Transforming that which you love...

A man wiser than I, Mr. Dennis Prager, stated something to the effect that should you find yourself in a position wherein you wish to transform or change your spouse, then it is likely that you shouldn't have married them.

We ordinarily fall in love with people for who and how they are not what we imagine they could become. Why is this different with countries?

The claim is that the sincerity of one's professed love for another is in question if you simultaneously profess your desire for that person to change (or transform).

I think that is as a valid a statement as any. The question then becomes if it is a suitable analogy for one's love for one's country? Often enough it is stated that one's love for their country resembles one's love for their mother (Bill Maher posited that that is how conservatives view their country). In fact similes and metaphors abound on how a country is like one's mother.

So now we must ask, is it right to want to change and transform one's mother?

I suppose this is entirely dependent upon one's relationship with one's mother. If the relationship is tumultuous, then one's desire that their mother change would be sound. If one's mother is dysfunctional, it would even be honorable to want one's mother to be functional.

Taking the above analogy to be sound, and stipulating that progressives in power want their country to change we can conclude that progressives view their relationship with their country to be tumultuous and/or that their country is dysfunctional. If not, then why push for change and transformation?

This situation becomes all the more complex if we enter a sibling who's view is that their mother isn't at all dysfunctional and is fine just they way they are (no need for a makeover, costly therapy sessions, or expensive surgery). This gives us a conflict that I think validly projects today's turbulent and polarized political climate.

Relevant Differences

It is crucial to the aspect of critical thinking to be able to ascertain relevant differences.

The classic "apples and oranges" metaphor is often utilized to express the differences between two ideas or actions etc. It isn't enough that two things are different however, it is important that people be able to judge how the comparisons are relevantly different.

If the topic is what one should consume for their daily intake of vitamin C, then the relevant difference is the vitamin C content of oranges as compared to apples, for instance. Or if the topic is what makes the best ingredients for baking, apples have the edge because the texture of apples is what is relevant to the discussion.

But critical thinking isn't limited to relevant differences, but relevant similarities as well. Comparing apples and oranges we find many similarities; they're both fruit, they grow from trees, they're grown by farmers. Thus if the topic warrants it, these relevant similarities should not be ignored.

Critical thinking skills become paramount when the issues of hypocrisy or double standards arise. If a smoker professes his or her convictions that smoking is harmful, yet continues smoking--does the smoker's smoking have any relevance to the validity of his or her convictions?

Logic says that the behavior of the smoker hasn't any bearing on the validity of whether or not smoking is harmful. Smoking would be harmful or not regardless of whether the smoker smokes. Likewise, the sincerity of the smoker's convictions should not be question because the smoker smokes. They may truly and sincerely believe that smoking is harmful but are unable to adhere to the safer standard of abstaining from smoking.

Of course not everything is as cut and dry as smoking and its harmfulness, but that is why developing and using one's critical thinking abilities are critical in a world full of confusion.

The Ramifications of Ostracism

The WSJ editorial page offers pithy commentary on Limbaugh's ostracism from the NFL.

Leveling Limbaugh

The following is most cogent:

What happened here, and is happening elsewhere in American life, is that Mr. Limbaugh's outspoken political conservatism is being deemed sufficient reason to ostracize him from polite society. By contrast, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, who fires off his own brand of high-velocity, left-wing political commentary but lacks Mr. Limbaugh's sense of humor, appears weekly as co-host of NBC's "Football Night in America." We haven't heard anyone on the right say Mr. Olbermann's nightly ad-hominem rants should disqualify him from hanging around the NFL.

Bigot Discrimination and Free Societies

Apparently James Carville, the angular Democrat strategist believes this comment from New York Giants' Mathias Kiwanuka is "eloquent."

"All I know is from the last comment I heard, he said in [President] Obama's America, white kids are getting beat up on the bus while black kids are chanting 'right on,'" Kiwanuka said, per the New York Daily News. "I mean, I don't want anything to do with a team that he has any part of. He can do whatever he wants, it is a free country. But if it goes through, I can tell you where I am not going to play.

