Mike's Eyes (Spotted By)

Friday, May 08, 2009

Friday, April 17, 2009

Objectivism's Benefit to Me #5

Another one of the many things I had to relearn was the idea of certainty. I had bought into the notion that certainty was not possible, that our knowledge can only be probable, never certain. It never occurred to me to ask if something doesn't exist, like certainty, how can you have degrees (probability) of it? Of course you can't. So certainty must exist but how? How can one tell when one can claim certainty?

In studying the philosophy of Objectivism, I learned that existence exists and that it is governed by the laws of identity and causality. The law of identity, A is A, things are what they are, means that all things have a specific nature and will behave according to that nature and that this nature represents the context in which it exists. What I understand from this then is that reality itself is contextual.

Since reality is contextual, this in turn means that our knowledge of reality, to be true, that is, to correspond to reality, must also be contextual.

"Concepts are not and cannot be formed in a vacuum; they are formed in a context; the process of conceptualization consists of observing the differences and similarities of the existents within the field of one’s awareness (and organizing them into concepts accordingly). From a child’s grasp of the simplest concept integrating a group of perceptually given concretes, to a scientist’s grasp of the most complex abstractions integrating long conceptual chains—all conceptualization is a contextual process; the context is the entire field of a mind’s awareness or knowledge at any level of its cognitive development." (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology p.55)

This understanding has helped me to see that out of context statements cannot be trusted as knowledge. For example, 'All swans are white' is an out of context proposition and is refuted with the discovery of a colored swan. But the statement 'All swans known to me (within my field of awareness) are white' is contextual and is not refuted with the discovery of a colored swan. In this case the context of my knowledge has expanded to include colored swans. This new expanded knowledge does not contradict or refute my former knowledge that 'All swans known to me are white.' Expansion of previous knowledge is not a contradiction of it.

In terms of certainty then, it was proper for me to be certain of both of my propositions since they both met the requirement of contextuality. Context however, is not the only requirement for certainty. Just as in the categories of 'possible' and 'probable' knowledge, there must be some evidence in support of the proposition, so it is with certainty. but with certainty, all the available evidence must be in support of the proposition. There can be no contrary evidence. If there is some contrary evidence then certainty cannot be claimed.

There is the argument that as long as it's possible to be wrong one cannot claim certainty. But Objectivism has helped me to understand that this is the argument from infallibility and is false. The possibility of error is not evidence of it. Such an argument is just another example of the arbitrary which, per post #4, is always meaningless and is to be dismissed out of hand.

So, this then is something I can add to my always allow list, at least for consideration, 'propositions that are contextual' and the fifth way that Objectivism has benefited me.

Friday, April 03, 2009

March VDA Newsletter

Because education is so important, here is the latest newsletter from the VanDamme Academy. After reading it I strongly urge readers to click on the words 'Follow this link' for more interesting articles.

"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

Follow this link for the latest VanDamme Academy Newsletter, which features the following article entitled "Does My Child Know Grammar Better Than Me?"

I would say that a debate is raging in our culture over whether or not we need to preserve the formal rules of grammar, but the sad truth is that there are too few defenders of grammar for a debate to rage. I am lonely in my fervency. Nevertheless, a few recent books and articles have brought the dispute between grammar snobs and grammar slobs to the fore.

Pundit of punctuation Lynne Truss tried to rally readers to her "zero tolerance approach to punctuation" with her bestseller Eats, Shoots, and Leaves. Alas, Birmingham, England didn't heed the call. In January, the city council abolished apostrophes from street signs, inviting criticism from pro-grammar organizations like the "Apostrophe Protection Society," and from our own students at VanDamme Academy, who condemned the decision in a paper written for Mrs. Battaglia's (or "Mrs. Battaglias," if we follow the Birmingham precedent) writing class. "If children grow up there, they will learn not to put apostrophes in possessive words," said 8-year-old Greta. "Usually kids learn from their surroundings."

This debate has also been given center stage unwittingly by President Obama. Obama, widely praised as a consummate intellectual, has been criticized by advocates of grammar for committing such common blunders as the inversion of "me" and "I."

In a February New York Times op-ed, Patricia T. O'Conner and Stewart Kellerman echoed the sentiments of many Americans when they defended President Obama against the "grammar junkies," claiming that the rules for pronouns are 19th-century creations that have no necessity in reality.

Really?

To illustrate my answer, I brought the following example into my Room 4 grammar class. Rather than the innocuous, "President Bush graciously invited Michelle and I," what if President Obama had said, "Michelle likes President Bush better than I." Is this a mere difference of opinion about the former President, or a scandal? The ambiguity is resolved with a universal understanding of the rules of grammar.

"Michelle likes him better than I," as my grammar students can tell you, contains an elliptical adverb clause with "I" as the subject, and means, "Michelle likes him better than I like him." On the other hand, "Michelle likes him better than me," contains an elliptical clause with "me" as the direct object, and means, "Michelle likes him better than she likes me."

So, if you whose children are gaining a thorough mastery of the rules of grammar have ever asked yourselves, "Does my child know grammar better than me?" the answer is no, he should know you better. And by the time he graduates, he will know better than to ask the question like that.

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

Friday, March 27, 2009

Spotted By Mike's Eyes Mar 27th

A while ago I sent an email to my Michigan Senators Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin urging them not to support the stimulus bill. Yesterday, 3/26, I got an email reply from Sen Stabenow extolling the virtues of the bill and how much good it will accomplish. In response to that I sent her another email stating:

Dear Senator Stabenow:

Thanks for responding to my letter about the stimulus bill. It is good that you wish to create jobs here in America, but unless you are a businessperson you cannot create any productive jobs, that is, wealth creating jobs, unless that is, you fight to get government rights violating regulations and taxes out of the way. The only jobs that can be created by government are non-productive make work jobs which consume wealth not produce it.

You correctly talked about changing from the failed economic policies of the past. But ever since the New Deal the economic policies that have been failing are policies of government regulation of the market. Government interference in the market are the policies of the past. You are not trying to change any of them. Instead you are advocating more of the same but on a massively destructive scale.

The government regulated policies of the past have failed because they are based on false premises the biggest of which is the notion that consumption is what drives an economy. It is production that creates wealth and jobs. The cause of production is not money but freedom. Freedom from what? To put it bluntly, freedom from you, that is, freedom from anyone who seeks to use initiatory force against the producers.

If you really want to create prosperity, get the the government out of the way of the producers of wealth by pushing for a discovery of laissez-faire capitalism in Washington and, there-in, a ruthless loyalty to inalienable individual rights.

Respectfully,

Michael Neibel

Today I received another copy of the same email I got yesterday. A form letter. Sigh.
*********************************

Speaking of letters,the Detroit News of Friday 3/27/09 carried in its letters to the editor section an LTE by Richard Ralston, Executive Editor Americans for Free Choice in Medicine which said in part:

"It is easy for the government to spend health care money on other things. This has been notoriously done by many states that spend most of the money from tobacco taxes and settlements on anything except anti-smoking programs and health care for smokers. We should all be skeptical of big tax increases proposed by the president to establish a "reserve" for health care."

