Used Car Salesmen Wouldn't Try to Sell Me This

On the editorial page of the Sunday 9/22 Detroit Free Press is a local commentary purporting to show "6 conservative reasons for Common Core" by two conservatives. They are identified as "Chester E. Finn jr. and Michael J. Petrilli are, respectively, president and executive vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a right-of-center education policy think tank. Finn served in the Reagan administration. Petrilli served in the George W. Bush administration. Both are affiliated with the Hoover Institution."

Obviously these gentlemen are neocons, liberals who couldn't stand the consistency of the leftists in their political circles. But that is beside my main point. The entire article is based on the premise that the responsibility for education lies with the government instead of the market. This in turn is based on a more sinister premise: that your child belongs to the state. It talks about how "Michigan has been lauded for its education reform efforts..." "Michigan" here means Michigan government not Michigan citizens. Let's remember government is force. It forces kids to attend and forces citizens to pay for the education of their kids as well as the kids of others.

The article then makes the claim that "The Common Core arose as a state initiative..." Umm, not really. From a website www.stopcommoncoreinMichigan.com.

"Just because states "agreed" to adopt these standards does not mean they were state-led. The federal contractor-National Governors' Association, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation & the Chief Council of State School Officers sign-off on CCSS gives the appearance that they were state-led, but national standards have been pushed by special interests, for decades, since the Clinton era."

So who might these special interests be? From Michelle Malkin at Townhall.com:

"Can you spell b-o-o-n-d-o-g-g-l-e? Remember: Bush’s educational foundation, the Foundation for Excellence in Education, is tied at the hip to the federally funded testing consortium called PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers), which raked in $186 million through Race to the Top to develop nationalized tests “aligned” to the top-down Common Core program.
One of the Bush foundation’s behemoth corporate sponsors is Pearson, the multi-billion-dollar educational publishing and testing conglomerate. Pearson snagged $23 million in contracts to design the first wave of PARCC test items. The company holds a $250 million contract with Florida to design and publish its state tests. Pearson designed New York’s Common Core-aligned assessments and is also the exclusive contractor for Texas state tests.
And in Los Angeles this summer, Pearson sealed a whopping $30 million taxpayer-subsidized deal to supply the city’s schools with 45,000 iPads pre-loaded with Pearson Common Core curriculum apps. That’s $678 per iPad, $200 more than the standard cost, with scant evidence that any of this shiny edu-tech will do anything to improve the achievement bottom line.
As with all political posers who grab power under the guise of doing it “for the children,” don’t read their lips. Follow the money."

Ms. Malkin has several articles on the nature of Common Core and I recommend you read them.

Now the gentlemen give us their 6 conservative reasons for Common Core. The first is:
Fiscal responsibility. "The Common core protects taxpayer dollars by setting world-class academic standards for student achievement--and taxpayers and families deserve real results for their money." This is laughable. While this last phrase is true, families deserve real results for their money, government has never made anything cheaper than the market place nor given taxpayers their money's worth on anything. Amtrack, the Post Office, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Public education just to name a few, are all broke and massive failures. But we're to believe Common Core will help the government get it right this time? Conservative reason #2:

Accountability. "Common core demands accountability, high standards,and testing--not the low expectations and excuses that many politicians and the establishment have permitted. The Core standards are pegged at a high level, which will bring a healthy dose of reality to the education reform conversation." Nowhere in the article is it explained exactly how these high, more rigorous standards will achieve all these desirable goals. We are to trust that it just jolly well will. Good luck getting the teacher unions to kneel down to these stricter standards imposed by such well meaning bureaucrats. Conservative reason #3:

School choice. "Doesn't it force a "one-size-fits-all approach onto schools? The short answer: no. Standards describe what students are expected to know and be able to do. Written correctly [according to what standard? MN] they do not dictate any particular curriculum, or pedagogy. Plus, the information that comes from standards-based testing gives parents a common yardstick with which to judge schools. In the end Common Core is not a national curriculum--the standards were written by governors and local educators." It's nice that CC gives parents a common yardstick by which to judge schools. Evidently parents have never had one before! Truth is, parents, watching their kids fail to learn to read, write and do simple math have used a common sense standard to determine that public education has been a colossal failure. Nor is having a choice between bad schools a desirable goal. Conservative reason #4:

