We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I believe that, if you haven't gotten what you need to become an effective and self-motivated learner in high school, you never will. School is spoon-feeding, but real education is picking up the spoon yourself.
The test of whether someone has deserved a higher education is afterwards: Do they continue with scholarly or self-educational pursuits, or do they rest on their paper laurels? Most people could learn to do their jobs through apprenticeships if a job is what they are after, and save the college cost. Most jobs are not rocket science, but most jobs expect ongoing learning of some sort, on one's own.
I also believe that all education is self-education, and that a degree is an expensive piece of paper. See "I got my education at the New York Public Library," (which wonderful library, a source of learning for immigrants and scholars alike, had its 100th Aniversary last month).
We easily forget that almost none of the remarkable achievers and contributors in human history ever had higher education, or more than elementary formal education, and that that continues to be true up through the present.
America's "education system" is SNAFU, and "college education" is a racket designed to support Big Beer.
The various academic fields of –ists and –ologists try to decipher why and how individuals and groups do things, and the effective ways to get them to do them better or differently or to do other things.
I’d suggest that the further they get from coercion, material or otherwise, the weaker their prescriptions.
With one exception, that is, persuasion. The field of persuasion is what I focused upon in my doctoral studies of organization and decision making, as offering the most direct and directly measurable avenue to offering improvements that are accepted and acted upon.
Reducing a complex subject, full of tautologies, persuasion is getting someone to do what they want to do. One does that by listening, observing and understanding the person’s wants and offering information with comfort that they find useful which will lead them to rearrange their priorities.
A corollary to that is understanding why individuals choose attitudes and behaviors that are less constructive to their own wants. This article by a leading social psychologist says that we form narratives of ourselves and the world that are often misleading.
Personally, I believe that we all are exposed to roughly equal proportions of good and bad things in our lives, although of differing dimensions, and we each choose which to focus upon. The happier among us tend to focus on the good things more than the bad.
None of this is to contradict deep psychoanalysis, discursive or medicinal, for very serious problems. However, for most of us, the functionally dysfunctional common to humanity, the more direct path is through understanding our and others’ narratives.
The academic –ists and –ologists tend to go well beyond that -- often based on controlled experiments with college students from which they overgeneralize -- into how to influence or control groups of people, adding such magnitudes of mathematical and knowable uncertainties that they blunder about in faith-healing based on catering to whatever their powers that be desire.
Once one gets too far away from eternal verities, from moral lessons that have been, in effect, empirically tested across hundreds and thousands of years by all people and peoples and found to point in the right direction, one enters into the experimentalists that have no more respect for us than rats and no more object than controlling the rats.
They haven’t been too successful, so they increasingly turn to coercion. The resistance of individual constructive independence and relationships eventually wins out, although after great costs along the way.
If one chooses to be conscious and resist ill temptations, to be in control of one’s own narrative, however, the “I” rules and saves oneself and the world from great pain.
Horrors! I was taken aback by my own thoughts. How could I be so cruel? What evil right-wing influence was making me think this way?
I went through a similar transformation years ago. I am heartened to see that some are still capable of real "critical thinking." Perhaps all Liberals are not hopelessly committed Communists. My main take-home from the pics, however, is that these are not well-indoctrinated ideologues - they are just greedy for my money.
There is no end-point to the Leftist's desire for the fruits of my labor. It is always "more."
According to NBC, you're from Chicago, but they've already got a mayor that accosts men in the shower at the gym, so maybe you figure there's no upside for you there. But you can move to New York and run as a carpetbagger, dude! You've got what the Empire State demands in its elected officials: a wonky eye for the ladies.
The original argument against the Bill of Rights as an amendment to the Constitution in the US was that it would make it appear that those were the only rights of the people and of the states.
"Enumerated powers" do not enumerate the rights of the people, but delimit the powers of the state (all Maggie's readers know that). Randy Barnett discusses. A quote:
...before there was any Bill of Rights, defenders of the Constitution claimed that the enumeration of power in Article I would protect the liberties of the people, making a bill of rights unnecessary.
The people opposing the Bill of Rights amendments had a good point.
The problem facing us today is exactly one of mob-rule rather than a Constitutionally-limited Republic. One can honestly lay the facts out to people that such things as Medicare and Social Security are unsustainable as they are currently configured, but as long as 51% of the people feel their vote gets them a share of the other 49%’s moneythey don’t care.
I don't think you can attribute all of the prosperity of Medieval Europe to the Medieval Warm Period, but surely some of it.