Pols are probably already licking their chops at the thought of another 'fund' they can raid to buy votes.
*********************************

Also in the same editorial section is a commentary by Deroy Murdock of Scripps Howard News Service titled "Treasury leader undermines U.S. currency". The paragraph I focused on:

"While addressing a jam-packed meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations, Geithner answered Standard Chartered Bank's Doug Smith, who wanted the secretary's thoughts on "the Chinese government proposal about a global currency." People's Bank of China governor Zhao Xiaochuan would shift Earth's reserve currency from the dollar to "Special Drawing Rights," combining the dollar, Britain's pound, Japan's yen and the euro. Call it the international "globo.""

Hmmm, I wonder how that would sound. "I'm down to my last globo." or "Do you have change for a globo?" or "It all boils down to globos and cents." Nahh, it just doesn't have any ring to it.

Update; changed typo in title, was May should be Mar.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Objectivism's Benefit to Me #4

So far, Objectivism has helped me to do away with the unknowable, beliefs and faith in my thinking. Little did I know that this was just the tip of the iceberg; that I had much more to learn about what is knowledge and what isn't. (I'm still learning.)

About knowledge Rand wrote "'Knowledge' is 'a grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation.'" (From the Lexicon) So knowledge then must be based on observation either directly or indirectly. If a claim to knowledge isn't based on some observational evidence, it is not knowledge. Such claims can be some form of revelation, intuition, instinct, feelings or some kind of automatic knowing. All of these can be subsumed I think under the concept of arbitrary which means made up or not grounded in observational evidence.

Objectivism holds that the arbitrary is always meaningless.

"Let me elaborate this point. An arbitrary claim has no cognitive status whatever. According to Objectivism, such a claim is not to be regarded as true or as false. If it is arbitrary, it is entitled to no epistemological assessment at all; it is simply to be dismissed as though it hadn’t come up . . . . The truth is established by reference to a body of evidence and within a context; the false is pronounced false because it contradicts the evidence. The arbitrary, however, has no relation to evidence, facts, or context. It is the human equivalent of [noises produced by] a parrot . . . sounds without any tie to reality, without content or significance."(Again from the Lexicon)

So now I liken what I allow into my store of knowledge to the 'always allow or block' function on my computer. I can 'always block' or 'always allow' other computers access to mine. Thus, under 'always block' from my knowledge are listed
>the unknowable
>believing (instead of knowing)
>faith (instead of confidence)
>the arbitrary

Under the 'always allow' is listed
>any cognition which has some corresponding evidence in reality.

Needless to say the above still leaves much to be added or updated to these lists. For example, I think the Logical Fallacies should be added to the always block list after one becomes adept at spotting them. As mentioned at the beginning, this is just a brief mention of how Objectivism has helped clear my thinking regarding what should be considered true and what false. For a more in-depth, technical study I recommend Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (ITOE) and Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR).

The next post will be about how Objectivism taught me that knowledge can be certain provided it is contextual.

Saturday, March 07, 2009

Sunday, March 01, 2009

Objectivism's Benefit to Me #3

Related to the issue of believing vs knowing is the issue of faith vs confidence. The confusion between these two is actually a corollary of believing vs knowing. If one decides something to be true without evidence, one is believing. If one decides something to be true because evidence supports it, one is knowing.

This understanding seems precisely clear to me and that's the way I like it. Nevertheless, I see mass confusion between faith vs confidence all the time. I've been told things like "I have faith in my religion just as you have faith in your philosophy" at which time I usually interject something on the order of "No, I have confidence, not faith, in my philosophy because it is derived from the facts of reality." That's when I usually state explicitly the precise meaning of faith and confidence and then urge the listener not to confuse the two concepts because they have different meanings.

In my last post I said that I have been purging beliefs from my world view. Of necessity then, the use of faith as a means of knowledge must also be purged.

What this means for me is that I stop using words like believe and faith. This hasn't been easy in the sense that old bad habits can be hard to break. I still find myself wanting to say things like "I believe the Detroit Tigers will do better this year because of the off season trades they made" or "I believe President Obama's stimulus package will fail because it is based on false economic principles". In both cases I should have used words like 'I estimate', 'I judge', 'I predict' or 'I know.' I just have to get into the habit of using these and other words instead of belief and faith.

Objectivism benefit #3 then is that with beliefs and faith gone, I'm left with a knowable universe and the confidence that my mind is capable of knowing any part of it I desire to know. And that will be the focus of the next post in this series: what I have learned about knowledge from Objectivism. Still, knowing where I'm starting from, my relationship to existence; that an other-world deity isn't going to turn my computer into a frog or a demon any moment now, does provide a mental comfort zone.

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Objectivism's Benefit for Me #2

In my last post I indicated that my new world view contained no more unknowables. So, it probably should have occurred to me that since I no longer had to deal with a partially unknowable universe, I no longer needed the mental process of believing things to be true on faith, I could now enjoy the comfort of knowing something to be true or false based on at least some evidence.

But this did not occur to me. As I continued to study Objectivism I learned that I had adopted from the culture around me certain conceptual confusions. Two of these stood as barriers to my clear understanding of this knowable world: the difference between knowing vs believing and faith vs confidence.

For now, I'll just focus on knowing vs believing even though a precise understanding of faith vs confidence is also involved.

To know something to be true in a knowable reality, there must be at least some evidence for it in that reality. For example, I see the table, touch the table, put my glass on the table. The table exists. I don't believe the table exists. I know it does. To know something then requires evidence. Believing on faith does not require evidence.

Yet despite this clear identification, I still hear people using the terms interchangeably as if they meant the same thing. For example, 'I know the planets revolve around the sun', 'I believe the planets revolve around the sun.' But this shouldn't be so. Words have meanings. Objectivism holds that reality is very precise. This means then that our knowledge of reality, to be true, that is, correspond to reality, must therefore also be precise. So if I'm dealing with a precisely knowable reality, it makes no sense to adopt a method of thinking that includes believing on faith. To do so would be to ignore reality. Ignoring reality for any organism is suicidal.

So I have spent the better part of recent years identifying then purging beliefs from my world view. I now try to deal only with knowledge that can be placed in file folders labeled 'possible', 'probable' or 'certain' all of which require evidence.

Objectivism benefit #2 then is a mental process of reason devoted to knowing reality. Let me add that it's been my experience that the more one uses one's mind to understand reality, the better at it one becomes and that provides its own comfort zone known as self confidence. Thoughts on that in the next post.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Some Benefits of Objectivism for Me

I have decided to occasionally post on how the philosophy of Objectivism by Ayn Rand has improved my life and provided a certain peace of mind. This is not meant to be an in-depth analysis of philosophic principles, but only a brief mention of how some of them have helped me personally.

Perhaps the biggest thing it did was give me a complete, wholly integrated view of existence and my place in it as a human being. Everyone needs an overall view of reality. For most people, including me, this was provided by religion. But for me, religion left too many things that didn't make sense.

One of these was the idea of the unknowable, that which cannot be known. Now I had been raised Catholic and attended a catholic school. Some of the teachings were that god, heaven, hell and things in between were unknowable to us in this world. These and other teachings had to be accepted on faith. We would learn or understand them only when we left this world.

