The Chinese's almost complete lack of understanding of basic economic principles shows up even in the realm of films. The economy is not a zero sum game! Just because I have seen one film, that does not mean I won't go see another. In fact, there is a good chance that if I have a good film-going experience, I will want to go watch more films. The presence of American films does not prevent people from seeing Chinese films. The only reason one would want to restrict the number of films coming from someplace else is if your own films are so bad that nobody would watch them otherwise. Competition only works to make things better. And yes, this does include movies. If you don't believe me, just think about what kinds of films would be out there if one company were to be given a complete monopoly over film-making. You would have to watch whatever crap they wanted to put out. And there is little doubt that it would be mostly crap that they would put out. The Chinese HAVE to get out of this mentality that the economy is a zero-sum game. This belief explains many of their actions of late, and it also does not bode well for their future, as their economy will necessarily, after a while, stagnate as they continue to work against the economies of other countries around the world, thinking wrongly that that will help their own.
And now, for a moment of transparency: I do have a financial interest in the Chinese government changing its attitude, since I do own quite a bit of stock in Chinese companies, and I do want those stocks to grow.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Geoengineering vs. Environmentalists
On November 6, the company Planktos set sail from Florida to fertilize an undisclosed location in the equatorial Atlantic with iron. Why? They hope to prove that fertilizing the ocean with iron will result in an algae bloom that will absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and surface of the ocean, then sink to the ocean floor to sequester the CO2. The idea is that this could help slow down or even stop global warming. Why, then does Planktos think it should have to do this in an undisclosed location? It seems like such action should receive global fanfare for there being a company working to reverse manmade global warming.
The 30 November 2007 Science reports that "THe secrecy is due to threats from environmental activists to disrupt the mission" (1368). One can only imagine what it means to "disrupt" a ship at sea spreading soluble iron around. Now, why would environmentalists want to stop a mission that is looking to reduce atmospheric CO2, which could reverse the effects of manmade CO2 on the climate? If environmentalists are really concerned about the state of the environment, if they are really concerned with reducing CO2 in the atmosphere to reverse global warming, shouldn't they be celebrating this kind of action? Of course not, for that is not what Leftist environmentalism is about. Their objection stems from the fact that companies like Planktos want to do this in order to make money selling credits for the sequestered CO2. Thus, the environmentalists who want to disrupt such a mission show their true colors to be red, not green. If Planktos is successful, a free market solution will have been found, and the socialist dreams of Al Gore and his comrades will have been sunk.
Further, as reported in the same article, the same scientists who are so certain about manmade global warming show complete skepticism about this kind of geoengineering, saying we don't know what the full results will be. Which is true, since we are tinkering with an element of a very complex system. So it's good that scientists are expressing skepticism, because that is how science is supposed to work. One would wish, however, for the same level of restraint on all proclamations regarding complex systems coming from scientists.
The 30 November 2007 Science reports that "THe secrecy is due to threats from environmental activists to disrupt the mission" (1368). One can only imagine what it means to "disrupt" a ship at sea spreading soluble iron around. Now, why would environmentalists want to stop a mission that is looking to reduce atmospheric CO2, which could reverse the effects of manmade CO2 on the climate? If environmentalists are really concerned about the state of the environment, if they are really concerned with reducing CO2 in the atmosphere to reverse global warming, shouldn't they be celebrating this kind of action? Of course not, for that is not what Leftist environmentalism is about. Their objection stems from the fact that companies like Planktos want to do this in order to make money selling credits for the sequestered CO2. Thus, the environmentalists who want to disrupt such a mission show their true colors to be red, not green. If Planktos is successful, a free market solution will have been found, and the socialist dreams of Al Gore and his comrades will have been sunk.
Further, as reported in the same article, the same scientists who are so certain about manmade global warming show complete skepticism about this kind of geoengineering, saying we don't know what the full results will be. Which is true, since we are tinkering with an element of a very complex system. So it's good that scientists are expressing skepticism, because that is how science is supposed to work. One would wish, however, for the same level of restraint on all proclamations regarding complex systems coming from scientists.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Rich and Poor
When it comes to the issue of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, I think the blogger of Coyote Blog says it all, and says it better than I could.
What a Pansy!
The headlines for the mall shooter in Nebraska should read: "Whiny Bitch Shoots Up Mall Because He's a Pussy." Liberals, this is what teaching students self-esteem gets you.
Strong or Asshole/Bitch?
What is most annoying about feminists such as Susan Estrich is that she doesn't seem to know the difference between a strong woman and a bitch. And neither do most feminists, it seems. In her opinion piece she makes the oft-heard claim that what is seen as good character traits in a man, aggressiveness, etc. are seen in a woman as making her a bitch. Wrong. The male equivalent of a bitch isn't a strong, aggressive, assertive, manly man. No. The male equivalent of the bitch is the asshole. Everyone knows what kind of man I'm talking about. The asshole is aggressive alright, but he's not actually strong, but weak. He's not assertive, but pushy and bullying. The "strong" woman, which is typically used to mean, the manly woman, has the same traits as the "strong" man. Margaret Thatcher is a strong woman. Condi Rice is a strong woman. Barbara Boxer is a strong woman. Why do you suppose it is that Estrich thinks HIllary Clinton comes off as a bitch? I fear, too, Hillary Clinton thinks the strong woman and the bitch are one and the same as well. Well, perhaps not fear it, since if she does come off that way to the voters, she won't win, and we will be spared her particular variety of socialist programs. But on the other hand, her running for office doesn't actually do anything positive for women in politics, especially at the political level, in the U.S.