Competitiveness. "If we don't want to cede the 21st Century to our economic and political rivals--China especially--we need to ensure that many more young Americans emerge from high school truly ready for college and a career that allows them to compete in the global marketplace." While it's true that students need to be able to compete for global jobs, Common Core is not going to achieve that. Common Core is nothing more than the government stamping its feet demanding that kids learn and teachers teach or else. Or else what? Where's the teeth? Where is enforcement? By whom? No mention in the article or any other I've seen. Conservative reason #5:

Innovation. "The core standards are encouraging investment from states, [our tax dollars-MN]philanthropic groups and private firms--which is producing Common Core-aligned textbooks, e-books, professional development, online learning and more." I'm all for more online learning. But textbooks is where curriculum lives. The curriculum in those pages will have to be re-aligned to meet CC testing standards. What's going to be added? Subtracted? What is this re-alignment going to look like? No answers. This gives the lie to the claim that CC won't affect curriculum. Conservative reason #6:

Traditional education values. "Common Core standards are educationally solid. They are rigorous, they are traditional--one might even say they are "conservative." [This sales pitch is really stretching it.-MN] "We see the Common Core as a great conservative triumph.[???] They don't give in to moral relativism, blame-America-first, or so many other liberal nostrums that have infected our public schools." That is fantastic!!! I'm ecstatic! It means multiculturalism, egalitarianism, diversity, equality of outcome, all of which are based on moral relativism, will be finally banned from our public schools!! Pinch me. I must be dreaming. Ouch! I guess I am dreaming. Sigh.

Conservative triumph? An Owellian term for sure. But before closing I want to point out that CC calls for psychometric testing. This in my view will test students as they go through school to see what they are best suited to do in the work place. Their education will be tapered to an occupation designed for them by the educational bureaucrats. That is the real future goal of CC.

In the Macomb Daily, a county newspaper in the northeast suburbs of Detroit, blogger Chad Selweski has an article on two Republican politicians who seem to have good luck in raising money. The title is "Macomb lawmakers rake in the campaign cash."

It's an informative article and I have no qualms with any of the facts presented. But I did notice the way the facts were presented. First let me say I've read many articles by Mr. Selweski and he does like to use metaphors. But metaphors can be used for purposes other than colorful writing. Sometimes they are used to slant facts in a certain way.

For example, the phrase 'raking in' can be a propaganda technique that I call image mongering. The idea is to bypass the reader's reasoning mind and appeal to his emotions. It does this by invoking the image of a person raking leaves from his lawn. The leaves just fell on his lawn through no effort of his. All he has to do now is rake them in. This implies that his leaves were unearned and thus undeserved. This in turn is meant to invoke in the reader an emotional response which could range from disgust to contempt to disrespect etc. The hope by such propagandists is that the emotional response will translate into an action by the reader that is favorable to the writer. This action could be anything on the order of 'don't vote for these guys' to 'vote for someone else' or to just implant in the reader's mind something like 'republicans don't earn their way' or 'are not trustworthy' etc. The favorable possibilities are almost endless.

This metaphor 'raking in' is often used by the left to demonize big business, banks and Wall Street as an evil from which only the leftist intellectuals and politicians can save us. Don't fall for it.

Now I'm not saying Mr. Selweski is using this metaphor deliberately in this way. He may not be. He may have this 'unearned money' sense regarding all politicians. So I will set this article aside and see if he uses the 'unearned money implication' in the future when referring to Democratic politicians. We'll see.

Liberals for Gun Rights?

I posted this yesterday 6/24 at The New Clarion and am putting it here on my own blog.


"I almost fell off my chair yesterday 6/23 when I read an oped by James Hill, the politics editor at the left wing Detroit Free Press titled "Why I Carry: why having a firearm is like having insurance." This is strangely unlike the usual editorial policy of the Freep. Normally the paper is teeming with editorials, opeds and LTEs calling for more gun control, a euphemism for people control.

But this article was well written even pointing out that just carrying is not enough; that one needs to practice and train often especially with a professional trainer. He's also right about the fact that we buy insurance for our houses, cars and other belongings hoping we never have to use it. So it is with guns. We carry hoping we never have to use it.

But Mr. Hill focuses exclusively on the practical argument leaving the moral argument for the gun banner advocates to seize and use against him. I wish he would have tied his practical argument to the moral principle of individual rights in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. So I fired off this letter to the editor:

"Like Mr. Hill I too carry a firearm for insurance reasons, to insure that I have at least a chance to defend my life if needed. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is not the job of police to protect citizens from criminals but to apprehend them after the fact. That's why our founders established individual rights as our founding principle. They understood that if the individual is to have a right to life then it logically follows that he must have the right to defend it and that to deny the right of self defense is an immoral act."