Objectivism taught me that while there is much in the universe that is unknown, there is nothing that is unknowable. The idea that all of existence is knowable and man's mind is capable of understanding any part of it, appealed to me. It made sense. It offered me a world view that was a sensible whole, a frame of reference against which I could clearly see my relationship to it.

Religion offered a world view that had too many unknowables. It was a frame of reference against which I could not clearly know my place in it. How can a person identify relationships between himself and things that are unknowable, i.e. can't be identified? Obviously one can't. To me its like a house with holes in it, but holes that cannot be patched, but which one can understand the why of this only when one steps out of the house and no longer needs it. This I rejected after I learned of Objectivism.

For me, there is a peace of mind that comes with knowing my place in reality rather than having to believe in one on faith. In fact this will be the subject of my next post: the difference between knowing something to be true and believing something on faith and why the former is much more satisfying.

So, benefit #1: no more unknowables.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Updating the Update

I know I just did a blogroll update on the 31st of Jan but no sooner than I posted it I learned of a new site called 'simply capitalism' which I recommend.

I'm also adding another science site 'Climate Audit' hosted by Steve McIntyre. Mr. McIntyre gained fame when he and Ross McKitrick exposed the nonsense that was the 'hockey stick' that the IPCC used to show unprecedented warming. This site is for those who like the nitty gritty of climate science.

Update Feb 11th 09:
I'm have trbl keeping up with new blogs. I just learned that the Ayn Rand Center now has its own blog "Voices for Reason" and it should have postings from an Objectivist perspective every day.

Saturday, January 31, 2009

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Objectivist Psychology

While visiting other sites I noticed a few questions about Objectivist psychology. So I thought I would draw my readers attention to three sites that are on my blogroll.

First is Dr. Michael J. Hurd Ph.D. who now post his Daily Dose of Reason for all to read.

Second is Dr. Ellen Kenner Ph.D. who has her own radio show titled "The Rational Basis of Happiness". You can listen to some of her past shows via pod casts or even listen in on a live one. Her show is carried on 44 stations in North America and 2 in Canada.

Third is Fire Fly Sun hosted by Dr. Scott J. Adams Ph.D. This is an interesting and large site to explore. You'll also see contributions by both the above Dr. Hurd and Dr. Kenner as well as others.

Soon I'll be updating my blogroll again and will add 'psychology' to their names on the roll so future visitors will know what kind of doctors they are.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Pedagogically Correct Newsletter, January 13, 2009

In keeping with the fact that education is of critical importance today, here is another newsletter from Pedagogically Correct.

Pedagogically Correct Volume 3, Issue 4
January 13, 2009

"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

The following is an interview with Evan Storms, a VanDamme Academy graduate currently in the process of applying to college. Perhaps my favorite part of the interview was his answer to my request for the interview itself: "Considering what I gained from your school, I would write a doctoral thesis for you if you needed it; but I can settle for the interview."

When did you attend VanDamme Academy?

I attended VanDamme Academy for two-and-a-half years from 2003 to 2005, from sixth to eighth grade.

Where had you gone to school prior to that, and how did your experience there differ from your time at VDA?

Before VanDamme Academy, I attended a reputedly exceptional public elementary school in Laguna Hills. My education there differed from my experience at VanDamme fundamentally. Where VanDamme offered a logically-structured, ordered curriculum, my elementary education consisted of unconnected lessons seemingly chosen at random; science would cover volcanoes one week, and the anatomy of a frog the next.

Where do you attend high school, and what have been the strengths and weaknesses of your experience there?

I attend Fairmont Preparatory Academy in Anaheim. Academically, the school is, to the best of my knowledge, the strongest in the area. Fairmont offers a wide range of AP and otherwise advanced courses, generally taught by knowledgeable teachers who present their material clearly and logically.

Moreover, the school allows considerable academic freedom; it has, for example, allowed me to create my own independent study philosophy course, and has created two new math classes so that I can continue to advance. The number of intellectually ambitious students at the school, however, is small. And despite the strengths of the higher level courses, the curriculum in general emphasizes memorization over understanding, with the widespread use of multiple-choice testing and the heavy reliance on textbooks.

What have been some of your most important achievements since your time at VanDamme Academy?

Since attending VanDamme Academy, I have excelled in every facet of my academics: I have earned nearly perfect grades, taken and earned fives on eight AP exams, and been recognized as a national merit scholarship finalist.

Where have you applied to college, and why?

Though I applied to many schools, I am only sincerely interested in attending two: Duke and Stanford University. Both schools offer strong general academic programs, so that, whichever course of study I ultimately choose, I will be able to study under a first-class department.

How do you think your experience at VanDamme Academy shaped you?

At VanDamme Academy, I gained the foundations of an independent mind. I learned that ideas have consequences, are important, and are worth pursuing. I learned to think logically, to allow myself no half-formed knowledge or superficial understanding. I learned to appreciate great literature, to analyze facts scientifically, to write with clarity. And I learned that the sublime is possible to the man who thinks.

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

Thursday, January 01, 2009

Looking Ahead

This new year I have decided to make two resolutions. One is to increase efforts to lose more weight, about 25 pounds and the other is to increase promotion of Objectivism with an uptic in my activism. While those are things I'd like to do in 09, over at The New Clarion I have posted on some headlines I'd also like to see this new year.

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

And a Happy New Year!

Hope your new year is more prosperous and happy, and that 09 brings us all more freedom instead of less.

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to all my readers. You make blogging worth it when you visit here.

Mike N

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Sign of Things to Come?

Fred: I'm tired of standing in line all the time.

Sally: What this time, the unemployment line?

Fred: No

Sally: Job application line?

Fred: No.

Sally: What then?

Fred: The line to buy a newspaper!

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Expanding

I have been honored to have been accepted as a contributor at The New Clarion with Bill Brown, Myrhaf and Dismuke for whom I have very high respect. My posts on political topics will be posted there. I will still maintain this blog for non-political subjects.

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Government Interference and Encouragement

Speaking about governmental encouragement of the arts, novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand (link below) identified the principle that: "Governmental encouragement does not order men to believe that the false is true, it merely make them indifferent to the issue of truth or falsehood." This principle is equally true regarding other forms of governmental encouragement. But the truth of the above principle has never been so glaringly obvious as in the current mortgage crises which involves both government interference and encouragement. Government encouragement is usually in the form of government financing of various initiatives.

Governmental interference and encouragement in this fiasco is plentiful and widespread. It starts with the Federal Reserve bank which is a political animal created by the government in 1913. It would not exist in a free market. The Fed under former chairman Alan Greenspan held interest rates ridiculously low earlier this decade. That policy was continued by current chair Ben Bernanke. At his website economist George Reisman (link below) writes: "For the three years 2001-2004, the Federal Reserve drove the Federal Funds Rate below 2 percent and from July of 2003 to June of 2004, drove it even further down, to approximately 1 percent." This created an atmosphere of easy money and credit in the market place. Easy money here means money can be had at less than market rates would provide. It encourages a certain amount of recklessness in financing.

Add to that the government's implicit policy--ever since the bailout of the S&Ls--of bailing out companies that are deemed 'to big to fail' and you have even more encouragement to recklessness in financing. The Fed was seen as the lender of last resort and the congressional policy was seen as a corporate safety net.

