Maggie's Farm

Pin Ups for Vets is back. Very therapeutic.

Because they have The Truth, of course. Dino. Dino reminds us of the famous joke paper by Sokal published by Social Text, arguing that physics is nothing more than an instrument of oppression (and in college, as I recall, it seemed that way).

At Maggie's Farm, we love science and we love the scientific method, but we view it as a gradual and never-ending search for facts, not as Truth.

I attended a local political debate last night in my small Yankee town. We have a Town Meeting system of government (meaning that every voter can come and speak, and vote, on every issue before the town), and we elect two paid Selectmen as administrators.

Of a wide variety of questions, one question a voter asked the two First Selectman candidates was this: "What do you plan to do about the epidemic of obesity?"

Neither of the two stooges - one a young lawyer, the other a local insurance guy - had the cojones to reply with the correct answer: "I think a person's weight is their private business, and not a legitimate concern of government."

Wimps and weenies. I felt like slapping them both: they had brilliant virtuous ideas about "bike paths and walking paths." Paid for by me, no doubt. Of course, the people who want to be fit already bike or run or walk on the roads, and the fatties in this town would not be caught dead on a bike - and the very sight of it might give people heart attacks. Ain't politics great?

Image: Rockwell's Town Meeting picture, representing Freedom of Speech

At a social gathering last night, I found myself in a conversation with two Paul Krugman fans who were asserting that the biggest problem in America is the economic distance between the rich and the middle class. They were in favor of heavy taxes on the wealthy to create more equality.

Rather than even trying to provide them with some elementary economics and to explain that wealth is not a zero-sum game, I decided to be provocative. "We should be thankful and appreciative of the wealthy," I declared. "Not only do they pay most of the taxes for everyone else, and employ lots of people, but, for every wealthy family, that is one less family to grow dependent on government services."

My comments fell flat. Need I mention that these people were highly-educated professional upper-middle class people?

Then, at this same gathering, an old friend showed me a photo of himself with his mother from 1941. He was in his Army uniform in the photo. At 6'2, he had lied about his age to get into the Army. He told me that he had been given a five-day leave over Christmas. "I didn't see her again for two and a half years." He fought in the Battle of the Bulge at age 17.

He is a family doctor, working full-time at age 83.

The link to Assistant Village Idiot's piece on signaling and politics, in which he proposes, just for the sake of discussion:

Let’s pretend for purpose of discussion that all our religious, political, and social beliefs are entirely hollow. They have no intellectual content to speak of, and are mere social signals. We use them as birds use song, marking territory, calling attention to ourselves, attracting mates. We use a particular vocabulary of values to keep some people away and draw others in, to attempt to assign ourselves a certain status in the world.

Bumper stickers, what is displayed in your office, and choice of avatars are essentially just social signaling.

I decided to try to learn just a little about Signaling Theory, but first I had to make sure the word didn't have two "l"s, so as to avoid signaling that I am a dunce. (It's one of those many words that the Brits spell wrong.)

Moving ahead, I learned that the sociological/economic/game theory notion of signaling comes out of biology and animal behavior. I found a good introductory piece on the subject, Honest Signalling Theory (I noted that this American Bio prof likes to use two "l"s.)

It's an interesting multi-page piece which begins:

The gazelle's leaping behavior, the nestlings' begging, the expensive suit - all of these things are signals. All are intended to convey information about a signaller, to a signal receiver. For humans, the fancy suit - like a fast car, an expensive bottle of wine, or a precious gemstone - indicates some property or quality of the signaller. In this case, that property might be the relative wealth of an individual.

I realized that maybe I do more signalling than I would like to think. Then I stumbled into a piece by Econlog's Caplan after reading some brief essays about education and signaling (Would you rather have a Berkley Diploma and No Education, or Education and No Diploma? and Jane Galt's Who are we signalling? and Tyler Cowen's Why Education is Productive - a parable of men and beasts) about the signaling value of education. Is education purely about social signalling? Of course not, but partially, yes.

Caplan, in Mixed Signals asks:

Which would do more for your career: A Princeton education, but no diploma, or a Princeton diploma, but no education?