Estrich laments the state of women in business, noting the lack of CEOs. I guess she failed to get the report that said that women do make CEO as often as men, but men hold on to the position much longer than their female counterparts. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to figure out what the distribution of men vs. women in CEO positions will end up being. I suppose Estrich would argue that once women become CEOs, they must be being forced out by their sexist boards. The same boards that put them there. It doesn't occur to Estrich that these (and other) women may have other priorities. Yes, men and women have different priorities in life. They are different kinds of human beings, each donating something positive to the world (something feminists like Estrich don't believe, which is why they are so desperate to make women more manly). We typically think of manliness as "hard" and womanliness as "soft" and then think that hard is good, soft is bad. "Yet Taoists noticed that solvent seas pulverize rigid rocks into sand, that pliable lips protect brittle teeth; that softer ways can overcome and outlast harder ones. And so in some families, "Submissive" wives can eventually grind "dominant" husbands into domesticated dust. Externally, the man appears to be the family sovereign, or at least its figurehead, but internally, in Confucian as in most cultures, the woman rules the roost at home. In the West, as Emerson judiciously observed, a wife exerts greater influence over her husband -- for better or worse -- than does the government" (Marinoff, "The Middle Way," 126-7). I'd say for better, but perhaps that is just the libertarian in me coming out. In Tai Chi, you learn that you have to become like water and flow out of the way, that softness overcomes hardness, and if you make yourself hard, you will be more likely to be defeated. Thus, the martial arts too emphasize the feminine, insisting that you have it balanced with the masculine, if you wish to succeed, to overcome your opponents. This is, perhaps, a lesson for those in politics as well. This is a lesson Harvey Mansfield tries to convey in his book "Manliness" as well, that manliness and womanliness are two kinds of thinking, each equal, but different, but that there is a higher-level thinking that combines the two -- that the balance of yin and yang leads to the emergence of higher-level thinking. Of this I have little doubt, though in an interview of Mansfield by Naomi Woolf on Book TV, this point seemed to evade Woolf no matter how many times Mansfield pointed it out to her. As Nietzsche pointed out, we read what we bring to a book, and hear only what we already believe. Ah, how often that is true.
Estrich laments the state of women in business, noting the lack of CEOs. I guess she failed to get the report that said that women do make CEO as often as men, but men hold on to the position much longer than their female counterparts. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to figure out what the distribution of men vs. women in CEO positions will end up being. I suppose Estrich would argue that once women become CEOs, they must be being forced out by their sexist boards. The same boards that put them there. It doesn't occur to Estrich that these (and other) women may have other priorities. Yes, men and women have different priorities in life. They are different kinds of human beings, each donating something positive to the world (something feminists like Estrich don't believe, which is why they are so desperate to make women more manly). We typically think of manliness as "hard" and womanliness as "soft" and then think that hard is good, soft is bad. "Yet Taoists noticed that solvent seas pulverize rigid rocks into sand, that pliable lips protect brittle teeth; that softer ways can overcome and outlast harder ones. And so in some families, "Submissive" wives can eventually grind "dominant" husbands into domesticated dust. Externally, the man appears to be the family sovereign, or at least its figurehead, but internally, in Confucian as in most cultures, the woman rules the roost at home. In the West, as Emerson judiciously observed, a wife exerts greater influence over her husband -- for better or worse -- than does the government" (Marinoff, "The Middle Way," 126-7). I'd say for better, but perhaps that is just the libertarian in me coming out. In Tai Chi, you learn that you have to become like water and flow out of the way, that softness overcomes hardness, and if you make yourself hard, you will be more likely to be defeated. Thus, the martial arts too emphasize the feminine, insisting that you have it balanced with the masculine, if you wish to succeed, to overcome your opponents. This is, perhaps, a lesson for those in politics as well. This is a lesson Harvey Mansfield tries to convey in his book "Manliness" as well, that manliness and womanliness are two kinds of thinking, each equal, but different, but that there is a higher-level thinking that combines the two -- that the balance of yin and yang leads to the emergence of higher-level thinking. Of this I have little doubt, though in an interview of Mansfield by Naomi Woolf on Book TV, this point seemed to evade Woolf no matter how many times Mansfield pointed it out to her. As Nietzsche pointed out, we read what we bring to a book, and hear only what we already believe. Ah, how often that is true.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Historical Ignorance
If you ever needed any evidence that education in the U.S. is in dire straits, and has been for a long time, check out this report from a conversation that took place on The View. Co-host Sherri Shepherd insisted that "nothing predated Christianity." A few things.
1) This kind of thing makes Christians look like a bunch of ignorant rubes.
2) How can you call yourself a Christian and not know anything about the history of Christianity? You are ignorant of the very thing you claim to believe in. So what is your belief? How can you believe in the historical Jesus Christ not knowing that he was born in 1 A.D. (well, most likely 3-4 B.C., but let's not get too picky here), and that there was a time known as B.C. that has lasted much longer than our present A.D. (only 2007 years so far), and not knowing that he came as Messiah to the Jews, meaning the Jews had to come first?
3) If you don't believe in the historical Christ, sorry, you're not a Christian.
4) Satan is laughing, laughing, laughing.
I am particularly annoyed that a discussion of the ancient Greeks' ideas was turned first into a snide comment against Christianity (shame on Joy for that), and then was turned into a showcase for Christian Ignorance. I suppose it was too much to ask that there be a good discussion of the show Joy watched on The View, but for it to turn into this kind of shameful nonsense is too much!
Will someone PLEASE send Sherri Shepherd a world history book!
Finally, I don't know if this is the show, but I do highly recommend these shows on Epicurus by Alain de Botton:
There are also episodes on Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Socrates, and Seneca.
1) This kind of thing makes Christians look like a bunch of ignorant rubes.
2) How can you call yourself a Christian and not know anything about the history of Christianity? You are ignorant of the very thing you claim to believe in. So what is your belief? How can you believe in the historical Jesus Christ not knowing that he was born in 1 A.D. (well, most likely 3-4 B.C., but let's not get too picky here), and that there was a time known as B.C. that has lasted much longer than our present A.D. (only 2007 years so far), and not knowing that he came as Messiah to the Jews, meaning the Jews had to come first?
3) If you don't believe in the historical Christ, sorry, you're not a Christian.
4) Satan is laughing, laughing, laughing.
I am particularly annoyed that a discussion of the ancient Greeks' ideas was turned first into a snide comment against Christianity (shame on Joy for that), and then was turned into a showcase for Christian Ignorance. I suppose it was too much to ask that there be a good discussion of the show Joy watched on The View, but for it to turn into this kind of shameful nonsense is too much!
Will someone PLEASE send Sherri Shepherd a world history book!