But these encouragements weren't the only ones. There is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created by government to buy up risky mortgages and pool them with good ones and resell them for even more money that would be used to make more risky loans. The justification was to provide "affordable housing" to those who couldn't afford it. There is the Community Reinvestment Act which provided a rating agency by which mortgage companies would have to get a good rating in order to expand or merge. To get a good rating they had to have a certain number of risky mortgages. Again, these lesser encouragements contributed to and magnified the meltdown.

The pushers of 'affordable housing' were clever about their interference in the marketplace. They cited documents showing that a small percentage of people just under the economic threshold below which private banks would not lend are in fact able to pay off loans therefore the government must help this under served part of society with cheap loans. Of course none of this was needed. As Thomas Sowell pointed out, there are always some people in the poverty or working poor category who are there only temporarily through job loss or injury or just entering the job market at a low wage. These people don't stay there for long and don't need the government trying to saddle them with debt just because Congressmen and Senators want to feel good about themselves.

If no financial recklessness or greed existed in the market place, these governmental encouragements would--and did--create it.

When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are cleaned up they need to be shut down. The Community Reinvestment Act should be repealed and the Fed can be eventually shut down as we return to a gold standard We do not need a central bank. A great deal of the encouragement is on the state and local level. I did a google search for 'affordable housing initiative' and got 339,000 results.

The solution is not more governmental encouragement but an end to it: a discovery of laissez-faire capitalism.

Sources:
1. Rand quote from essay "Establishing of an Establishment" in her book "Philosophy: Who Needs It."

2. George Reisman's Blog on Economics, Politics, Society, and Culture. "Essay on The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Financial Crisis"

Sunday, December 07, 2008

Last Blogroll Update for 2008

As most already know, Myhraf has a new site called The New Clarion at which he teams up with Bill Brown for some very rational posts. I've added it to my blogroll.

I'm also adding "Wealth Is Not the Problem" where Beth posts on the similarities between now and the Great Depression.

The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights (ARC) is the site of the new Washington D.C. office of ARI. They have videos and lectures available for those who want to know more about individual rights. They are advocating individual rights in the one place where they are violated the most and least understood, Washington D.C.

Next is Ms. Think hosted by Paula Hall who also posts sometimes at NoodleFood. Her latest post is about:

A group called the National Community Reinvestiment Coalition (NCRC) has filed a complaint with the the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, claiming that the ratings agencies Moody's and Standard & Poor's facilitated the subprime mortgage meltdown -- to the disadvantage of minorities. As stated by succinctly by Overlawyered: NCRC's claim is that "you rated our constituents as too creditworthy."

Why don't they sue Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act who really did rate people as too creditworthy? Blame everybody except yourself is what they're doing.

Another addition is The Sidereal Messenger where David posts a review of the 'epic' movie Australia. Dave suggests you save your money.

Still another is the site of Dr. Andrew Bernstein who has written an introductory book on Objectivism for those new to it or just curious. (Friendly plug--Dr. Bernstein's site is managed by Robert Nasir who is also on my blogroll--just in case you're thinking about improving yours.)

Next is Robbservations where Robb examines a long article by Roger Cohen who looks favorably on Castro's Cuba.

Lastly for now will be George Reisman's blog on economics and culture. His last post looks at a NYTimes article on the appointment of Larry Summers to Obama's cabinet.

Friday, December 05, 2008

Pathetic Congressional Hearings

While I was babysitting my 7mo. old grand daughter, I happened to catch the beginning of the Congressional hearings of the big 3 auto co. CEOs. UAW chief Ron Gettlefinger was in the same panel. What I saw was really sad, no, sickening. Three titans of industry groveling before an inquisition of people who were clearly their moral inferiors.

These men were begging for permission to continue to exist and then apologising for not having done the impossible--to make cars with super gas mileage, using alternative fuels, no emissions, affordable to the poor, and that everyone wants to buy.

What was really pathetic was how many of the Representatives insisted that they have to be careful with taxpayers' money. What a bunch of two-faced hypocrites. These are the same humans who a few weeks ago were tripping over themselves to give Henry Paulson $700 billion as soon as he cried wolf! But loaning $34 billion requires several weeks of intense interrogation examining every feather in the pillow. As if they really cared!

That $700 billion wasn't to bail out Wall Street. It was to bail out Congress. To bail out their own hides while blaming greed. And the American people are swallowing it whole. These hearings are just the icing on the cake that was the biggest congressional power grab and money grab ever.

In a way, I don't feel sorry for those CEOs. They deserve this treatment for not defending their rights or capitalism or free enterprise.

If you want, CSPAN is reshowing the hearings at 8 PM EST Tonight. They're about 6 hours long. No doubt, Cspan will repeat them later also. Take some Bufferin before watching.

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Obama Seeks Power Sharing

The Detroit News of Tuesday Dec. 2nd carries a news analysis titled "Obama chooses 'strong.'" The subtitle is "Selection of Clinton, Gates, Jones for security team show his deference to pragmatism over ideology." So pragmatism equals strong. Strong what? No answer given but I can tell you that his picks are all strongly committed to abiding by any consensus that may arise. Why? Because it allows each of them to share power and this is what each one 'strongly' desires. The photo accompanying the article testifies to this fact at least for Hillary.

The first paragraph further reinforces this theme:

"The selection of experienced centrists -- Hillary Rodham Clinton, Robert Gates and James L. Jones -- to head President-elect Barack Obama's national security team points to the possibility that, on Iraq, the incoming commander-in-chief may take a more measured path to ending American military involvement than he described during the presidential campaign."

A 'centrist' is one who walks the middle of the road on everything; who takes a spoonful of poison with every spoonful of food and who is willing to compromise on every savage's claim that America is evil and needs to be reshaped into the savage's notion of ideal and most of all, that every American value is something that can and should be negotiated away for some temporary, range of the moment satisfaction.

Surrounding himself with 'experienced centrists' makes Obama's choices 'strong'? These 'strong' choices means there is no chance any of them will support extreme positions like individual rights, freedom, justice, equality under the law, earning one's way through life, letting people chose what's in their self-interest etc.. And what is "...a more measured path..."? Measured according to what standard? Compared to Bush's or the leftists who think Obama will pull the troops out right away? No. It's more measured than his campaign rhetoric which was only said to evoke emotions of approval. It worked nicely.

Obama likely will rely on Jones, who spent 40 years in the Marine Corps but has never served in the executive branch of government, to lay the groundwork by melding the views of Clinton and Gates.

What does 'melding the views" mean? How does one meld the views of "strong personalities and strong opinions" of Clinton and Gates? Can 'strong views' even be melded? These words are just meaningless nonsense meant to convey not ideas but feelings. One feeling is 'there, there now, daddy is here and everything is gonna be ok because daddy is doing everything right and he will take care of you.'

It's obvious that James Jones's job is to make sure that everyone shares in the administration of power and gets the appropriate prestige. Our government will be run by committee like baking an apple pie by committee. One person will decide what kind of apples to use, another how many to use, still another what temp to cook it at and still another how long to cook it while others will decide whether to cut in in 6 pieces or 8, and so on. And when it turns out to taste horrible, they'll all scream "It's not my fault!" That's what we have to look forward to.