I don't know if it'll get printed but stranger things are happening. I signed it Mike in Roseville. Also, this supports an idea I had about how gun control will not happen for a while because a lot of Democrats, liberals and leftists see the value in self defense."

Evading the Premises in Detroit

I have spent most of my 70 years living in and outside of Detroit. I've watched it go from a booming town to a near ghost town with jobs and people and of course money, leaving for greener pastures. In its earlier years if there was a problem, there was no problem. Somebody would step up examine the problem and fix it. Detroit's leaders never feared facing a dilemma and tackling it.

But what can be said about leaders who look right at the problem then turn their heads away evading the obvious? Who even correctly identify the problem in concrete terms as Editorial Page Editor Stephen Henderson did in his Sunday 3/24/13 editorial "Revenue and spending all out of balance" but fails to examine the premises underlying the malady. Mr Henderson correctly cites in a nutshell the obvious concretes: Detroit government can no longer afford to provide economic services that it used to provide.

But instead of calling for a discussion on the question "What is the proper role of a city government? What services are it Constitutionally required to provide? Which ones are not so required? Mr Henderson and most other leading intellectuals are calling for new ways to raise money in order to keep doing the same old thing. In fact, on the same editorial page professor George Galster calls for a regional solution. Translation, hit the suburbs up for more money. But no one is asking the question why does the City have to provide all these economic services? Most are not political services like police and courts which are constitutionally required. So why not let others provide them?

What do us ordinary folk do when the paper boy keeps throwing the paper in mud puddles or worse, or when the auto repair shop has fixed our car 4 times in the last two weeks, or the trash pick up guys keep destroying our cans, throwing them around like cardboard? Well, if complaining doesn't work, most of us start looking for someone else to provide these services. This I submit is what Detroit must do to keep from sinking lower on the desirability scale: get someone else to provide these economic services. Let competition and a freer market provide them.

Look at the Information Technology industry like cell phones, I pods and such. The IT industry is one of the least regulated industries in what's left of our semi-free market. Thus people are still free (relatively) to come up with new ideas, market them and enjoy the rewards. Almost daily the quality of smart phones, I pads and such goes up while the costs fall. Isn't this what we all want for our schools, roads, EMS and other services? Quality rising and prices falling?

But Detroit can't get there from here by following the same failed policies of the past or by evading the consequences of its adopted premises. If city economic services can be sold or auctioned off and deregulated to the level of IT, Detroit will once again explode with prosperity.

LTE in Detroit News

I had this short letter printed in the Detroit News on March 4th.


"News editor Nolan Finley in his 2/28 editorial "Abortion focus will cost GOP Michigan" is right on. I would only add this is also true of the National Party. The GOP needs to learn that abortion rights are here to stay, that deporting 11 million illegal aliens isn't going to happen and that gays living together violates no one's rights.

President Obama's re-election was not so much an endorsement of his policies as it was a slap in the face to a GOP myopically focused on social issues instead of the only winning issues nobody else is championing but which Americans desperately need and want: the principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence."

MJN

The Dec 28th 2012 Detroit News carried two opeds on gun control, one by Charles Krauthammer and one by Clarence Page. While Mr. Page blames the NRA and Mr. Krauthammer blames Hollywood, neither gentlemen focus on a mindless injustice that certainly contributed to such horrific events as Sandy Hook. I'm talking about the absurd practice of putting up signs that read 'gun free zone.'

The existence of such signs I contend, stems from modern progressive educations' focus on trying to develop students' self esteem in the wrong way. Instead of teaching kids that self esteem must be earned through productive effort and the achievement of goals, many teachers take a shortcut around such effort and attempt to instill self esteem directly by telling youngsters that they are automatically and causelessly special, great, good, awesome etc.

But what happens to a child taught to believe his self esteem--which is how humans experience their moral worth--doesn't have to be earned, that it comes from the smiling faces and approval of others without any effort on his part? What happens if that sanction is not forthcoming? What is he to think of a reality that is supposed to make him happy but doesn't? Will he withdraw from it or strike out at it?