"I am not going to draw a conclusion from a person off of one comment, but when it is time after time after time and there's a consistent pattern of disrespect and just a complete misunderstanding of an entire culture that I am a part of, I can't respect him as a man," Kiwanuka added.

And it is a solid opinion. I think it is pertinent to point out that Kiwanuka's position does not ask that Rush be obstructed from buying the team based on his opinion of the man. He doesn't like him. He doesn't have to like him, and since he doesn't like him, he does not have to play for him. In this market transaction, Kiwanuka is the seller (selling his labor) and Rush would be the buyer. And like you see in many placards on small businesses across the country, he "reserves the right to refuse service to anyone." And for any reason.

But not all reasons are equal, neither are all market transactions. In the labor market, because one is having to sell their time and skill it is prudent to be discretionary as to whom you sell your time and skill to. In a goods or property market, the amount of discretion the seller uses ought to be placed under more scrutiny. In fact it is unlawful for a seller of a good, say a automobile, to refuse to sell the auto based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. It is unlawful discrimination.

However even if the discrimination of a seller to a buyer is lawful, it may not be moral. Suppose that the automobile seller refuses to sell an auto to a buyer because of who the buyer supports in a political election. I do not believe such discrimination is unlawful, but it is immoral discrimination. Immoral based on the value systems of a free society wherein ALL political ideologies are welcome (even the offensive ones) and are able to take part in basic market transactions for goods and property.

Once a society permits (on moral grounds, as opposed to legal grounds) the discrimination of factions by other factions in basic market transactions of goods and property, then the society becomes less free--plain and simple.

I believe Mr. Kiwanuka knows this on some level, which is why he stopped short of verbally stating that Rush be refused the privilege of buying the Rams despite his lack of respect for him.

Government Pays $4 Million for a Bike Rack

Government Pays $4 Million for a Bike Rack

Posted using ShareThis

The Partisan Industrial Complex

David Paul Kuhn writes an awesome piece about today's profitable polarized political landscape.

What he misses in pointing out however, is how governance and legislation itself is being forged by ideology. It isn't just that the Partisan Industrial Complex gets you money and power, but obviously the ability to wield it.

The Stimulus bill that passed on a partisan vote in February almost completely correlates with the proposals of radical ideologues like Van Jones through the left wing think tank Apollo Alliance. By their own admission.

How in the world are Republicans suppose to vote across the aisle when proposed legislation transforms the country into something radically different from what it was founded upon?

Ralph Waldo Emerson said something to the effect that there are only two parties in politics, the Establishment and the Movement.

And Isaac Newton is famous for his laws of physics, of which his second law neatly transfers into politics: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The harder the the Movement pushes, the harder the Establishment will resist.

The Partisan Industrial Complex

Shared via AddThis

If I could teach the world, one thing...

Julian Baggini is a living British philosopher who when asked if he could teach the world only one thing what would he teach. He answered that it would be the "under-determination of theory by evidence." The following is my attempt to explain it.

The principle of the "under-determination of theory by evidence" says that no matter how much evidence there is to support a theory, the theory can still be dead wrong. Conversely, no matter how little evidence there is to support a theory, the theory may still be accurate and true.

Somewhere on this planet, there may be a spot wherein apples rise from the earth. It may exist, it is possible, after all anything is possible. But if I insisted that the law of gravity is bunk on the basis that anything is possible, I may rightfully be ignored and thought insane. To butcher the quote from Stephen Jay Gould who said that in science, fact means proven to such an extent that it would be perverse to withhold assent. One may posit that apples rise from the ground, but it doesn't warrant equal time in the classroom.

Thus, whenever one hears, learns, or is told a theory or explanation, about some event or phenomenon, it does that person well to remember the principle that theories cannot be totally determined by evidence.

It is the obligation of the proponent of a theory to provide a "preponderance of evidence" to support their theory. Amazingly, should the proponent meet or fail to meet their burden, it hasn't any bearing on the validity of the theory. All evidence does is provide us sensory stimulated human beings a means by which to arrive at a conclusion. And yet, it would be wise for one to acknowledge, that one's conclusion may be wrong.