The underlying theme of the article is that Obama will be getting the benefit of the best expertise possible and all will be well. Unfortunately, most of those people don't have a clue as to how to fix things except by more government intervention. It's going to be interesting to see how this power sharing works out in reality.

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Advocating for Objectivism

There has been some good posts recently on the web and HBL discussing what objectivists should do to help spread Objectivism. It goes without saying that donating to ARI and its Free Books for Teachers program would be an excellent place to start. Also, at the ARI site click on the 'Support ARI' tab then the 'contribute' tab for more ways to contribute or click on the 'campaigns' tab for things to support.

There are other activist efforts to support as well. There is FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine) and AFCM (Americans for Free Choice in Medicine) both of which could use help. The activities of these are sometimes updated at NoodleFood.

Writing to one's political representatives and LTEs to papers and mags helps as well. What with the Dems controlling Washington now I think it is vital that Objectivists concretize everything. If the powers that be utter a desired principle, then letter writers need to give concrete examples of what that principle will look like in the future. And if these same powers advocate a certain concrete activity, then writers need to identify the principle on which it is based, then concretize even more examples into the future. Projecting examples into the future is critical for I am convinced that anyone who can even partially think in principles will see events unfolding before them and be able to say something like "Hmm, they said it would look like this."

I know from experience that writing LTEs to papers shooting down what seems like an endless stream of awful ideas can get to be depressing. But to really feel good about oneself I recommend getting behind something good and giving a push. For example, put together $59 and give a gift subscription to the Objective Standard to your local public library or community college library. Or get behind some Objectivist newsletter like the Undercurrent and drop off some copies at your local college. Because education is so important, whenever Lisa VanDamme sends out her newsletter Pedagogically Correct, I post it in its entirety on my site and leave it there for a minimum of 24 hr. but usually 3 days. Know of an Objectivist radio show? Fire off an email to the Director of Programming at a talk radio station in your area extolling the virtues of that show and how it would be a great addition to your community's talk radio. Even when it comes to LTEs, sometimes, when I see a rational op-ed I'll send a short LTE to the effect "Kudos to professor Smith. His op-ed on inflation was spot on. We need more intellectuals like him." Giving the good a push re-charges one's batteries to keep on fighting the good fight.

I have been a little remiss on some of the suggestions above. So, I have decided that my 2009 New Year's Resolution will be to double my efforts at getting behind the good and giving a push.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Thanksgiving Note

Brian Phillips at Live Oaks has an appropriate post for thanksgiving about the pilgrims and their discovery that self-interest is the way to survive. It's amazing that people see that and still think selfishness is evil. People learn nothing.

At Capitalism Magazine Craig Biddle says "don't say grace, say justice".

Blogging will resume probably this weekend. Meanwhile, the rest of today I'll be trying to make my abode look presentable for a house full of company for dinner tomorrow.

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Global Warming Fear Mongering

The Sunday 11/16/08 Detroit Free Press had a global warming article by Scott Canon of McClatchy Newspapers that is pure fear mongering based on nothing but conjecture. The title proudly announces the article's speculative nature "Violence could mount as Earth's temperature rises."

The arbitrary assertions run wild in this piece. First we are told that:

"The Earth's fast-changing climate has a range of serious thinkers -- from military brass to geographers to diplomats -- predicting a spate of armed conflicts driven by the weather."

Of course these 'serious thinkers' have concluded that:

"Shifting temperatures lead to shifting populations, they say, and that throws together groups with long-standing rivalries and thrusts them into competition for food and water.

"It's not hard to imagine violent outbursts," said Julianne Smith of the Center for Strategic and International Studies."

This sounds like something out of a junior high school class. No evidence is provided for any of this, it's just asserted. I can imagine things too. I can imagine that just uttering the word green causes the storm clouds to part, the sun to shine through, birdies to sing and bunnies to play. And it would have as much relevance to reality as Ms. Smith's, none. Just reading this article could spark 'violent outbursts' from rational people.

Evidently Ms. Smith authored one of 4 major studies trying to predict the future:

"Each report predicted starkly similar problems: gunfire over land and natural resources as once-bountiful soil turns to desert and coastlines slip below the sea. They also expect violent storms to unsettle weak governments and set up dispirited radicals in revolt."

Yes! We must fear those touchy, dispirited radicals who will be set off by bad weather which, of course, will be all our fault.

The article continues with more arbitrary assertions and even leans on the notion that:

"...[T]he scientific consensus is that the industrial revolution increased global-warming gases that set off an unprecedented rate of climate change."

'Scientific consensus' is an oxymoron. 'Consensus' is a political concept. It is used in science only when there is no evidence for something and only opinions and conjecture are available. Michael Crichton got it right when he said:

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had." (From his 2003 speech "Aliens Cause Global Warming")

To see more on how unscientific the concept 'scientific consensus' is see here.

The article goes on to make some more predictions starting with some possible good ones:

Growing seasons could lengthen. Frozen seas could thaw to make way for convenient shipping routes. Previously inaccessible spots could be ripe to gush oil. [notice the derogatory word gush--ME]

Meanwhile, wetlands could dry up. Rivers could disappear. Scientists already think that hurricanes, blizzards and droughts are more frequent and more severe. Rising sea levels could send tens of millions of people scurrying for higher ground.

No evidence, not even historical references, are given for these predictions. It is pure imagination. But to bolster their fantasy they rounded up some military generals and got their consensus:

"The former commanders concluded that war would be more likely, that the U.S. military needed to plan for the new threats, and that the United States had to reduce its carbon emissions."

I think it's safe to say that no one familiar with objectivism, or even semi rational, would take this article seriously. So who was it written for? Who would take it seriously? I think it is aimed at the ordinary Joe and Mary citizen; those 4 or so generations that have gone through our 'progressive education' system and have been taught not to respect authority but to submit to it. Or to be more precise, to respect authority is to submit to it. "Don't judge" or "Are you a scientist? No? Then how dare you question the experts", are just two hammers dropped on kid's minds.

Progressive education is all about socialization which means going along with any consensus. As the kids grow up, consensus becomes a signal word designed to evoke a response of submission or at least acquiescence. I have heard adults say things like "Who am I to know?" and "I'm just an ordinary person" and so on. Their ability to think and learn has been destroyed because their desire to learn has been destroyed.

What's depressing is that both of my Michigan US Senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, have bought in to the 'GW will lead to disaster and is all man's fault' nonsense hook, line and sinker. Despite my Senators' support for global warming, I do think this article is evidence that the alarmists are starting to get desperate and resorting to pure scare mongering and never mind any evidence. Earlier this year I emailed them both urging them to start distancing themselves from the AGW mantra. So far neither has.

(footnote: I was saddened that Mr. Crichton passed away on Nov 4th. He was not of course an objectivist but like the scientists on my blogroll, had a strong reverence for facts and liked to stick to them. He'll be missed.)

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Some Sunday Reading

Andrew Medworth has a link to an ARC essay 'Stop Blaming Capitalism For Government Failures' by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins. The reason I'm linking this way is because at the bottom of this short post Andrew has a link to an Oct post of his which looks at the moral roots of the crisis as well as a crash course of sorts on economics. He links to a book called Economics For Real People by Gene Callahan which is online in PDF. It is written for the layman. I downloaded it for future reading. I highly recommend both posts.

