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.

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.

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.

Blogroll Additions Jan 09

It's time to update my blogroll again with the addition of more informative and thought provoking blogs.

First will be The Imaginary Philosophy hosted by Tom Stelene. His post of Jan 28th asks "How religion insults us and we don't even know it."

Second is Tito's Blog where Roberto "Tito" Sarrionandia discusses whether one should support a party which is the lesser of two evils or concentrate on a philosophical revolution.

Third is the blog of Scott Holleran where he informs that "Penguin has announced that it will publish a trade paperback for We the Living by Ayn Rand." And..."The powerful We the Living, one of my favorite novels, is the last of Ayn Rand’s four novels to be reprinted in the larger trade paperback format. Publicity materials also make reference to a biography of Ayn Rand (1905-1982) that’s slated for sale next month." Now that's good news.

Fourth is The Little Things hosted by Amy Mossoff. Hers is a positive and uplifting blog. On Jan 30 she has as part of her three good things, a video of a concert --- harmonica? Sure enough. Enjoy.

Fifth will be the Philosophical Mortician who asks the question, what is a mortgage?

Sixth is Zigory who gives his views of Rush Limbaugh.

Seventh will be Heroes of Capitalism a multi-contributor site which now looks at Friedrich August von Hayek.

Eighth is Flibbertigibbet who looks at how much money he's spending on groceries.

Ninth is the blog of Dr. Monica Hughes FA/RM or Free Agriculture, Restore Markets. Her last post addresses the nonsense of the British contention: "People should not be allowed to eat eggs."

Tenth shall be FreeColorado.com, another blog by Ari Armstrong. Today he looks at the prospect of New Tariff Wars.

Eleventh is Co2science Magazine hosted by the Idso family. They are not Objectivists but have a love of facts and are loyal to them. They have a new posting every Wednesday. I should have added them a long time ago.

I'm still looking at a few others and may add them on my next update.

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.

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

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.

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.

Merry Christmas

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

Mike N

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!

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.