Finally, I don't know if this is the show, but I do highly recommend these shows on Epicurus by Alain de Botton:
There are also episodes on Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Socrates, and Seneca.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
The Middle Way, Part 10 (Relationships)
One of the overarching themes of Marinoff's books is that of proper relationships.We see it in various geometrical relationships: the Aristotlean Golden Mean, with the ratio of 1:1.618, from which he shows how to make the taoist yin-yan symbol and the Buddhist mandala-lotus. There is the fractal, particularly the Mandelbrot set, which he shows to be uncannily similar to the designs of statues of Buddha. And then he suggests the bell curve. Too bad he has not yet read Sabelli's Bios, where Sabelli shows that one gets a mandala shape from a sine-cosine transformation of a heart-rhythm time series. I find it especially poignant that this new pattern -- bios -- was found in heart rhythms, and that it creates a mandala pattern when you make it undergo a transformation of complementary opposites, when Marinoff associates Buddhism with the heart. It turns out that creativity is associated with complementary opposites and the mandala pattern. I love that it was first discovered in the heart.
Complementary opposites -- the yin-yang of Tao -- is the basis of relationships. A proper relationship should result in creativity, and should be rooted in the heart. On 118, Marinoff observes that according to Confucius, there are "five basic kinds of human relationships" which are all governed by "appropriate conduct." These are:
1. Parent and Child
2. Husband and Wife
3. Friend and Friend
4. Old and Young
5. Ruler and Subject (which would of course include Teacher and Student)
Here in the West we are quite familiar with the arguments about individual rights -- and they are of course valid. But Confucius focuses primarily on "the social organism" (119). We tend to overemphasize individuality over the social in the West, thinking they are mutually exclusive. They aren't. They are (or, should be) complementary opposites. "It is one error to suppose that we humans are not interconnected; it is another to suppose that our interconnectedness entails sameness. People should all be equal before the law, yet this desirable equality does not erase our differences. We are all equally subject to the laws of gravity, but our weights are all different" (122). We need a balance between the individual and the social that is balanced in the individual: "the two interconnected but different complements of Tao always unite in a greater whole, and so their differences enhance the value of the whole itself. If we speak of a "beautiful couple," we are not focused on their differences, yet we still require difference to appreciate the beauty of their union. Taoist complements are not differences that divide; they are differences that unite" (122).
That is important to remember in recognizing the proper relations listed above. It is inappropriate to try to be your child's friend, as the kind of relationship between friends is inappropriate to the parent-child relationship. Friends are equals. As a parent, you are to have authority, protective authority, over your child. It is your duty as a parent to care for and protect and educate your child. It is the child's duty to obey and respect and appreciate the parent.
With husband and wife, the natural sexual differences should come to the fore, each complementing the other, the strengths of each being brought out, the weaknesses of each being balanced out by the strengths of the other. Those who deny that there are differences between men and women inevitably claim that women really do have the traits of men, as though having feminine traits is shameful. Being feminine does not mean you're inferior to those who are masculine -- we need the manly as much as we need the womanly, and vice versa. Each is needed equally, though each does not provide the same elements in equal proportions -- which is why they are different, and are complementary opposites. When the masculine and the feminine are balanced, we get beauty and creativity -- children and art.
Friends join husband and wife as the only pairs listed where the two are and should be on an equal footing, though few make the mistake of thinking friends should not be.
In the West, and in the U.S. in particular, we have inverted the Old-Young pair. We are a youth culture. As a result, we have no connection to our past, we live only in the present, and we don't think about the future. This is why fewer and fewer people vote (though the older people get, the more likely they are to vote). We denigrate the old, and think them unimportant and in the way. Euthanize them, we say. Ah, we do need youthful energy and ideals, but what about wisdom? What about a connection to the past, to our ancestors? The wisdom of classicism. Frederick Turner is fond of saying that sometimes you have to break the shackles of the past to create the future, but then there are times when you have use the past to break the shackles of the present to create the future. The 20th century (and counting) has been about the former. We are overdue for a return to classicism. It's time we got back to respecting our elders. They are wise. They have much to teach us. They are waiting for us.
In the West we have managed to create a true yin-yang between ruler and subject, making the ruler subject to the subject as much as the subject is subject to the ruler. But this is only true so long as we stick to our federalist republican ideals and do not make the mistake of either inverting the two with true Democracy (mob rule) or making a ruler-subject hierarchy of single-party or single-man rule, as the Left and Right are wont to do.
There is a subcategory of ruler-subject, which is really in the realm of parent-child, and younger-older, which is that of teacher-student. People do not understand any more what this relationship should be like. We have schools that are run by students, and we have students telling the teachers what to teach them. The student is in no position to know what (s)he should be taught -- they are ignorant, and remain so until taught by the teacher. A proper teacher-student relationship is often seen as a shameful relationship, though, so we should not be surprised to see in a shame-denying culture like ours opposition to teachers as teachers. But where does that end up putting people? If you don't have teachers, you don't have education. You can either be ashamed of your ignorance, in which case you can fight to remain ignorant while insisting everyone tell you that you aren't (this is the very definition of most college students today), or you can love learning and be overjoyed at the presence of a great teacher.
"If you are an accomplished student of music, you will sooner or later attend a master class, and perhaps even play for a maestro. By showing respect and attentiveness to the master musician, the student opens a channel and thereby receives a precious gift of the master's experience and wisdom. The audience hears, and the student recognizes, an immediate improvement in her playing. Submitting to this kind of master does not make you a slave; rather, it furthers you on the path of mastery" (124).
How do we deal with shame? We can live in it, we can deny it, or we can create a ritual that lets us deal with it in a healthy fashion. Ritual is the golden mean between living in shame and denying shame. That is why shame (for Turner) aims at the beautiful. And let's face it: each of these relationships is shameful. That is why we have created rituals for each. It is when those rituals break down that we get a breakdown of these relationships and, thus, of society as a whole. That is why most cultures have rituals for children to become adults (do our boys know when they become men? do our girls know when they become women?). We have the ritual of marriage that create husbands and wives -- and the ritual of the anniversary to reinforce it. Most teaching occurs in a ritualistic space -- the school (though the ritualistic element has been almost destroyed -- if we want to return to educating children, our schools have to become ritual spaces once again, where it is understood that learning occurs). We have the ritual of elections to select our temporary rulers. We have the ritual of art to educate and show ourselves the beauty of the world. Without these rituals, we have a breakdown of society and culture. We need these rituals. Having eliminated them all from most of our lives, we have to make new ones appropriate for who we are now. It is the way to the Middle Way.