K.M. at Applying Philosophy to Life has a post on Worldviews and the World.

Only those who have consistent principles can provide the standards by which any particular issue is to be judged. Those who have consistent principles set the terms of the debate. The pragmatists do the shouting and think they have won.

So true. We can see this happening today as government and media scream that greed and selfishness are at fault for the meltdown, but not government interference.

Morgan Freeberg makes a good point, Food is Death. Yes it's about Palin's turkey shoot and weak liberal stomachs. As he points out, the media crew would never permit such scene with Obama or any democrat. The media takes care of their gods.

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Obama's GW Plans Examined, Cullen culled?

I know this is a few days old but Lubos Motl at The Reference Frame has a post in which he fisks Obama's recent speech on what his administration will do about global warming. If I had only read the transcript and not saw the video, I would have swore these were Al Gore's words.

From that post's comments I found this new (to me) site called SBVOR in which he informs that Heidi Cullen's show "Forcast Earth" has been cut by The Weather Channel. See there is still some good news out there. It's unclear if Heidi is staying on perhaps in some other capacity. I hope not. I might take to watching TWC again. I was disappointed though that Cheryl Lempke was also let go. I think she was there from day one. If you wanted 'just the facts maam' she was it. I'm only speculating but perhaps she and others that were let go objected to TWC's increased hype and over-dramatizing of weather events like violent storms and such. We'll probably never know.

Friday, November 21, 2008

End The Fed Rallies

It's Friday night 11/21/08 and while surfing the net I found this site Free Advice by Bob Murphy. He links to a site called End The Fed which is holding rallies in Houston and other cities around the nation on Saturday. It looks like a libertarian effort to me but their list of endorsers features a mixture like Bush hater Cindy Sheehan, someone from the constitution party and someone from the green party and others. While I don't think getting rid of the Fed can be done without getting rid of Keynesian Economics, I think this particular effort might at least expose some people to the idea that the Fed may not be needed.

On the other hand, I think the press will ignore it. Detroit is one of the 38 cities where rallies are scheduled. So I'll be scanning the two dailies for any mention or coverage. Not holding my breath though.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

More Mass Preventive Medicine Urged

The Monday Nov. 10th. Detroit News carried an AP article titled "Cholesterol drugs lower heart attack risks." It is an example of mass preventive medicine in action. On June 1st I posted on this idea of mass preventive medicine quoting in part from Gary Taubes book Good Calories:Bad Calories:

"This strategy [collective medicine-ME] is credited to the British epidemiologist Geoffrey Rose, a longtime veteran of the dietary-fat controversy. "The mass approach is inherently the only ultimate answer to the problem of mass disease," Rose explained in 1981.

"But, however much it may offer to the community as a whole, it
offers little to each participating individual. When mass
diphtheria immunization was introduced in Britain 40 years ago,
even then roughly 600 children had to be immunized in order that
one life be saved--599 'wasted' immunizations for the one that was
effective....This is the kind of ratio that one has to accept in
mass preventive medicine. A measure applied to many will actually
benefit few." (Rose quote)

When it came to dietary fat and heart disease, according to Rose's calculation, only one man in every fifty might expect to avoid a heart attack by virtue of avoiding saturated fat for his entire adult life: "Forty-nine out of fifty would eat differently everyday for forty years and perhaps get nothing from it." (pp66,67) (End of Taubes quote.)

So we see that 49 people will be sacrificed for the alleged benefit of one. That is collectivism.

Now back to this Detroit News article. It says:

"However, some doctors urged caution. Crestor gave clear benefit in the study, but so few heart attacks and deaths occurred among these low-risk people that treating everyone like them in the United States could cost up to $9 billion a year -- "a difficult sell," one expert said.

About 120 people would have to take Crestor for two years to prevent a single heart attack, stroke or death, said Stanford University cardiologist Dr. Mark Hlatky."

So the government gets to start the use of force against 120 people for the alleged benefit of one. 119 people will be forced to take a drug which will do them no good, for the benefit of one mathematical artifact called a probability.

But notice the reasons given for opposing this policy; it's too expensive, about $9 billion yr. and we could be using the money for other forms of preventive care. Nothing is mentioned about how each one of those 120 people are to have their individual rights violated when doctors will be forced to put everyone on these cholesterol lowering statins. It is the sacrifice of all to all, not to achieve any real goal but as a permanent way of medicinal practice. Whether it actually prevents any illness is immaterial, it's the good intentions that count. It's also an example of children--who have never been taught that the good can not be achieved with the initiatory use of force--who are now grown up to be doctors and other professionals who see no reason not to lobby for using that force.

Readers of ME know that the collectivist mind doesn't see individuals like you and me. We don't count. They only see the collective whole as mentioned in the above link. They want to treat it without having to treat actual individuals.

For more information of collective medicine check out the web site of FIRM and their blog.

And to get an idea of the extent of questionable medical science today, I recommend JunkfoodScience by Sandy Szwarc.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Schiff Gets it Right

Billy Beck at Two-Four links to a 10 minute video showing how Peter Schiff was right all along. I wrote down the names of those who disagreed with him. It shall be called my low credibility list for financial smarts. They include Arthur Lafer, Mike Norman, Ben Stein, Neil Cavuto and his financial panel and Charles Payne to name just some. Perhaps Obama should select Mr Schiff as his financial advisor, then again, Mr. Schiff might be the last person he'd want advising him.

Friday, November 14, 2008

GOP Failure Revealed, almost.

Today's Detroit News editorial page carries an op-ed by US Representative Peter Hoekstra R-Holland (MI) titled "GOP loses by failing to acknowledge mistakes." In it Mr. Hoekstra does cite some concrete mistakes made but doesn't identify the underlying principles. He claims for instance that the GOP slide started with No Child Left Behind Act.

"Republicans began losing America with the passage and signing into law of the No Child Left Behind Act in December 2001. No Child was a massive shift from the previous Republican position, which would empower parents, teachers and local administrators. No Child rested on the wrong-headed premise that the federal government was better equipped to direct the education of our children."

This last sentence is true but he fails to see that the entire public school system is and has been based on that premise. I disagree that NCLB was a massive shift. It was nothing but a pragmatic (unprincipled) stab at fixing a failed school system caused by its equally pragmatic (unprincipled) philosophy of progressive education. He goes on to make another point:

"Republicans passed President George W. Bush's massive spending plans during the last eight years. If Republicans and the president had increased discretionary spending at the same rate as the Republican Congress and President Bill Clinton did during the 1990s, our deficit would be $363 billion less, a 32 percent reduction. Clinton could only have dreamed of the spending that Bush advocated and received."

Exactly! And that proves that whenever Republicans are in power they try to outdo the Democrats in enacting statist policies. He makes another observation:

"Americans are sick and tired of Washington excesses and government programs that don't work.

Instead, the Republican message was that Democrats were big spenders and Republicans were tax cutters. Based on the GOP record during the past eight years, no one believed us."

He's so close you could say he needs one number for a bingo. Is it coming?

"Republicans never addressed the issue that was compelling to America: Government is too big and doesn't work anymore. What good is an Energy Department that can't predict an energy shortage or a Treasury Department that can't anticipate a financial crisis? We failed to address what many people now believe: Republicans like big government as much as Democrats."