A third and proper option would be to check his premises but Prog Ed makes sure no one develops that ability. Several generations of adults have gone through Prog Ed. Many have survived this aspect of today's public schools having learned that true self esteem must be earned. Others will be affected in some way but few will be totally unscathed. Some of these will get together and decide to declare their schools to be gun free zones. This they think will show others how much they care about children and thus how morally good and noble they are. Some such people will find posting such attention getting signs to be nearly irresistible.

There is of course, nothing wrong with enjoying the approval of others between rational people as long as said approval is based on some earned values. But I want to urge that we purge from our schools the insane practice of instilling in children a false sense of self worth. It's my understanding that a push in this direction has already started. Recently a teacher gave a commencement address to a graduating class telling them "No, you are not special." This is a baby step in the right direction.

But the real solution is easy enough to see. All we have to do is look at the constantly rising quality and falling prices of Information Technology like cell phones and I-Pads and so on. We should all want this paradigm for our kids' education. So, lets place education on the free market by taking it out of the hands of government, getting rid of regulations while retaining rights protecting laws and watch the ensuing explosion in quality and plummeting costs affordable to everyone.

The Immorality of Gun Control

The Dec. 18th print edition of the Macomb Daily (a northeastern suburban county of Detroit) carried an oped by Roger Simon of www.creators.com, not to be confused with Roger L. Simon of PJTV fame. This Roger Simon, without the L, writes a screed pushing "real" gun control which according to him, has never been tried here in the U.S. Right! And that's why we still have a few freedoms left.

There are lots of things wrong with Mr. Simon's rant not the least of which is an outright falsehood. He claims for example:

"Four adults are killed in Benghazi, and the right wing politicizes it endlessly."

Pardon me but it was president Obama who immediately lied to the American people by claiming Benghazi was caused by an anti-Muslim video which of course, turned out to be false. It was Mr. Simon's left wing that sought to politicize Benghazi first. Obama kept it up for several weeks even making this false claim in a public speech. He even had Susan Rice push the video nonsense.

Mr Simon then claims the gun lobby and the social media cried "...too soon. Show respect for the dead. Do nothing now." While there indeed was some of that (the Detroit News wrote an editorial urging Gov Snyder not to sign a gun bill that would allow concealed carry anywhere in the State), the social media I visit was calling for action now not do nothing. I responded to that editorial calling for arming some adults in every school on the grounds that leaving kids unprotected any longer was unconscionable. Unfortunately, the Governor did not sign the bill. He left the kids vulnerable.

Mr Simon goes on to attack some alleged reasons for the Sandy Hook shootings. Here is his list of things that didn't cause the shootings and why:

It's not: the NRA is too strong, because they're not that strong.
It's not: godless schools like Mike Huckabee claims, because we can't wait for America to be as pious as Mr. Huckabee.
It's not mental illness, because other nations don't have that problem.

So, even though he cites no evidence for his claims, it must be the guns. In truth though, there is more to gun control that a misplaced concern for safety.

If man has an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then he must be politically free to take the actions and acquire the tools that will sustain his life. Some of those tools will be tools of self defense. The right to life must include the right to defend that life. Without the right of self defense, man has no right to life.

Gun control advocates do not respect such rights. They believe that because some weapons make killing easier than others, they should be banned to citizens and placed only in the hands of benevolent, caring, "good guys" in government. The desire for such a society goes all the way back to Plato's notion of "philosopher kings". This is the idea that an elite of knowledgeable rulers is best for ruling over the ignorant masses. This is exactly the attitude of most of today's politicians and intellectuals. They all imagine what a wonderful world this could be if only they had the power of force over you and me. They have it. Some in the Democratic Party may be reluctant to use it just yet. Obama is not.

In closing I want to say that the need for some adults to be armed in our schools is more urgent than ever. I'm told they do this in Argentina, the Philippines and in Israel. We need to do it here also. But there is something we could do right now and that is take down all the signs that declare "gun free zones." Look at what those signs really say: "self defense free zones." In essence they say "attention killers, here is a free killing zone just for you." I can't think of a sign more politically and morally wrong than that.

Mr. Simon ends his tantrum with a quote alleged to have been spoken by one of the teachers to her students: "Wait for the good guys; they're coming." Except she was referring to "good guys" as police in their role of protecting our rights while Mr Simon's "good guys" were police in the role of taking away our right of self defense.

PS As of this writing the Macomb Daily has not put the oped on their online version so I can't link to it.