Complementary opposites -- the yin-yang of Tao -- is the basis of relationships. A proper relationship should result in creativity, and should be rooted in the heart. On 118, Marinoff observes that according to Confucius, there are "five basic kinds of human relationships" which are all governed by "appropriate conduct." These are:
1. Parent and Child
2. Husband and Wife
3. Friend and Friend
4. Old and Young
5. Ruler and Subject (which would of course include Teacher and Student)
Here in the West we are quite familiar with the arguments about individual rights -- and they are of course valid. But Confucius focuses primarily on "the social organism" (119). We tend to overemphasize individuality over the social in the West, thinking they are mutually exclusive. They aren't. They are (or, should be) complementary opposites. "It is one error to suppose that we humans are not interconnected; it is another to suppose that our interconnectedness entails sameness. People should all be equal before the law, yet this desirable equality does not erase our differences. We are all equally subject to the laws of gravity, but our weights are all different" (122). We need a balance between the individual and the social that is balanced in the individual: "the two interconnected but different complements of Tao always unite in a greater whole, and so their differences enhance the value of the whole itself. If we speak of a "beautiful couple," we are not focused on their differences, yet we still require difference to appreciate the beauty of their union. Taoist complements are not differences that divide; they are differences that unite" (122).
That is important to remember in recognizing the proper relations listed above. It is inappropriate to try to be your child's friend, as the kind of relationship between friends is inappropriate to the parent-child relationship. Friends are equals. As a parent, you are to have authority, protective authority, over your child. It is your duty as a parent to care for and protect and educate your child. It is the child's duty to obey and respect and appreciate the parent.
With husband and wife, the natural sexual differences should come to the fore, each complementing the other, the strengths of each being brought out, the weaknesses of each being balanced out by the strengths of the other. Those who deny that there are differences between men and women inevitably claim that women really do have the traits of men, as though having feminine traits is shameful. Being feminine does not mean you're inferior to those who are masculine -- we need the manly as much as we need the womanly, and vice versa. Each is needed equally, though each does not provide the same elements in equal proportions -- which is why they are different, and are complementary opposites. When the masculine and the feminine are balanced, we get beauty and creativity -- children and art.
Friends join husband and wife as the only pairs listed where the two are and should be on an equal footing, though few make the mistake of thinking friends should not be.
In the West, and in the U.S. in particular, we have inverted the Old-Young pair. We are a youth culture. As a result, we have no connection to our past, we live only in the present, and we don't think about the future. This is why fewer and fewer people vote (though the older people get, the more likely they are to vote). We denigrate the old, and think them unimportant and in the way. Euthanize them, we say. Ah, we do need youthful energy and ideals, but what about wisdom? What about a connection to the past, to our ancestors? The wisdom of classicism. Frederick Turner is fond of saying that sometimes you have to break the shackles of the past to create the future, but then there are times when you have use the past to break the shackles of the present to create the future. The 20th century (and counting) has been about the former. We are overdue for a return to classicism. It's time we got back to respecting our elders. They are wise. They have much to teach us. They are waiting for us.
In the West we have managed to create a true yin-yang between ruler and subject, making the ruler subject to the subject as much as the subject is subject to the ruler. But this is only true so long as we stick to our federalist republican ideals and do not make the mistake of either inverting the two with true Democracy (mob rule) or making a ruler-subject hierarchy of single-party or single-man rule, as the Left and Right are wont to do.
There is a subcategory of ruler-subject, which is really in the realm of parent-child, and younger-older, which is that of teacher-student. People do not understand any more what this relationship should be like. We have schools that are run by students, and we have students telling the teachers what to teach them. The student is in no position to know what (s)he should be taught -- they are ignorant, and remain so until taught by the teacher. A proper teacher-student relationship is often seen as a shameful relationship, though, so we should not be surprised to see in a shame-denying culture like ours opposition to teachers as teachers. But where does that end up putting people? If you don't have teachers, you don't have education. You can either be ashamed of your ignorance, in which case you can fight to remain ignorant while insisting everyone tell you that you aren't (this is the very definition of most college students today), or you can love learning and be overjoyed at the presence of a great teacher.
"If you are an accomplished student of music, you will sooner or later attend a master class, and perhaps even play for a maestro. By showing respect and attentiveness to the master musician, the student opens a channel and thereby receives a precious gift of the master's experience and wisdom. The audience hears, and the student recognizes, an immediate improvement in her playing. Submitting to this kind of master does not make you a slave; rather, it furthers you on the path of mastery" (124).
How do we deal with shame? We can live in it, we can deny it, or we can create a ritual that lets us deal with it in a healthy fashion. Ritual is the golden mean between living in shame and denying shame. That is why shame (for Turner) aims at the beautiful. And let's face it: each of these relationships is shameful. That is why we have created rituals for each. It is when those rituals break down that we get a breakdown of these relationships and, thus, of society as a whole. That is why most cultures have rituals for children to become adults (do our boys know when they become men? do our girls know when they become women?). We have the ritual of marriage that create husbands and wives -- and the ritual of the anniversary to reinforce it. Most teaching occurs in a ritualistic space -- the school (though the ritualistic element has been almost destroyed -- if we want to return to educating children, our schools have to become ritual spaces once again, where it is understood that learning occurs). We have the ritual of elections to select our temporary rulers. We have the ritual of art to educate and show ourselves the beauty of the world. Without these rituals, we have a breakdown of society and culture. We need these rituals. Having eliminated them all from most of our lives, we have to make new ones appropriate for who we are now. It is the way to the Middle Way.
Monday, December 03, 2007
Hillary Clinton Doesn't Trust YOU
Hillary Clinton on health care: "We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices…. Government has to make those choices for people."
"We can talk all we want about freedom and opportunity, about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but what does all that mean to a mother or father who can't take a sick child to the doctor?"
Why would anyone want to vote for someone who says to them "I don't trust you to make certain kinds of choices for yourself"? No hold on. If she doesn't trust us, when why should we trust her? WHat makes her so special that she can make decisions for us, for what we are supposed to do with our lives and money?