Bingo!

Unfortunately it's not a coverall. He goes on to lament:

"We left the American people, they didn't leave us."

True.

But he doesn't dig any deeper by asking why do the Republicans like big government, why do they outdo Democrats in expanding the size of government and spending? To do that would require looking at their basic principles, their philosophy. So-called Republican ideals like small government, low taxes, more freedom etc. cannot be justified on altruistic grounds. Mr. Hoekstra ends with this hope:

I'm confident about the future of our country. The check on a liberal federal government will not come via the currently rudderless Republican Party, it will come from the American people who love freedom and opportunity. A political party will develop to present the future the American people desire. I just hope it's the Republican Party.

If it is to be his party Mr. Hoekstra needs to get them to ditch pragmatism and start thinking in terms of principles which in turn will help them stand up to the onslaughts of government enforced altruism. One political and moral principle that will help right away is a dedication to the concept of individual rights and it moral base rational self-interest. They must learn that the concept 'inalienable rights' is not a concept of altruistic sacrifice but of self-interest.

One has to wonder how many other perceptive men like Mr. Hoekstra will continue to be disillusioned by the repeated failures of their party, simply because they aren't thinking in terms of principles.

(As a side note, I heard a few hours ago on the Michael Medved radio show that two men are currently vying for the party leadership. I didn't catch the name of one but the other was Mike Huckabee. Good Grief!)

Monday, November 10, 2008

Notes on Global Warming

I've been thinking about trying to put together a bullet type post on global warming where I state a claim followed by fact. These would have to be short and to the point. Here is my short attempt with a few comments at the end.

>Claim: The planet is warming.

>Fact: True. Earth is in an inter-glacial period in which warming naturally occurs.

>Claim: The more carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere, the warmer the planet will become.

>Fact: This is backwards. Data shows that the planet warms first causing CO2 to be released into the atmosphere second. The whole AGW hoax depends on this erroneous assumption and falls apart without it. I could stop here but lets look at a few more of the alarmist's main points.

>Claim: Co2 is the main greenhouse gas.

>Fact: False, water vapor is by far the major one. CO2 is more plentiful than other greenhouse gasses but is still a weak one. Many scientists do not consider water vapor a greenhouse gas even though they should because clouds do hold heat from escaping to space.

>Claim: An increase in temp. of 3 to 6 degrees C will send the earth to or beyond a 'tipping point' from which it will not recover, becoming a runaway fireball.

>Fact #1: The earth's temp. has fluctuated between 12 deg. C (53deg. F) and 22 deg. C (72deg. F) Currently we are at about 14.5 deg. C or 58 deg. F. as an average. We still have 8 deg. to go just to get to the Earth's high ave. of 22 deg.C from which it has always moved to a cooling cycle.
>Fact #2: The planet has been in a Glacial Epoch for about 3 million years. Glacial epochs cause ice to form at the poles and migrate towards the equator for long periods usually 100,000 years called glaciations, interrupted by very short periods of warming called inter-glacials. We are in one now and it's almost over. You can forget about Al Gore's New York City under 20 meters of water, try NY leveled under about a mile of ice which will happen in the next glaciation as it has in the past.

To try and pick at all the GW alarmist talking points would be a waste of time. The whole scam depends on people not knowing two points: that the planet heats first, then CO2 increases, not the other way around; and that we are in a glacial epoch which are heavily weighted in favor of coolings not warmings.

Even if AGW were true, the government has no right to force anyone to do anything.

(I read somewhere that if one didn't like a one degree rise in global temp., the thing to do is to move about 100 miles north. But the idea that man can stop the Earth's climate from changing for the first time in its 4.5 billion year history is insane. AGW is just a money and power grab.)

Additional references:
Climate and the Carboniferous Period. on climate history.
Paleoclimatology, on Glacial Epochs and more climate history.
JunkScience.com. on CO2.
Science and Environmental Policy Project on the IPCC.

Update: Lubos Motl at the Reference Frame has a post which is another example of pseudo science in global warming.

Saturday, November 08, 2008

Still More Blogroll Additions

It's that time again, for more blogroll additions that is.

First is Leonard Peikoff who posts a podcast of answers to listener's questions usually every Monday. These podcasts usually last around 14 to 18 minutes and are an excellent source of information from Objectivism's foremost authority.

Next is Quent Cordair Fine Art, Director's Corner. This is his own blog for his own thoughts. But if you would like to see a list of fine artists then visit his main site already on my roll.

Third is Politics Without God which is the blog of Coalition for Secular Government. This blog is manned by Diana Hsieh and Ari Armstrong and reports on the activity of the CSG which is a good activist site.

Fourth is Live Oaks hosted by Brian Phillips of no-zoning fame from Houston. He posts on property rights and related issues. His most recent one When Umpires are Biased, focuses on how government interference creates winners and losers and touches on why the Republicans lost the election.

Fifth is Atlantis by Eric Clayton whose most recent post advocates for more activism. I'm for that too.

Sixth is Edelweiss run by Chuck. His last post reports on a the involuntary servitude extolled at a site called change.com.

Seventh is Reddie Reasons hosted by Khartoum. His last post comments on

Allegedly, the members of the audience stormed out of a panel discussion hosted by the American University's Objectivists' free speech forum. The forum sought to discuss the nature of free speech and how totalitarian Islam was a threat to free speech.

Eighth is Ping-Ponging Toward Fascism managed by Adam Ross Cooke. I liked the 3 Ted Talks videos he has at the top of the blog.

Ninth is Sylvia Bokor Comments where her last post is a history lesson titled Lest We Return: The Rulers--Part I & II.

That's it for now. There are still others I'm looking at and maybe I'll add them next time in a month or two.

Friday, November 07, 2008

What Next?

Well, this ought to be an interesting next four years. I think a lot of people will be disappointed in Obama because he won't be able to live up to some of the things he promised to fix. He's a man not a god and cannot fix everything. In fact, as objectivists know, government can't fix anything economic unless it gets itself out of the way.

I think that Obama himself will be amazed at how many people expect him to provide their daily bread. He will be pulled in so many different directions that he will see no alternative but to throw all of them some crumbs, satisfying none. But I do think he will be loyal to a core group. Who might they be? Do you really think he looks at a Nancy Pelosi or a Barney Frank as the epitome of his leftist values? I for one don't think so. But he needs them and will continue posing as the consumate pragmatist to appease them. I could be wrong but I don't think he is a pragmatist at all. He is an idealogue and his ideology is collectivism and altruism. His desire to redistribute wealth proves he sees society as an entity, a body with some ailing parts. He sees his duty to redistribute the health enjoyed by the healthier parts to the ailing ones failing to understand that the healthier ones will no longer be healthy either. But he will not care even if made aware of it. He doesn't see individuals but only the collective whole.

It will be interesting to see with whom he fills his cabinet and other key regulatory posts. An early warning just went up last night when I heard that Obama has asked my Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm to be on his economic advisory committee. Damn! Is he nuts? Michigan's economy is the worst in the nation. I would however, agree with Frank Beckmann who, on his morning radio show today, said he would go along with her selection if she would go to Washington with her record as what not to do. Sigh! I'd like to think it can only go uphill from here but alas, I know better.