All my personal experience (30 years in school!) tells me that there is a lot of truth in the signaling model. I don't use most of my schooling in my job, and I'm a professor, for God's sake! But would I have my current position if I had failed high school Spanish? No way.

Well, this was all fun, but one is quickly reminded of how often people who have cool ideas tend to get reductionistic about them: Man is all about economics, man is all about gender, man is all about libido, man is all about adapting to his environment, man is all about signaling, etc, etc. So if you look at the world through a "signaling" lens, all you will see is signaling. And now I am out of time and getting too long anyway.

Have you noticed that Bushitler-Cheney has have turned off their hurricane-generator? Not one storm this year, proving beyond  doubt that they do control the weather for their political purposes, drowning millions of brown people when it is to their advantage - and to make money for Halliburton when Halliburton runs short of cash. (Heck, that's why white-colored devils all own tons of Halliburton stock. Be a fool not to.) Our wiley Maggie's Farm staff managed to get a photo of their Halliburton-built weather-generating device, despite the masked armed guards, black helicopters, and top-secret location. As you can see, it is turned off, but well-maintained and ready for action:

Everybody knows I hate the euphemism "healthcare." Medical treatment is for illness, unfortunately. Health requires no care. Two medical links:

Brit columnist claims UK's NHS has failed, says each patient is viewed as a "cost." Of course. Surber. Do you want your doctor, or a government employee? Brave New World explains it all: when you get sick, you go to die happily and spare everyone the burden - and they recycle your remains!

More on the question of "Who are the uninsured?" Betsy. I see no crisis, and would not trade what I have for anything. If 3% of my cost goes to cover illegals, the irresponsible, and parasites, I don't care all that much - but a "thank you" would be appreciated. My medical insurance cost (with a $5000 deductible) would cover the cost of a nice vacation. Which is more important to me?

From the Spectator debates. Just press "download podcast" and it will play. It's long, but entertaining and worth the time. Hop on ye olde treadmill and listen. I did, with some Irish Coffee, and now I and the missus will saddle up for a long October ride over hill and dale among the changing leaves. Hope I don't break my neck.

Cuomo, Kurtz Revel in Media's Ability to Push Antiwar Agenda. A quote:

On Tuesday's "Good Morning America," co-host Chris Cuomo and media critic Howard Kurtz ignored the role that liberal bias has played in the decline of ratings for the network evening newscasts. At the same time, Cuomo and Washington Post reporter seemed to be proud of the media's ability to turn Americans against the war in Iraq. Kurtz, who has written a book on the subject, asserted, "I believe that these newscasts in 2005 and 2006 played the biggest single role in helping to turn public opinion against the war."

Cuomo agreed and complimented the journalist's analysis. He enthused, "It's easy to say, 'Oh, well. The war was unpopular. People were looking for the unpopularity of it. At some point, the networks gave that to them.' But you have a more penetrating look at it. You take a look at it in terms of the role of the nightly newscasts in shaping the ideas about the news..." According to Kurtz, the top three network anchors kept "framing the story in such a way" that the bad news finally had an impact. And while the two reporters wondered about the effect the iPod and internet are having on network low ratings, at no time did they discuss liberal bias or salient facts such as that journalists backed John Kerry over George Bush by a two-to-one margin.

(Those are Kate's highlights.) Read the whole thing. h/t, Small Dead Gophers. That we are immersed in media partisanship is not news. The news is that they feel emboldened enough to take pride in it.

Roger Simon explains How the Neocon Got His Trunk, and his voyage from Lib to Neocon. One quote:

Perhaps it was that I got to visit the People’s Republic of China quite early (1979) and later Cuba and the Soviet Union (twice) on cultural exchanges that I began to see those countries as gigantic jails. Still, I lived in a curious twilight zone where many in my generation found themselves, sympathizing, in principle, with the egalitarian socialist ideal while encouraging, even helping, writers and other dissidents to escape those societies. Hello, cognitive dissonance. It was all part of who we were – the way we were, if you will. My trips behind the Iron Curtain were considered “groovy” in Hollywood, where I worked. They gave me panache. We were light years beyond the Blacklist.