The second quote is just Hillary being honest. She just admitted that she is going to sacrifice freedom, opportunity, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for her health care plan. Never mind that it's an outright lie that there is anyone who can't take their sick child to the doctor in this country, between the free clinics and the law against turning people away in the emergency room.
Incidentally, did you know that they are counting illegal immigrants in the 40 million without health care coverage? Most of the rest are single 23 year olds (plus or minus 5 years) who don't think they need it. Last I heard, the poor had Medicaid coverage.
"We can talk all we want about freedom and opportunity, about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but what does all that mean to a mother or father who can't take a sick child to the doctor?"
Why would anyone want to vote for someone who says to them "I don't trust you to make certain kinds of choices for yourself"? No hold on. If she doesn't trust us, when why should we trust her? WHat makes her so special that she can make decisions for us, for what we are supposed to do with our lives and money?
The second quote is just Hillary being honest. She just admitted that she is going to sacrifice freedom, opportunity, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for her health care plan. Never mind that it's an outright lie that there is anyone who can't take their sick child to the doctor in this country, between the free clinics and the law against turning people away in the emergency room.
Incidentally, did you know that they are counting illegal immigrants in the 40 million without health care coverage? Most of the rest are single 23 year olds (plus or minus 5 years) who don't think they need it. Last I heard, the poor had Medicaid coverage.
Yes! Reward Success!
Rudy Giuliani on poverty: "We have to have a society that rewards success. The only way in which we get people out of poverty is you help them help themselves by giving them the opportunity for a good education and the opportunity for a good job. That's how you deal with poverty — not with government welfare programs."
I couldn't agree more. Now, do we have a society that rewards success when our schools have the attitude that "the best and brightest will just have to be bored" (what I was told when I asked how I could reach both the "marginal students" and the best and brightest)? In fact, our schools themselves don't reward success. They are too busy creating a false sense of success by dumbing down the curriculae (and dumbing down the standardized tests when too many students fail them). So the first thing we need to do is work to create schools that actually provide "a good education." What our schools do now is try to give the world's most watered-down college-prep curriculum. The half who don't go and don't care to go to college neither need nor desire this type of curriculum. What they need is to be taught the kinds of skills they will need to work at the kinds of jobs they will be able to get without a college degree. The education they are now getting in our high schools will just barely make them qualified for McDonalds. What we need is a return to skills education: auto body, mechanics, workshop, etc. Last I heard, we still need mechanics, auto body repairmen, plumbers, electricians, etc. And they pay quite well, thank you very much you snobby liberals who ran these kinds of classes out of our high schools. A person who knows how to work with wood could make a great living making custom cabinets and furniture. In addition to classes like these, the kinds of students who would be in these classes need practical math, business, and English classes. In my dream world everyone would read and love "The Sound and the Fury" and get oh so much out of it -- but in the real world such works are for the few, and the rest need to learn how to read well enough to not get screwed over on a contract. Some training in that direction might not be a bad idea.
The fact of the matter is that the liberals have done a wonderful job of taking away education for the poor, and did so by giving them the education for the rich, which they then watered down so that nobody is getting an education. Not that it's hurting anybody. The universities will take almost anyone, and then blame the professors if they can't (or, quite frankly, don't care to) reach the "marginal" students (the P.C. term for the dumbest among us). We have an ethical obligation to provide the proper kinds of education for the right kinds of students, just as we have an ethical obligation to make our universities the places for the best and brightest to become the leaders of tomorrow (to use an old cliche) and not mere (note I said "mere") job training programs.
So Giuliani is on the right track -- I just hope he realizes that he can't build this idea on the rotten foundation known as the AMerican Educational System we have now.
I couldn't agree more. Now, do we have a society that rewards success when our schools have the attitude that "the best and brightest will just have to be bored" (what I was told when I asked how I could reach both the "marginal students" and the best and brightest)? In fact, our schools themselves don't reward success. They are too busy creating a false sense of success by dumbing down the curriculae (and dumbing down the standardized tests when too many students fail them). So the first thing we need to do is work to create schools that actually provide "a good education." What our schools do now is try to give the world's most watered-down college-prep curriculum. The half who don't go and don't care to go to college neither need nor desire this type of curriculum. What they need is to be taught the kinds of skills they will need to work at the kinds of jobs they will be able to get without a college degree. The education they are now getting in our high schools will just barely make them qualified for McDonalds. What we need is a return to skills education: auto body, mechanics, workshop, etc. Last I heard, we still need mechanics, auto body repairmen, plumbers, electricians, etc. And they pay quite well, thank you very much you snobby liberals who ran these kinds of classes out of our high schools. A person who knows how to work with wood could make a great living making custom cabinets and furniture. In addition to classes like these, the kinds of students who would be in these classes need practical math, business, and English classes. In my dream world everyone would read and love "The Sound and the Fury" and get oh so much out of it -- but in the real world such works are for the few, and the rest need to learn how to read well enough to not get screwed over on a contract. Some training in that direction might not be a bad idea.
The fact of the matter is that the liberals have done a wonderful job of taking away education for the poor, and did so by giving them the education for the rich, which they then watered down so that nobody is getting an education. Not that it's hurting anybody. The universities will take almost anyone, and then blame the professors if they can't (or, quite frankly, don't care to) reach the "marginal" students (the P.C. term for the dumbest among us). We have an ethical obligation to provide the proper kinds of education for the right kinds of students, just as we have an ethical obligation to make our universities the places for the best and brightest to become the leaders of tomorrow (to use an old cliche) and not mere (note I said "mere") job training programs.
So Giuliani is on the right track -- I just hope he realizes that he can't build this idea on the rotten foundation known as the AMerican Educational System we have now.
Russia vs. Venezuela
Unfortunately, not all the news from around the world is good. It seems Putin did manage to use democracy to get himself much more power. Well, I say "democracy," but how much of a Democracy is it with as much corruption as goes on in Russia at the polls? Compare this to Venezuela. We say Putin is an ally, and these are the result in Russia. We are openly opposed to Chavez, and this is the result in Venezuela. Perhaps what this means is that the U.S. should be more vocal in its opposition to Leftists and their inevitable grasp for power.
Teddy Bear Teacher Pardoned!
More good news today! The teddy bear teacher was pardoned by the President of Sudan. Apparently Dec. 3 is a good day for justice in the world.
Porque No Te Callas!