And this is why I believe Socrates, who is regarded as possibly the smartest man in Western Civilization said,

"All I know is the fact of my own ignorance." (aka "All I know is that I know nothing.")

Choice and Competition in proposed health reform

What is in the water in the White House? I really didn't think I could be surprised anymore by the economic illiteracy of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but I stand corrected.

Good news: The White House is downplaying the public option as part of it's health care reform.

Bad news: The White House is targeting insurance companies as the crux of this reform.

They say they're going to start to focus on "choice and competition." They contend that this will be accomplished by forbidding the "bad ol'" corporations from being able to choose who and who they will not (or cannot) insure.

First of all, I am sure everyone is insurable already...for a price. The problem is not everyone, particularly those with preexisting conditions will be able to afford it out of pocket. Tough choices will have to be made such as one's health or one's assets. This means one in terrible health may have to sell one's assets to become healthy.

But not in Obama-nation. You'll get to keep your assets and the President will force companies to insure you at low cost no matter how expensive it will be for them to provide you with care. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what will happen, insurance companies will go bankrupt. So much for "competition."

Will President Obama really let all those corporate fat cats go bankrupt? Of course not. He'll simply force ALL OF US to buy insurance. Not unlike most states force us to buy car insurance. Then, the young, working, and healthy will finance the health care of the infirm, old, and decrepit by paying into the system and never needing to use it. So much for "choice".

Less choice and less competition, more change we can believe in.

Brainiac Krugman fails to reconcile discordance

There has been a lot of hub bub around the town hall meetings of late. The most controversial of which is the claim that the visibly irritable opponents of health care reform are partisan plants. That the ruckuses are organized. "Astro-turf" conspiracies meant to undermine a popular president and the majority in Congress. The accusations are numerous, but the evidence is nonexistent.

Nothing. None. Not a scintilla (and if there is I would love to see it). This is just the best way many health care reformists have come to reconcile what is difficult for them to acknowledge, the people don't want reform in any of the ways they have been proposing.

Hell, even Nobel-laureate and pint sized liberal pundit Paul Krugman contends that,

[block quote]But while the organizers are as crass as they come, I haven?t seen any evidence that the people disrupting those town halls are Florida-style rent-a-mobs. For the most part, the protesters appear to be genuinely angry.[/block quote]

Good for him. We couldn't expect anything less than reason from such an esteemed Princeton professor. Obviously the rational conclusion which brainiac must the conclude is that the heated opposition represents represents objection to the proposals, right?

No. Paul Krugman thinks:

[block quote]That is, the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety that?s behind the ?birther? movement, which denies Mr. Obama?s citizenship.[/block quote]

*facepalm*. Racism. That's it. It couldn't be that the proposals are ludicrous on their merits, no, it's racism.

Not only are these people in power right now, but he represents one of the smartest of the bunch. God help us.

Ouch! MSNBC's parent company GE fined for lying

I guess the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree after all.

GE fined $50m over alleged accounting fraud

Clinton-Obama Cheerleaders and N. Korea

What an utter mess this whole debacle has become. I loathe this polarized political landscape we're in practically everyone is so quick to find the inconsistencies in their opponents positions but refrain from being able to acknowledge their own.

The only small victory I can see from this is the release of the two Americans. In a humanitarian way, one can argue, their release would be worth any cost. After all, how can you measure the worth of human lives?

The damned thing is, this did come at a cost, and I don't think it is worth cheering about as many on left are doing.

The two women were captured on assignment from Al Gore (their employer) to do a story (not on global warming surprisingly) and end up imprisoned with a sentence of 12 years. That's terrible. It was a totally avoidable predicament, and in order to solve it, the Stalinist tyrants wouldn't take anything less than some face time with Bill Clinton.

The advantages Kim Jung il and his ilk get is to use the meeting as justification of their illusory power and dehumanizing strangle on their own people.

Two Americans being released is something to be grateful for, but only the freedom of millions of Koreans will be worth cheering about.

Got to hand it to the city of brotherly love...

For knowing how to treat a turncoat exploiter like Specter.

Read what vote on for crying out loud.

I love how this crowd is handling its representative. We can all learn a lot from them.