And then something happened. Eastern Europe started breaking away from the communist world and the Soviet Union fell. Never mind that the reviled Reagan may have had some responsibility, everyone – or at least most everyone - rejoiced. And it wasn’t just a totalitarian system that was dissolving, socialism as an economic system lay in tatters. To call it “scientific” was laughable.

The Left was left with little to do, little to organize around. (Bill Clinton, recognizing this, essentially deserted his own side by walking back on welfare issues).

Read the whole thing.

It is the endless frustration of the liberty-minded that so many in the Western world seem willing, if not eager, to sell their birthright of individual freedom and autonomy for a bowl of lentils.

A short piece titled Freedom? No thanks by Dean at Samizdata quotes Steyn:

A year ago, I wrote that, "The story of the western world since 1945 is that, invited to choose between freedom and government ‘security,' large numbers of people vote to dump freedom — the freedom to make your own decisions about health care, education, property rights, seat belts and a ton of other stuff."

The great psychoanalyst and socio-political thinker Erich Fromm in his politically, psychologically and sociologically brilliant book Escape from Freedom (1941) pondered the human ambivalence towards freedom especially in the context of Fascism, but it applies to any powerful State. He notes that the concept of the "individual," and thus the notion of individual autonomy (ie individual freedom and its responsibilities and risks) arose at the end of Medieval society and was coupled with the Reformation. He asks:

In addition to the problem of the economic and social conditions which have given rise to Fascism, there is a human element which needs to be understood. It is the purpose of this book to analyse those dynamic factors in the character of modern man which made him want to give up freedom and which so widely prevail in millions of our own people.

These are the outstanding questions that arise when we look at the human aspect of freedom, the longing for submission, and the lust for power. What is freedom as a human experience? Is the desire for freedom inherent in human nature? Is it an identical experience regardless of what kind of culture a person lives in, or is it something different depending on the degree of individualism reached in a particular society? Is freedom only the absence of external pressure, or is it also the presence of something and, if so, what? What are the social and economic factors in society that make for the striving for freedom? Can freedom become a burden, too heavy for man to bear, something he tries to escape from? Why is it that freedom is for many a cherished goal and for others a threat?

It's a book that is worth reading, if you haven't. It contains a number of the themes our Dr. Bliss returns to often: the human desire to be taken care of, to regress, to submit to an authority - all in conflict with the desire to define one's own life, to construct one's life, to make one's own choices, to take one's own risks and pursue one's own rewards, whatever those might be.

Photo: Erich Fromm (1900-1980)

Texas set a limit to medical malpractice awards, and finally they are getting the doctors they need. Tiger Hawk.

It's simple economics. If doctors know they might get wiped out by a loony judgement of a jury, as Tiger Hawk points out, they will either tend not to practice - or to avoid all high-risk cases. Not to mention the cost of malpractice insurance - up to $200,000 per year for some specialties in some areas of the country. Not to mention all of the useless and expensive tests docs order, purely to cover their asses.

Mary Jackson at the New English Review. She links to Islamic Law and its Challenge to Western Civilization. A quote from the latter very comprehensive site:

Most people in the West believe that Islam is a religion in the traditional sense of the word. However, this is a fateful misconception. Islam is not just a religion. It is much more than a religion. Muslims themselves describe their faith by saying, Islam is a Complete Way of Life. This is certainly a more apt description, because Islam is a religious, social, economic, educational, health, political, and philosophic way of life. In fact, Islam is an all-embracing socio-politico-religious utopian ideology that encompasses every field of human endeavor.

The Western view of religion is that a religion is a narrow aspect of life. It does not encompass all human affairs. Religion stands beside culture, economic, politics, and other human institutions. Westerners may differ on matters of religious faith, but they can work together in social, state, and economic affairs. The reason for this is that their respective religions don't claim divine authority over the institutions of governance and economics. Their faiths may differ regarding the salvation of the soul, life after death, and religious rituals, but they don't claim to have divine insight into the institutions of human government and its particular laws. As good citizens, they strive to have a just and equitable society.