I would like to congratulate the Venezuelan people for using their democratic powers to vote against dictatorship. At least 51% of the people in Venezuela don't want to be ruled indefinitely by a socialist thug. Hugo Chavez has been using oil money to try to bribe the people into making him dictator, but fortunately, not enough people could be bribed. Maybe this humiliation will humble the man (though I doubt it).
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Thugs or Discipline, Take Your Pick
Several days ago a woman, Elizabeth Prezio, was attacked here in Dallas. This is what she said happened: "I saw them look at each other and smile and say, '1, 2, 3.' Then they decked me with all their might. They slammed me to the concrete ." And then they took her iPod and cell phone. She has multiple broken bones. They were 17 and 15.
These two boys weren't out to steal this woman's iPod and cell phone. They were out to beat someone up. She's lucky they weren't out to kill that night. This reminds me of something Nietzsche said about there being people out there who want to murder, but don't want to think that they are out there primarily to murder, and so steal from the person they kill. Considering the countdown that occurred, and the smiles, there is little doubt in my mind that they were out to beat someone up -- more, they picked a woman because that's the kinds of cowards they are. They didn't want someone who could fight back.
My wife, in talking about this incident, said it reminded her of A Clockwork Orange. I agree. If the U.S. is turning into the society of A Clockwork Orange, we have only ourselves to blame. This is what happens when you eliminate shame and discipline from a culture. And yet we see discipline being driven out of our schools and, even, out of our homes in places like Massachusetts. The reason? People can't seem to tell the difference between discipline and abuse. And that is me being generous. I suspect that it's really because those against discipline know the ignorant masses are easy to control, and there is a correlation between discipline and education. Indeed, "discipline" and "disciple" have the same origins -- and "disciple" of course means "pupil." If you want to get rid of pupils, get rid of discipline. If you want a culture of thugs and thuggery, get rid of discipline. If you want a culture where children control the parents and the teachers -- that is, where the inmates run the asylum -- get rid of discipline.
These two boys weren't out to steal this woman's iPod and cell phone. They were out to beat someone up. She's lucky they weren't out to kill that night. This reminds me of something Nietzsche said about there being people out there who want to murder, but don't want to think that they are out there primarily to murder, and so steal from the person they kill. Considering the countdown that occurred, and the smiles, there is little doubt in my mind that they were out to beat someone up -- more, they picked a woman because that's the kinds of cowards they are. They didn't want someone who could fight back.
My wife, in talking about this incident, said it reminded her of A Clockwork Orange. I agree. If the U.S. is turning into the society of A Clockwork Orange, we have only ourselves to blame. This is what happens when you eliminate shame and discipline from a culture. And yet we see discipline being driven out of our schools and, even, out of our homes in places like Massachusetts. The reason? People can't seem to tell the difference between discipline and abuse. And that is me being generous. I suspect that it's really because those against discipline know the ignorant masses are easy to control, and there is a correlation between discipline and education. Indeed, "discipline" and "disciple" have the same origins -- and "disciple" of course means "pupil." If you want to get rid of pupils, get rid of discipline. If you want a culture of thugs and thuggery, get rid of discipline. If you want a culture where children control the parents and the teachers -- that is, where the inmates run the asylum -- get rid of discipline.
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Boycott Venezuelan Oil!
In a Democracy, you get the government you deserve.
Hugo Chavez: "If God gives me life and help,I will be at the head of the government until 2050!"
Hugo Chavez: "Venezuela is going to be a world power, no matter whom it hurts!"
These are the words of a dictator, of someone who plans to be a very dangerous, bloody dictator. Do you suppose that all the Leftists in Hollywood who have been bowing down at the feet of Chavez will condemn him when he becomes what he clearly plans to become? I doubt it. And I doubt that the media will call them out or even say much of anything when it does happen. Of course, it may not necessarily be our media's fault if they don't report much, since one of the reforms would end up "allowing the president to declare indefinite states of emergency during which the government could detain citizens without charge and censor the media."
So why is this happening? It's because of people like this woman:
"Chavez has become a father for us," said Xiomi Diaz, a 34-year-old farmer. "He's a father of the poor."
When a majority of people see the government -- or a single person in government -- as their father or their mother, you may guarantee that a socialist dictatorship is right around the corner.
I say Chavez can keep his oil. I'd rather pay higher prices at the pump than allow a single one of my dollars go to that evil man. And do not be mistaken, that money will be going to him and him alone, not to the people of Venezuela.
Hugo Chavez: "If God gives me life and help,I will be at the head of the government until 2050!"
Hugo Chavez: "Venezuela is going to be a world power, no matter whom it hurts!"
These are the words of a dictator, of someone who plans to be a very dangerous, bloody dictator. Do you suppose that all the Leftists in Hollywood who have been bowing down at the feet of Chavez will condemn him when he becomes what he clearly plans to become? I doubt it. And I doubt that the media will call them out or even say much of anything when it does happen. Of course, it may not necessarily be our media's fault if they don't report much, since one of the reforms would end up "allowing the president to declare indefinite states of emergency during which the government could detain citizens without charge and censor the media."
So why is this happening? It's because of people like this woman:
"Chavez has become a father for us," said Xiomi Diaz, a 34-year-old farmer. "He's a father of the poor."
When a majority of people see the government -- or a single person in government -- as their father or their mother, you may guarantee that a socialist dictatorship is right around the corner.
I say Chavez can keep his oil. I'd rather pay higher prices at the pump than allow a single one of my dollars go to that evil man. And do not be mistaken, that money will be going to him and him alone, not to the people of Venezuela.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Leftist Advocates
There is a great opinion piece on the silence of American feminist groups regarding the teacher who named the teddy bear mohammed and the rape victim by Tammy Bruce. Of course, I have talked about both NOW's silence and the fate of the Saudi rape victim. The problem, as I have stated throughout this blog, is that too many on the Left are merely anti-West in general, and anti-America in particular. All our liberal feminist groups like NOW have shown themselves to be is advocates for the Left. They do not advocate for women. They advocate for Leftist policies.
