independence or individualism.

Is Free Speech the Issue This Election?

Gus Van Horn has a post on the continuing persecution by the Canadian Human Rights commissions against Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn. My concern is how do our presidential candidates view this Canadian attack on free speech? As things stand right now, I think free speech is the big issue. If free speech is destroyed, or even thwarted, Objectivism will have a much harder time spreading through academe and the culture.

As far as I can tell, McCain has a nonchalant attitude toward free speech. He may regard it as a value but further down on his priority list; something that can be sacrificed away to achieve a higher goal like campaign finance reform. But I don't know where Obama stands. If he comes out for hate speech legislation, I would consider it to be a frontal assault on free speech and would consider him more of a threat than McCain. Even though McCain would be a longer term threat, Obama would be a serious short term one.

So what if Obama declares he will fight for hate speech legislation? Will McCain oppose him? Join him? How much will the Dem controlled congress let him have his way? Will the Republicans find a spine someplace and resist him? (At a recent objectivist study group meeting in the Detroit area this election was discussed. One thing we all agreed on was the fact that the only time Republicans fight against anything is when Dems are in power. When Repubs are in power they enact the Dem agenda of bigger government and more regulation.) So the question becomes, how much will Obama actually be able to get away with? McCain too for that matter?

Then this voice in my head keeps telling me that I can't trust anything either of them says because they are pragmatists and don't use words to convey meanings but to evoke emotional responses. It gives me a headache thinking about it. There are lots of reasons to vote against both of them.

Darren Cauthon posts on an excellent reason not to vote for McCain. Evidently, McCain thinks innovation can be spurred by tougher 'penalties.'

Myrhaf has good reasons not to vote for Obama pointing out that Obama is just as adamant about mandatory national service as McCain is.

As the election draws near, the two may become more committal, maybe. I'll see.

(If you live in the Detroit area and would like to attend one of the study group meetings, send me a private email and I'll get back to you. It's in my profile)