The return of the misery index

OMI = Obama Misery Index

It's a combination of unemployment and inflation. We're looking at both increasing over the term of this President.

GOP will have a great chance at getting back in power because of this.

Carter was ousted because of a high misery index, and if Obama's campaign machine can be surmounted then it is likely he will too.

http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbypresident.asp

Texas vs. Cali; Whose gov't model is better?

The Economist asks what needs to asked, what are we going to do about the future. As far as fiscal governance is concerned, CA is an abomination (or is Obama-nation?). TX can weather THIS storm well, but unless it finds a way to fund the development of human capital (education), it can't be sustainable.

It's a great read.

Hat tip: Fundmastery blog

The He-cession's Raw Deal

An iron-fisted "punch in the mouth" of a perspective from David Paul Kuhn about the state of this recession. It's an unholy conglomeration of politically correct social engineering, testosterone-fueled unethical behavior in risk-taking and competition, and the ultimate consequence of that poweder-keg = the Working-man.

And if you're young, or if you're of an unprotected racial class, forget it! You're screwed.

Where's Tyler Durden when you need him?

The He-cession's Raw Deal

Shared via AddThis

Hearings about nothing...

Bea-u-tiful op/ed piece in the WSJ today that is a worthy read for anyone regardless of political affiliation. It helps decipher the modern day, politically charged arena that we call the justice system and how it got to be this way. Prof. Barnett sums it up beautifully right here:

"...So judicial activism means thwarting the "will of the people" when critics agree with the people, while they complain about the "tyranny of the majority" when they disagree."

The whole article is great, especially what he recommends to remedy the situation. Education. Constitutional literacy about the clauses and the nominee's interpretation.

We can dream can't we?

Obama Caught Looking

1. It's a funny looking picture.

2. It's a even funnier how the Obamatons think the video clears him. This supposes one can't both help a lady down some steps and take look at who is going up steps.

3. The funniest lays with French Pres. Sarkosy, who in both the picture and the video apparently can't get enough of the lady in red.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/10/video_clears_up_misleading_obama_photo.html

Just Another Politician...

LOL @ "Stop Global Warming".

Can it really be stopped? And if so by a "leader"?

Funny picture, not so funny reasoning.

Just Another Politician - Edward John Craig - Planet Gore on National Review Online

Shared via AddThis

California Prints Its Own Currency - A Satire?

Not to shabby a job of what can possibly be around the corner.

Satire or not, the idea of a complimentary currency may be just the ticket to help us out.

Suppose a college student in the need of financial aid for community college, in lieu of state grants or loans, the state issues a currency commensurate to the amount of hours the student volunteers to care for the elderly.

Two birds, one stone. In essence the state acts as a trader/broker between two markets.

California Prints Its Own Currency - A Satire?

Shared via AddThis

If you're a climate change denier, you're immoral

This is current position of Paul Krugman in his latest column (Betraying the Planet) and very likely the genuine consensus of man-made global warming proponents. I don't believe there is a face nor a palm large enough to capture the kind of facepalm this kind of contention requires.

The very idea that denying what very could be an honest mistake made by those who are eternally preoccupied the health of Mother Gaia as being immoral is obscene. The contention that global warming denying is tantamount to things like thieving, lying, bullying, assaulting, even murder, is asinine.

It is interesting to note that Prof. Krugman juxtaposes the fear-mongering he espouses to that of the Bush administration's in regards to terrorism. When Bush et al asserted that terrorism posed an existential threat, Prof. Krugman recognized it as hyperbole. What is curious to note is how relevantly similar the two theories are yet the Nobel laurete is incapable of removing his liberal colored lenses to see it. The plausibility for Islamic fanaticism to become an existential threat is dependent on a long term model. That is if Al Qaeda were successful in uniting the Ummah as one therocratic nation state which had dominion over a majority of the world's oil wealth AND had nuclear capability...who in their right mind would deny that that would an existential threat to the United States? Plausible? Yes. Likely? No.

Similarly the peril of man-made global warming theory is also dependent on a long term model. If carbon was to accumulate to 450 ppm in the atomosphere, over the next century tempertures would be of such catastrophic magnitude that all life would be indanger of becoming extinct. Plausible? Only if carbon emissions really were the most decisive variable in the complex system that is climate and temperture...and it isn't. Likely? No way.