And they are not alone in doing this. My wife is a Mexican-American, and her grandfather, an American citizen, has decided he wants his passport. Because he was born to a midwife and did not get his birth certificate at the time, and because he cannot get am original certificate of baptism because the original is in a church book, and they didn't give out certificates back then, and because he was a migrant farm worker and did not get counted by the census and did not have many of the official work documents you need if you have these kinds of problems, the federal government won't give him his passport. So my wife decided to contact LULAC, the League of United Latin American Citizens. This is what happened, in the words of my wife, Anna:
Based on my recent experience with LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens), I believe an investigation into the practices of this organization to be necessary.
LULAC claims it "advances the economic condition, educational attainment, political influence, health, and civil rights of Hispanics through community-based progams run by more than 700 LULAC councils nationwide," so naturally, I thought they would be able to help me with an issue concerning getting my grandfather, Jesus Garza, who is an American citizen of Hispanic decent, his passport, which is currently being denied to him by the passport office. Yet when I called several numbers on the official website, they were not in service. I then called the local LULAC office in Richardson, Texas, and was told that I would have the director’s number texted to me. I have never received that text. This led me to contact the San Antonio office, where I spoke to someone who basically told me they don't provide any services or answer any questions, and that there was no one I could talk to there at that office -- though he quickly, and suspiciously, provided me with the number of an attorney. It seemed very scripted.
I was so upset I called the National Office and asked them, "What exactly does LULAC do? What services do you provide? What is the organization's focus?" I heard dead silence on the other end for several seconds before I heard, "uhh, we're an advocacy group."
This group says they are supposed to "advance the civil rights of Hispanics," but all I received was the run around and an inability on their part to even tell me what they do. Which sounds like a scam to me.
My grandfather is in a bad situation because of when he was born and the circumstances around his life. He was born in 1927, but only obtained his birth certificate in 1950. This was not uncommon at the time. He has no medical record of his birth because he was born on a Texas farm to a midwife. Most people during that time obtained their birth certificates as adults, when they were old enough to go and them them themselves, like my grandfather. This is the basis for the passport office to deny my grandfather his passport, even though I know several people in the same situation who received theirs. This rash of interests in passports has come about because of the combination of needing a passport to go to Mexico now, and the fear being generated with the news of increasing crackdowns on illegals. My 80 year old grandfather is afraid he will be deported if he doesn't get his passport, and this denial is only fueling those fears.
All of which means the passport office is demanding more documentation. However, to make matters worse, he is also unable to provide employment records because he was a migrant worker, which means he's probably not in a census count either. An American citizen will probably die, having been denied a passport, just because he wasn't born at the right place and didn't have the right kind of job in the U.S. Very soon he will not even be allowed to travel into Mexico. Or perhaps even be allowed to return. LULAC sure doesn't know, or seem to care.
-----
So, as you can see, LULAC doesn't seem to be what they (eventually) claim to be: an advocacy group. I bet if it were some Left-wing cause, though, we could have gotten them to do something.
And they are not alone in doing this. My wife is a Mexican-American, and her grandfather, an American citizen, has decided he wants his passport. Because he was born to a midwife and did not get his birth certificate at the time, and because he cannot get am original certificate of baptism because the original is in a church book, and they didn't give out certificates back then, and because he was a migrant farm worker and did not get counted by the census and did not have many of the official work documents you need if you have these kinds of problems, the federal government won't give him his passport. So my wife decided to contact LULAC, the League of United Latin American Citizens. This is what happened, in the words of my wife, Anna:
Based on my recent experience with LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens), I believe an investigation into the practices of this organization to be necessary.
LULAC claims it "advances the economic condition, educational attainment, political influence, health, and civil rights of Hispanics through community-based progams run by more than 700 LULAC councils nationwide," so naturally, I thought they would be able to help me with an issue concerning getting my grandfather, Jesus Garza, who is an American citizen of Hispanic decent, his passport, which is currently being denied to him by the passport office. Yet when I called several numbers on the official website, they were not in service. I then called the local LULAC office in Richardson, Texas, and was told that I would have the director’s number texted to me. I have never received that text. This led me to contact the San Antonio office, where I spoke to someone who basically told me they don't provide any services or answer any questions, and that there was no one I could talk to there at that office -- though he quickly, and suspiciously, provided me with the number of an attorney. It seemed very scripted.
I was so upset I called the National Office and asked them, "What exactly does LULAC do? What services do you provide? What is the organization's focus?" I heard dead silence on the other end for several seconds before I heard, "uhh, we're an advocacy group."
This group says they are supposed to "advance the civil rights of Hispanics," but all I received was the run around and an inability on their part to even tell me what they do. Which sounds like a scam to me.
My grandfather is in a bad situation because of when he was born and the circumstances around his life. He was born in 1927, but only obtained his birth certificate in 1950. This was not uncommon at the time. He has no medical record of his birth because he was born on a Texas farm to a midwife. Most people during that time obtained their birth certificates as adults, when they were old enough to go and them them themselves, like my grandfather. This is the basis for the passport office to deny my grandfather his passport, even though I know several people in the same situation who received theirs. This rash of interests in passports has come about because of the combination of needing a passport to go to Mexico now, and the fear being generated with the news of increasing crackdowns on illegals. My 80 year old grandfather is afraid he will be deported if he doesn't get his passport, and this denial is only fueling those fears.
All of which means the passport office is demanding more documentation. However, to make matters worse, he is also unable to provide employment records because he was a migrant worker, which means he's probably not in a census count either. An American citizen will probably die, having been denied a passport, just because he wasn't born at the right place and didn't have the right kind of job in the U.S. Very soon he will not even be allowed to travel into Mexico. Or perhaps even be allowed to return. LULAC sure doesn't know, or seem to care.
-----
So, as you can see, LULAC doesn't seem to be what they (eventually) claim to be: an advocacy group. I bet if it were some Left-wing cause, though, we could have gotten them to do something.
Style Over Substance
Today I was thinking about education for a work I plan to do on it, specifically one of the main problems I see with it: an emphasis of style over substance. More specifically, we are replacing content with so-called skills. And then I ran across this article here on the requirements CBS has listed for a potential reporter on ecological issues. They say they want someone who is "wicked smart, funny, irreverent and hip, oozing enthusiasm and creative energy. This position requires strong people, reporting, story telling and writing skills. Managing tight deadlines should be second nature." Lots of skills listed here. But do they have to know anything? The ad says, "Knowledge of the enviro beat is a big plus, but not a requirement.” Please note that it says knowledge of the "beat," not of ecology or the environment or anything of the sort. Apparently, knowing about ecology is not at all necessary to cover it. And why not? After all, Lou Dobbs knows nothing about the economy, but he not only reports on it, but gives his ignorant opinions on it as well. Looks like we'll be getting the Lou Dobbs of the environment over at CBS soon. No wonder our schools don't teach anything if jobs like this don't require that anyone know anything.