Get Rid of Sacrifice, Get Rational Self Interest

When you elect politicians to serve your interests and they don't follow the constitution, you will suffer due to the loss of your freedoms.

When you suffer due to the loss of your freedoms, you will look to your intellectual leaders for answers.

When you look to your intellectual leaders they will tell you that the sacrifice of your freedoms could not be otherwise.

When your leaders tell you the sacrifice of your freedoms could not be otherwise, you will get frustrated.

When you get frustrated, you will riot in the streets like the Greeks.

Don't riot in the streets like the Greeks. Get a copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and read both.

When you read both you will discover that America has abandoned individualism and man's right to self interest in favor of collectivism and self sacrifice.

Get rid of sacrifice. Get rational self interest.

I'm back for now and the election.

Hi all. I'm back to light blogging. Now that the election is over and the candidate I was going door to door for lost I will have slightly more time to post on things I see and hear.

As for the election, well, I was disappointed because I thought Romney would provide a smaller dose of poison compared to Obama's lethal dose giving Objectivism a little more time to spread.

But now that TDL has won I have mixed feelings. I'm glad in a way because future disasters will be seen by the public as falling on Democratic shoulders and policies although the MSM will lie and blame everyone and everything except the Dems. I worry because my grand kids will be growing up under Obama Care and facing an increasing shortage of doctors and nurses.

There are good things to note however: voters returned the House to the control of the Republicans and the Repubs gained in state legislatures. I heard on the radio that the states with control of both houses and the governorship were Democrats 13 and Republicans 23. So this means to me that there was no love fest for Obama. Instead there was a slap in the face to the Republican national establishment for backing Romney the daddy of Obama Care and for ignoring Tea Party candidates. I don't think it was an explicit punishment of the Republican establishment although there was some of that, it was more like a sense of life vomit at the sight of the Party's obvious addiction to the self imposed second class status to the Democratic Party.

I have decided though that it's getting late and there is no longer lots of time to spread rational ideas in round about ways, to refrain from mentioning Rand's name or Objectivism or selfishness for fear of hurting feelings or being rejected out of hand. Sometimes the best way to resolve a problem is to meet it head on. So I have resolved to challenge many of the main cultural ideas like altruism, collectivism, sacrifice, greed and selfishness just to name a few in the popular press.In the past I have usually wrote LTEs sporadically. That will change.

Five hours ago I posted this on Facebook. I re-post it here with the comments. I was just watching Fox business Channel where Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Charles Munger (chairman of Berkshire-Hathaway) were answering questions from the lady moderator. Mr. Munger was asked why he thought Alan Greenspan paid too much attention to Ayn Rand. He replied that Rand's political philosophy of laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work, adding that ax murderers exist in laissez-faire and there is nothing good about that and that people need restraints. OMG! In order for him to say that he has to believe that laissez-faire means no government in society when in fact it means no government interference with initiatory force in the market place. This is but one example of why businessmen are often their own worst enemies, and an example of the sanction of the victim. Like · · Unfollow Post · Share Joshua Lipana, Richard Ruggiero, Rob Van Aken and 3 others like this. Kristina Janson After what happened to Bill Gates in the Clinton era, you can bet your butt that they're going to sing the party line! They are imaging themselves as Martha Stewart behind bars. 5 hours ago · Like Philip Nelson We shouldn't rely on business men to present a moral ideal. Although Rand envisioned them as one of the main defenders of true freedom they are today one of it's biggest enemies. They are forced (or go voluntarily) to be supported by gov't ... See More4 hours ago · Like · 1 Kristina Janson In 1992, I met on several occasions Albert H. Gordon, of Kidder Peabody. As an investment genius and a builder of businesses, I thought that he would really appreciate to know that I thought his actions were moral. I wrote down a book recom... See More 4 hours ago · Like

Another LTE printed

This LTE was printed in the Detroit News on March 7th.

Letter: Focus on nation's founding values

"The Feb. 18 editorial brief "Appropriate driving law" is an example of a true statement that can be misleading in terms of the principle involved. The sentence: "This new legislation expands a smart law that rightly punishes drivers who have chosen to risk other people's lives with their irresponsible decisions" can leave the impression that the purpose of law is to protect people from irresponsible decisions instead of violations of their rights. The question then becomes who decides what is responsible or irresponsible and according to what standards?

Is the mother whose child had her turkey sandwich, banana and apple juice confiscated by food police guilty of irresponsible decisions? Were all of us guilty of irresponsible decisions for wanting to use incandescent light bulbs or watch analog TV or put salt on our potatoes?