At Maggie's, we retain a healthy skepticism about AGW just as we do about most or all scientific theories - and especially those driven by political or economic agendas.
What we mostly hear from the Climate Change propagandists are the terrifying effects of some planetary warming. We never hear about the benefits.
I took a minute to google "advantages+global warming" and "benefits+global warming," and found tons of links. A few samples of them:
"It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. .... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture .... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man."
Adolph Hitler, 1933. There is no doubt that the Nazi movement was, at its core, a Socialist movement. The only thing about it that could be construed as at all "rightist" was its ardent nationalism.
My question is this: If the National Socialist Party had left the Jews alone, would the Nazis have been heroes of the Left, as Stalin was?
Mrs. BD and I have been taking the William and Mary course in Medieval History (with the delightfully Asperger's-ish Prof. Daileader via The Teaching Company) and we are enjoying it immensely. I do not like to sit unless I am at work, but this course gets me into a chair after work. (We live and thrive on the Teaching Company courses at my cottage, as readers know.)
The Prof says that the wealth of the Middle Ages came from a combination of trade and the renewal of currency in the form of the Italian Florin, the introduction of the heavy plow, the replacement of slavery with serfdom, a doubling of Europe's population - and the Medieval Warm Period which made it possible to grow better crops much further north than in the Dark Ages - and further north than today. Greenland was farmland.
The Warm Period was far warmer than the world today. People benefited. That's why we pray for Global Warming (but also doubt that humankind will be so lucky. With our luck, we'll get the next Ice Age and all be screwed except for Dr. Merc).
Do people attempt mass murder because they want better schools and better sewers? From Dalrymple's Sewer Thing:
...to return to the question of intellectuals and their appreciation of human motivation. On the one hand they seem to want to deny the deeper currents that underlie the most extraordinary behaviour such as suicide bombing; on the other, they want to deny the quite ordinary or commonplace motivation for genuinely prosaic behaviour, such as spending too much. This is odd.
Perhaps they want to preserve the notion that man is by nature fundamentally good. In the Guardian article with which I started we are introduced to the concept of the altruistic suicide bomber, a concept derived from the fact that those who survived their attempted bombings claimed to be in pursuit of some altruistic end, when asked afterwards. It is surely very naïve to take this at face value: anyone caught in the middle of committing, and prevented from continuing, genocide would presumably argue the same thing. What the intellectual does not want to admit is that there is a joy in rage, and a joy in expressing that rage by evil deeds. And this is because we are constituted as we are: original sin, if that is how you want to put it.
Similarly, lust for easy gain is common enough. It is a human universal, not in the sense that it has always existed in all places and everywhere, but in the sense that it exists as soon as there is the opportunity for it to manifest itself. That is to say, there will be no final victory over such greed, and I have very little doubt that at some time in the not distant future there will be yet another epidemic of it, if we are not indeed in the midst of one already.
Read the whole good thing (link above). We have always contended here at Maggie's that a flaw in Leftist visions of paradise is an unrealistic view, or I could say fantasy, about the true nature of fallen mankind.
The book review in the New York Times of the new edition of Friedrich Hayek's Constitution of Liberty credits his thought -- at core, distrust of central government and its ability to coordinate society better than the agglomeration of individual and local choices -- as winning since the 1980s. As the reviewer says, "President Obama’s return to “big government” didn’t last more than a year before it was met with fierce resistance."
The reviewer, still, raises limitations on that core thought as presented from Left and Right, but moreso from practicalities and realities in some cases, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 needed central government to correct a long-lasting wrong.
All well and good. But, doesn't undermine Hayek's core point, except in cases of major and agreed need.
The criticism from the Left is spurious. The economic and social schemes of government to increase the freedom, as the Left sees it, of the population have proven largely failures and counterproductive.
The criticism from the Right bears more weight, although the reviewer doesn't delve deeper than this:
A second critique of Hayek has tended to come from the right. He is necessarily a moral relativist, since he does not believe that there is a higher perspective from which one person can dictate another’s ends. Morality for him is more like a useful coordinating device than a categorical imperative. But surely the Western tradition that Hayek celebrates is as concerned with virtue as with freedom, whether from the standpoint of Christianity or that of classical republicanism. One searches in vain through this or any of his other books for a serious treatment of religion or the moral concerns that animate religious believers.
Just as Big Government is a slippery slope, so too is moral relativism.
Read the review for yourself, and comment. (I've omitted the reviewers name from this post so as not to have it, one way or the other, influence the reader's consideration.) Above all, I think Friedrich Hayek would want you to think for yourself.