What World Leader Am I?
This was cute.
Never really thought of myself as the Ghandi type. Can you be a plump Ghandi?
Never really thought of myself as the Ghandi type. Can you be a plump Ghandi?
Fanatics vs. Moderation
The response to the jailing of the British teacher highlights the differences among fanatics, fundamentalists, and those who follow the middle way, as commented upon here. Those who call for "No tolerance" and for her being killed for letting her class of 7 year olds name a bear Mohammed shows they are fanatics.
This also highlights the problem we face. It is easy for the government of a country to fight the government of another country -- it's a top-down system vs. a top-down system. However, how do you fight against a bottom-up system? That is what we face with fanaticism. How do you change people's minds? Here, the blunt object of force known as government simply won't work -- and may in fact make things worse.
This also highlights the problem we face. It is easy for the government of a country to fight the government of another country -- it's a top-down system vs. a top-down system. However, how do you fight against a bottom-up system? That is what we face with fanaticism. How do you change people's minds? Here, the blunt object of force known as government simply won't work -- and may in fact make things worse.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Why Can't Men Abort Their Children Too?
Perhaps someone can help me to understand something. I'm not going to say if I am pro-life or pro-choice, because that will bring an irrelevancy to what it is I am asking about.
A fertilized egg is genetically half the father's, half the mother's. I don't think there is any dispute there. Why, then, is it legal for a woman to abort her child without the father's consent, but it is illegal for the father to abort his child without the mother's consent? I raise this question in light of the situation surrounding Manishkumar M. Patel, who is charged with first-degree murder of an unborn child after slipping his girlfriend RU-486. We will leave aside for the moment the other things he is otherwise charged with: "second-degree recklessly endangering safety, placing foreign objects in edibles, possession with intent to deliver prescriptions, stalking, burglary, possession of burglary tools, and two counts of violating a restraining order," the first three of which are clearly associated with the incidents in question. My question is: if it is not murder for a women to abort her child, why is it murder for a man to abort his? This seems like a double standard. If you are going to use the argument that for a women it is an issue of it being her body, then he still should not be charged with murder, as all the rest of the charges deal with that issue.
So my question is: why should it be either legal or, to go further, okay, for a woman to abort her child, even if the man doesn't want her to do so, but it is not legal (or okay) for the man to abort the child even if she wants to keep it?
I don't care about the details about this creep, who was apparently married to someone else, to boot. My question is not specific to him. I am only interested in the principle.
A fertilized egg is genetically half the father's, half the mother's. I don't think there is any dispute there. Why, then, is it legal for a woman to abort her child without the father's consent, but it is illegal for the father to abort his child without the mother's consent? I raise this question in light of the situation surrounding Manishkumar M. Patel, who is charged with first-degree murder of an unborn child after slipping his girlfriend RU-486. We will leave aside for the moment the other things he is otherwise charged with: "second-degree recklessly endangering safety, placing foreign objects in edibles, possession with intent to deliver prescriptions, stalking, burglary, possession of burglary tools, and two counts of violating a restraining order," the first three of which are clearly associated with the incidents in question. My question is: if it is not murder for a women to abort her child, why is it murder for a man to abort his? This seems like a double standard. If you are going to use the argument that for a women it is an issue of it being her body, then he still should not be charged with murder, as all the rest of the charges deal with that issue.
So my question is: why should it be either legal or, to go further, okay, for a woman to abort her child, even if the man doesn't want her to do so, but it is not legal (or okay) for the man to abort the child even if she wants to keep it?
I don't care about the details about this creep, who was apparently married to someone else, to boot. My question is not specific to him. I am only interested in the principle.
Multi-Vitamins
A few weeks ago, my brother mentioned that he had started taking a multi-vitamin and that it had helped him with his reading understanding and retention. So I decided to do the same and begin taking a multi-vitamin. I've noticed that recently I've been able to really focus on tasks. I generally try to eat well-balanced meals, but that's not always possible. My wife and I perhaps go out to eat more than we should, and typically restaurant food isn't the best for you. So the multi-vitamin helps.
As I've been thinking about the effects of my taking a multi-vitamin, I am reminded of studies done with problem students in alternative schools, where the typical school diet was replaced by a high-nutrition, high-vitamin diet. Something like 90% of all behavioral problems vanished. If you know the kind of garbage our schools serve our children, you probably wouldn't be surprised that they misbehave -- except that many people probably would be surprised, since the food they feed their children is even less nutritious. My guess is that the vast majority of ADHD cases would be eliminated with a proper diet, since lack of certain vitamins leads to hyperactivity.
Would it be too much to ask that our schools give each child a multi-vitamin every morning? Yes, I know that's not very libertarian of me to suggest, but if we're going to have public schools anyway, the least they could do is make sure children are prepared in as many ways as possible to learn. Besides, it would reduce the use of harmful drugs and keep many children out of trouble -- aside from the fact that they would now be ready and prepared to learn.
As I've been thinking about the effects of my taking a multi-vitamin, I am reminded of studies done with problem students in alternative schools, where the typical school diet was replaced by a high-nutrition, high-vitamin diet. Something like 90% of all behavioral problems vanished. If you know the kind of garbage our schools serve our children, you probably wouldn't be surprised that they misbehave -- except that many people probably would be surprised, since the food they feed their children is even less nutritious. My guess is that the vast majority of ADHD cases would be eliminated with a proper diet, since lack of certain vitamins leads to hyperactivity.
Would it be too much to ask that our schools give each child a multi-vitamin every morning? Yes, I know that's not very libertarian of me to suggest, but if we're going to have public schools anyway, the least they could do is make sure children are prepared in as many ways as possible to learn. Besides, it would reduce the use of harmful drugs and keep many children out of trouble -- aside from the fact that they would now be ready and prepared to learn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)