The tea parties exist to get our nation back to its fundamental, founding principles. They could really use the support of those on editorial staffs to identify those principles.

The above quote could ideally have read in part "... rightly punishes drivers who have chosen to risk violating other people's rights." Individual rights are a profound value. To consistently fail to mention primary values is to consider them unimportant."

LTE Printed

LTE Printed
By Mike N · February 16th, 2012 6:01 am · No Comments · ·Edit

I had the following LTE printed verbatim in the Macomb Daily a countywide newspaper serving Macomb county which abuts Wayne County home of Detroit.

“We must return to basic principles

I applaud George Will’s Feb. 5 opinion column, pointing out the dictatorial desires of progressives from Woodrow Wilson to Franklyn Roosevelt and President Obama. Americans need to know that the Democratic Party is dominated by those who think brute force is the practical way to govern citizens.

But Will failed to take the next step: to ask why do progressives worship force instead of freedom, while our Constitution clearly calls for freedom? The answer is to be found in the Declaration of Independence with its principle of individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This principle is one of reasoned self-interest, that one can serve one’s own interests as long as one respects the same rights of others.

But progressives disdain these principles, believing that man is not capable of reasoned behavior and must be forcibly ruled by benevolent masters, a longing for something that has never been or will ever be. If America doesn’t return to the principles of the Declaration of Independence soon, the progressives will have the dictatorship they crave. Where reason and rights do not prevail, force does.”

Mr Will is a famous conservative pundit who is quite good at pointing out all the idiocies of progressive policies. But like so many of his colleagues, often fails to identify the principles underlying those policies thus leaving them unchallenged to continue birthing more such policies.

More Part Time Objectivist Activism

My activism the last week in promoting Objectivist ideas was mostly good with only a little bad. First the good. On Monday the 6th I went to the center campus of a local community college to check on my rack of The Undercurrent newsletter. They were all gone so I plunked down another 25 copies and will check back in two weeks. Then I went to the south campus and my previous supply of 30 only had 3 left so I put another 25 there also.

On Tuesday the 7th I checked a coffee shop next to the college where students like to hang out. I put a rack of 30 copies there back in November. There was only 1 left so 25 more went there as well. I also left 2 copies of the Sampler on the bottom shelf of the rack.

Today I visited a small private college that teaches business with several other professions. I gave a copy of "Why Businessmen Need Philosophy" to the Administrator with a view towards providing more copies should any teacher want more to teach to his/her class. Failing that I wanted to donate the book to the business school library so it will be available to students to read if they so choose. The administrator seemed very receptive although she said she never heard of Ayn Rand or Objectivism. She has now. I also left a flyer for the free books for teachers program and the student essay contests with her.

The bad news came from a larger private college where I sought permission to place a rack with The Undercurrent on it. This administrator said that because people pay tuition to attend, it may be inappropriate for the school to be seen as advancing a given viewpoint. In a nutshell, no rack. So I have determined that if someone should haphazardly leave a few copies laying on a random table well, the school couldn't be held responsible. Besides, thanks to today's experience at the smaller business college, I'll be going back to donate a copy of WBNP to their library probably this Friday the 10th.

I was also reminded of another business college about five miles from those mentioned above. As soon as I order more copies of WBNP I'll be paying it a visit.

That's it for now but I'll keep looking for more opportunities.

Why we seldom get morally principled leaders.

I posted this at The New Clarion yesterday and am re-posting it here today.

The Friday Jan 6th print edition of the Detroit Free Press carried an oped by Leonard Pitts Jr of the Miami Herald titled "Ron Paul is foolishly consistent in his extremism." He starts it out with this Ralph Waldo Emerson quote: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" I'll skip the fact that there may be some debate over the contextual meaning of that quote in some circles and just focus on how Mr. Pitts uses it as received wisdom. I will quote a few passages with my comments in brackets.

"Ralph Waldo Emerson, meet Ronald Ernest Paul. He is the very soul of a foolish consistency. Meaning that he is willing, often to a fault, to follow his ideology to its logical and most extreme conclusions." [Right off the bat, Pitts is using extremism to smear Paul's consistency i.e. integrity. "(T)o a fault" means excessive, too much, but no argument is given as to why extreme consistency or integrity is a fault. Why is a man who is extremely honest faulty?]