Staying tuned.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Mixed Thoughts on the Election

First, I think that if Obama is elected, whoever the Repubs run in 2012 will appear to the American people like a George Washington and will be a shoe-in even though there will be no such resemblance in reality.

Second, Americans resoundingly rejected the redistribution plans of McGovern because he stated them explicitly just as Obama is doing now. Therefore, if Obama is not likewise resoundingly rejected, then I think America is in deep trouble.

Third, Obama is no fuhrer. But I do think there are fuhrer wannabes out there who are taking notes. They want to see what Obama can get away with; how receptive the American people are to explicit collectivist ideas; how much government encouraged class hatred Americans have bought into; do Americans still want to stand on their own two feet or do they want to be led; what is the nature of Obama's opposition and so on.

Fourth, these wannabes are watching McCain too. They want to see how, even if, McCain inspires opposition to Obama's policies. A potential fuhrer will notice that both parties favor involuntary servitude. Check. That's a requirement. But his biggest concern will be which party is most eager to do away with free speech. Right now, with their desire to silence talk radio, internet blogs, return to the fairness doctrine, and label dissent as hate speech, it is the Democratic party. He will notice too how well the people's thoughts are controlled by the press.

On the other hand:

Sixth, one of the things that may stand in Obama's way is the Democratic Party's own philosophy of pragmatism. I think some of them actually fear Obama going ideological on them. Pure pragmatists will see an ideological bent by Obama as being highly impractical and dangerous to the party's re-election chances in four or even two years. There's a good chance they'll side with republicans in opposition to Obama's 'extreme' policies. Others however, like the Pelosis, Reids, Schumers, etc. will get solidly behind Obama's 'extreme' policies because, despite their outward shell of pragmatism, they are ideologues. Their ideology is collectivism-altruism. That's the beauty of being a pragmatist: it allows its adherents to have their ideology--by labeling it as being 'practical'-- and eat it too--by claiming they don't have one.

Seventh, there is the Supreme Court. Now any institution that can sanction Eminent Domain, declare a life giving gas, carbon dioxide, a pollutant, is not an institution to be relied on for salvation. Nevertheless, they do exist and even though it may take years for a challenge to an Obama idiocy to reach the court well, like I said, they do exist. Also, there is the advise and consent of the Senate which could slow things down.

Eighth, if I were a fuhrer wannabe I would try to determine which party would provide the smoothest sailing to dictatorship, i.e. which party gets the most Resistance when in power. Let's see: the democrats have the press in their back pocket and this is great. But when in power they get stiff Resistance from the repubs. However, when in power, the repubs go out of their way to enact the Dems' agendas and get very little Resistance. So for the smoothest way to fuhrerhood, I should be a Republican. Folks, that's scary.

Ninth, there were times I thought America was finished but it wasn't. I thought we were done when Nixon declared wage and price controls. Again during the Carter years when his altruism paralyzed his response to the hostage taking and his ignorance of economics froze him to do nothing in response to skyrocketing interest rates.

The above is mostly conjecture and I could be wrong on much of it. As things stand right now, it looks like Democrats will retain control of congress so my intention is to vote solidly republican for all candidates to provide more resistance to dem agendas. I can't see myself voting for Obama. He's just too anti-American. I may vote against him by voting for McCain or I may leave that spot blank. McCain is a long term threat. Obama a short term one.

Still thinking.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

They Don't Understand Rights

In the Brisbane Times (HT Junkscience.com of Oct. 24th.)Bill Clinton claimed:

"Today's global food crisis shows "we all blew it, including me when I was president", by treating food crops as commodities instead of as a vital right of the world's poor, Bill Clinton told a UN gathering today."

So now 'others' not only have a right to health care, to an education, to a job, now they have a right to food too. Next will be their right to your life if you fail to satisfy their rights to your labor, your sweat, your dreams, your future.

There is no such thing as a right to a thing before one has earned it. "The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men." (Ayn Rand Lexicon)

If one wanted to really help the world's poor, one would look for the root cause of their poverty which is almost always the same root--the lack of freedom by right; the freedom to produce the goods required for their survival and to use and dispose of those goods as they see fit. They don't have that freedom.

To feed them just for a day or a week only leaves the root cause (statist government) untouched and guarantees the the poor will still be there tomorrow or next week with the same needs. While this kind of caring is called 'altruistic' it has nothing to do with a genuine concern for the poor. A real concern for human life begins with a concern for oneself. One must always ask "Would I want to live like that in perpetuity? If not, then why make others do it? By giving them a fish for a day but refusing to teach them how to fish, one sustains poverty, even promotes it.

The giving of a fish for a day is good only if accompanied by efforts to teach them how to fish i.e. teach them the meaning of freedom by right and by reorienting their governments to protecting those rights. A rational self interest will accomplish this. Altruism will not. It isn't designed to. Altruism is designed to get people to accept sacrifice as a perpetual way of life. When one looks at the world's poor, one can see how successful altruism is at doing that.

Only a self-interested love of life will result in valuing those things that sustain and enhance life--like freedom by right instead of permission. But alas, thanks to the dominant philosophy of pragmatism, there is no one in American politics or academe who can teach the real meaning of rights to anyone. The only ones who could are the small but growing number of people who use the philosophy of Objectivism to guide their lives.

One last thought: the altruism of America's leaders today will definitely lead us to that same fish-for-a-day standard of living of the current world's poor. It's coming unless altruism is replaced by Egoism.

See How He Likes It!

All the Republicans are going to vote for Obama and tell McCain that they all want to be mavericks.

What a pleasant thought!

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Harvard Gored?

Posting on the election is so depressing I've decided to post on a different absurdity: global warming, or climate change as the alarmists are chanting now. There is nothing funny about the election. But professional comedians often make their jokes so stupid they become amusing even hilarious. That's how I see the global warming nonsense.

At The Reference Frame, Lubos Motl reports on the latest example of the Gore Effect. Evidently, Harvard Democrats celebrated Harvard Sustainability by having Gore as their keynote speaker. Cambridge Mass. is predicted to be hit with their coldest weather in 125 yrs:

For tomorrow night, the temperature in Cambridge is forecast to drop below the freezing point to 28 °F which, if true, will beat the record low temperature set in 1883, which means exactly 125 years ago, when it was 29 °F.

But the organizers anticipated the weather (or the Gore Effect?) by advising followers to dress warm and providing hot cider. To which Lubos responded:

Cute! The best thing one can do when it's raining is to let it rain but the best thing one can do when it's warming by 0.6 °C per century is to fight the climate, to redesign the Harvard logo, to unravel the modern industrial civilization (if you allow me to exaggerate just a little bit), and to serve people hot soup and cider so that they won't freeze during the celebration of their heroic fight against warming.

Young children usually outgrow their fantasies when they learn to distinguish them from reality. These children didn't.

C. August at Titanic Deck Chairs has a post on an IBD (Investors Business Daily) article on growing glaciers. Of course, alarmists would claim that cold weather and growing glaciers are consistent with global warming. Which means of course that when I want ice cubes I should place my tray of water in the oven.

Update: corrected a few typos.

stat counnnter