And the above analysis, denying the imperilment of carbon emissions is deemed IMMORAL to those who wear liberal colored lenses.

Which brings us to the relevant difference between the two theories compared by Prof. Krugman. While the existential threat of terrorism is questionable, what isn't is the depths of its immorality. Terrorism by religious psychotics is unquestionably evil. Resources devoted to impugning such evil are resources well spent.

Contrast to carbon emissions. Emiting carbon is amoral. In fact carbon is necessary for life. It is what all life forms are even based on. It is what makes the organic, well organic. Thus, raising doubts as to whether treasure and resources should be devoted to reducing its prescence must also be amoral, lest of course one wears liberal colored lenses.

Energy reform = electricity rates

I found this flashback clip particularly amusing. Here the then presidential candidate was candid and honest about his position on energy reform. Carbon is now evil, and its emissions must be reduced. The best way of achieving this is to make it costly to emit carbon.

Thus taxing carbon emission is the most honest way of going about reducing carbon emissions if one truly contends that carbon is the culprit of climate change.

Yet the 1,200 page cap and trade bill that passed the house (and will hopefully be doomed in the Senate) makes consideration to NOT raise electricity rates. So it effectively does NOTHING in the goal it sets out to do, that is reduce carbon emissions.

If per chance this does pass the senate and lands on the President's desk, we'll see how much integrity he has on this issue and if he vetoes it.

That really would be change.

You know it's bad when...

The German media says, "Schize!" when analyzing your fiscal policy.

OBAMA'S MISTAKES

Chancellor Merkel Visits the Debt President

Tilting at Green Windmills

Tilting at Green Windmills

Shared via AddThis

George Will asks what is pertinent, yet is easily discarded by our current politicians in power: why copy Spain's green economy when they have almost twice the unemployment rate we have?

Are we to believe that if it weren't for windmills and such that Spain would be even worse off?

Now I'll read from quatrain 22 of the book of Lionel prophecy's:

Tis the year 2012 and the loss of productivity has increased substantially, and the eared one declares, "My policies have saved jobs that would otherwise have been lost if I weren't elected. Lost because of the terrible economic conditions I have inherited from my predecessor, Yes WE Can!"

And as PT Barnum once said, "No one has ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

Could Australia Blow Apart the Great Global Warming Scare?

Could Australia Blow Apart the Great Global Warming Scare?

Shared via AddThis

Hysterics have to come to an end when dogma finally succumbs the preponderance of evidence and its logical conclusions.

Ian Plimer has apparently offered that very thing, his book is due out in the US July 1st, it will be on my summer reading list.

Privatize the Post Office

Privatize the Post Office

Posted using ShareThis

No brainer. I thought it hilarious that Jon Stewart would use this as a reason for the public option for health care.

Please don't afford me civility, but recognize my occupation

One of my representatives in the Senate completely embarrassed herself last week and by default embarrassed my state.

It is customary which is to say honorific in the military to address one's superior officers as Sir or Ma'am and to address subordinates by their title. Apparently Sen. Boxer is ignorant of this custom and as a result looked foolish.

The real folly as argued by Dennis Prager in his column this week is that it would have to of been a Democrat woman to have made such a boneheaded remark, because of a victimized mindset. No male politician in his right mind would think of correcting a general for having afforded him in what is a polite custom.

Dennis Prager offers the following pithy analysis:

Liberalism has lowered expectations of behavior for everyone in America except white Christian heterosexual males. They are the only Americans from whom dignified and mature conduct is always expected. Liberals treat women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, and many non-Christians, with what is known as the soft bigotry of low expectations. Many liberal women, blacks, Hispanics, and gays know that and use it to get away with conduct and speech that no WASP heterosexual male could. People rise or descend to the level of behavior expected of them.

2010 cannot come soon enough.

Initial post

This is an outlet. Instead of tormenting my friends and associates of social networking sites with my daily musings and rants of the news of the day, I decided to channel my tirades here in the blogosphere.

I hope you enjoy it.