"In this, the congressman differs from other GOP contenders for the White House and, for that matter, from most politicians, period. Your average pol might rail against the intrusion of government into the private lives of its citizens, then turn right around and advocate a law regulating what a gay man does in his bedroom--and see no contradiction. [Very true] Paul is too intellectually honest for that." [Mr. Pitts, you're starting to make Paul look really good]

"Intellectual honesty is a good thing, if only because it can lead you to reconsider a faulty premise.(If only? It has no other value?) But in Paul's take on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he doubles down on the bad premise instead." [Here Pitts confuses government enforced segregation with private prejudice and treats them as equal malfactors which of course they're not. Here the 'bad premise' is private prejudice.]

"In other words, forcing a restaurant to take down a Whites Only sign infringed the rights of the restaurant owner.[Yes, it did] A similar argument was made by segregationists in 1964--and by slave owners in the 1850s." [Not actually. Slavery and the Jim Crow laws were enforced by local and state governments and should have been repealed. Had they been repealed sooner, market forces would have eroded the private prejudices even sooner than history shows.]

"Can government be overlarge, overbearing, overwhelming, overrestrictive, overintrusive? Of course. And where it is those things, it is the right--and duty--of the electorate to pare it back." [Obviously Mr. Pitts doesn't think today's government is any of those things because the Tea Party which he opposes, exists to pare it back. Notice too that he doesn't object to the government being restrictive or intrusive, just overly so. He doesn't understand that he is actually saying don't overchain your slaves but chains are ok. But what would happen if the chains were removed completely?]

"On the other hand,unless you enjoy salmonella in your food and lead in your paint, unless you think it's OK that your doctor has no medical degree and your lawyer no licence, unless you're fine with breathing sooty air and drinking tainted water, and unless you really think a black woman in Mississippi, locked out of public places by threat of violence and force of law, should have been required to wait on market forces to rescue her, you must regard Paul's moral imbecility with a certain awe." [This is a partial rewrite of history. According to Pitts we were walking over bodies in the streets who died from salmonella, lead, tainted water and air and doctors and lawyers who didn't have government permissions to practice until the caring, loving government came along to save us all. Utter nonsense.]

[I have noticed that when statists mentalities are on the brink of achieving or losing their goals, they become more bold in the accuracy with which they identify their true goals and ideals.]

"Heaven help us if the intellectual rigidity he symbolizes is really the only alternative to the intellectual malleability of so many of his colleagues." [Wow! An open admission that intellectual malleability is the ideal, the norm to be achieved and admired. I will only add that Mr. Pitts is to be admired for his cognitive precision in identifying the intellectual status of Paul's Republican colleagues.]

With pundits like Mr. Pitts bombarding the public with ideas like this it is no wonder that the public has no principled leaders. My hope is that there are principled leaders out there taking notes on the election campaigns and deciding whether the public is ready for principled leadership. I think a growing number are. I just don't know how big that number needs to be to turn this country around. Perhaps 2012 will give us a clearer picture.

Objectivist roundup Jan 12 2011

This issue has posts on things like Inflation, the impact of entitlement programs on debt, Religious conservatism vs Islam, fighting for your life and the truth about Romneycare and a lot more.

Objectivist roundup #234

This week's Objectivist roundup is at Rational Jenn where you can read posts on things like "Thoughts on Drawing" or the "importance of mathematics" or on "When goals flounder, review your central purpose' and much more from an Objectivist perspective.

Paleo Rodeo #19

The Paleo Rodeo #19 is up at Modern Paleo where you can discover a coconut egg nog recipe or read a post on what causes anorexia or read as Mark tells how he improved his cholesterol results on a low carb high fat diet or learn how Tim improved his blood glucose control or simply enjoy many tasty recipes.

Here is a link to some very good articles on the junk science that is global warming. The statists and witch doctor wannabes are meeting in Durbin this week trying to keep the hoax alive.

Objectivist roundup Oct 27th 2011

This week's Objectivist roundup is at "Parenting is..." Where you can read posts like Ed Cline's on the Occupy Wall Street protests or one that takes a look at a 1960 hospital bill, or in defense of income inequality and much more. Enjoy.

The Objectivist Roundup #221 is at the blog of John J McVey where you can read posts on topics like naps at preschool, Elizabeth Warren's Assault on Justice, good getting things done habits by John Drake, a post on the importance of primacy of existence premise, why Gideon supports Gary Johnson for president, and much more. Enjoy!