Islam is different from other religions in that it is not limited to the spiritual aspects of life. It engulfs all aspects of life from the cradle to the grave. Islam claims to have a divine mandate over everyone, and this includes non-Muslims too. While non-Muslims may not be required to observe the religious rituals of Islam, they must recognize the supremacy of Islamic rule over them. As an ideology, Islam promises an economic, political, social, and religious utopia when the world finally submits to Allah and the rule of Shari'a law. The Islamic objective is to have all aspects of a nation's culture and institutions undergo gradual Islamization to yield an Islamic state patterned after Shari'a Law.

History will have nothing but contempt and derision for pampered academic prigs whose commitment to leveling the distinction between perversity and ordinary life so greatly exceeds their loyalty to country and their gratitude to the armed forces which defend them.

Never Yet Melted, re Yale Law's finally opening to military recruiters

From Evan Coyne Maloney, maker of the documentary "Indoctrinate U" (via Classical):

Speech codes. Censorship. Enforced political conformity. Hostility to diversity of opinion. Sensitivity training. We usually associate such things with the worst excesses of fascism and communism, not with the American universities that nurtured the free speech movement. But American higher education bears a disturbing resemblance to the totalitarian societies that are anathema to our nation's ideal of liberty. Evan Coyne Maloney's documentary film, Indoctrinate U, reveals the breathtaking institutional intolerance you won't read about in the glossy marketing brochures of Harvard, Berkeley, Michigan, Yale, and hundreds of other American colleges and universities.

"When we think of going to college, we think of intellectual freedom. We imagine four years of exploring ideas through energetic, ongoing, critical thinking and debate," Maloney said. "But the reality is very far from the ideal. What most of us don't know is that American college students check their First Amendment rights and individual freedom at the door."

We want to do our bit to get the word out. To get the film screened in your area or on your high school or college campus, go here. I believe this film is important to help open up the conversation, and to take back free speech and free and open thought. Plus Stanley Kurtz thought it was hilarious.

Not surprising, but... EU Referendum.

Who elected Soros to anything? He's just a megalomaniacal rich jerk with a lot of opinions - and a low-down schemer.

Furthermore, I do not really think of him as an American: I think of him as an "American of convenience" who keeps his money offshore and whose loyalties are international. And yes, them is fightin' words.

Cogent and stunningly right, from Jonah Goldberg via Driscoll:

In The L.A. Times, Jonah Goldberg writes, "I have no interest in 'questioning' Couric's patriotism. Rather, I'm interested in questioning her definition of it":

I've come around to the view that the culture war can best be understood as a conflict between two different kinds of patriotism. On the one hand, there are people who believe being an American is all about dissent and change, that the American idea is inseparable from "progress." America is certainly an idea, but it is not merely an idea. It is also a nation with a culture as real as France's or Mexico's. That's where the other patriots come in; they think patriotism is about preserving Americanness.

Yet the strangest and most ironic aspect of our national culture is that we have an aversion to talking about a national culture. Samuel Huntington, one of the country's premier social scientists, has become something of a pariah for constantly reminding people (in books such as "The Clash of Civilizations" and "Who Are We?") that the United States is a nation, not just a government and a bunch of interest groups.

Many liberals hear talk of national culture and shout, "Nativist!" first and ask questions later, if at all. They believe it is a sign of their patriotism that they hold fast to the idea that we are a "nation of immigrants" -- forgetting that we are also a nation of immigrants who became Americans.

Exactly right. Although we have numerous local subcultures, most of us also live within, and treasure, the larger national culture which it would take a better writer than I am to define succinctly and without corniness - but I can say that it's not about "progress" and it's not about immigrants.

We did ideal shotguns first today (for grouse and woodcock, I like my old 20 ga. s/s Abercrombie and Fitch Rizzini boxlock choked cylinder and modified) - and now ideal portfolios.

The well-endowed American universities are becoming little more than investment funds with high educational overhead. Portfolio construction is not exactly rocket science, but Yale's David Swenson seems to be doing a better job of it than I am. Plus the guy is grossly underpaid in relation to the value he adds. (h/t, Mankiw)