In that vein, The Institutional Risk Analyst, presents an essay on Keynesianism corrupted by "today's econometricians pretending they are." The essay requires subscription, so it is presented below (via one of the co-authors blog; and don't miss the real story of Gunnar Myrdal, Hayek's co-winner for economics of the Nobel Prize). First, an excerpt:
It is true that Keynes was an interventionist, that he believed government had a role and should employ it, to curb and limit the business cycles which have dominated modern economic life since The Industrial Revolution began with the advent of capitalism -- and perhaps before. But Keynes set strict limits on how governments might borrow and toss capital into the machinery to get it up and going again.
h/t Insty, who has been doing a heck of a job lately. I have never understood why people who view themselves as my betters seem to want to control me and my way of life. What motivates that desire for control?
Teaching writing is a difficult task, if not a nearly impossible one. Eliminating standards and propagandizing is so much easier. So easy, any idiot can - and does - do it.
The thing is, you don't have to know a damn thing about the craft of writing to propagandize. This is truly appalling: Writing Teachers: Still Crazy After All These Years. Crazy, for sure, and utterly out of reality and out of usefulness.
You have to either laugh or cry.
It sounds like going to writing class today is like going to shop class and learning about the oppression of the worker instead of how to use a lathe. Might be useful if you want to become a Community Organizer, but not if you ever want to make anything.
Has America slowly become a greedy entitlement culture, in which there is no longer any shame in taking from one's neighbors? Wish I had written this, by Harsanyi: If Washington Is So Great, Let's All Pay for It. One quote:
If, as the enlightened voices on the left contend, the American people deeply love their federal services, their dependency programs, their regulations, their industrious public education department, let's all pay. Why shouldn't we take on a proportionally fair share in the joy? Even income tax-paying Americans don't really feel the cost of government because of how we collect taxes. But let's create better consumers. Consumers pay and demand results. Dependents, on the other hand, just demand. They have no reason not to.
In my view, we are at a tipping point when half the country has become pure free-loaders, and many more have their favorite freebies. See Poll shows Americans oppose entitlement cuts to deal with debt problem. I am a flat-taxer. No personal deductions either. No business or corporate taxes, and no estate tax. (I also want means-testing for Social Security and Medicare, which is just one reason I am not in politics).
Think of how much money would be saved on lawyers, accountants and tax-planners. That money could be used productively - by us (not by the government).
Of course, if my American Vision were magically realized, the Left would just re-create the whole mess again. The vote-buying, the handouts, the deductions, etc.
Am I the only person who takes no freebies and wants no freebies from anybody else?
We in America have created suicidal government; the threatened federal shutdown and stubborn budget deficits are but symptoms. By suicidal, I mean that government has promised more than it can realistically deliver and, as a result, repeatedly disappoints by providing less than people expect or jeopardizing what they already have. But government can't easily correct its excesses, because Americans depend on it for so much that any effort to change the status arouses a firestorm of opposition that virtually ensures defeat. Government's very expansion has brought it into disrepute, paralyzed politics and impeded it from acting in the national interest.
Few Americans realize the extent of their dependency. The Census Bureau reports that in 2009 almost half (46.2 percent) of the 300 million Americans received at least one federal benefit: 46.5 million, Social Security; 42.6 million, Medicare; 42.4 million, Medicaid; 36.1 million, food stamps; 3.2 million, veterans' benefits; 12.4 million, housing subsidies. The Census list doesn't include tax breaks. Counting those, perhaps three-quarters or more of Americans receive some sizable government benefit. For example, about 22 percent of taxpayers benefit from the home mortgage interest deduction and 43 percent from the preferential treatment of employer-provided health insurance, says the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
"Once politics was about only a few things; today, it is about nearly everything," writes the eminent political scientist James Q. Wilson in a recent collection of essays ("American Politics, Then and Now"). The concept of "vital national interest" is stretched. We deploy government casually to satisfy any mass desire, correct any perceived social shortcoming or remedy any market deficiency...
The only reason I care about politics is because politics cares (too much) about me.
Very good essay on the fate of Detroit - and similar cities - by Wretchard: The Field of Dreams. A quote:
Mayor Bing’s plan to build developments recalls nothing so much as the South Seas cargo cults who believed all that was necessary to make the skies rain with goodies was to build a dirt airstrip and palm-leaf control tower to attract resupply flights from somewhere. “If you build it, they will come”.
Who “they” is remains unclear. But they are out there.
As Glenn Reynolds said (who he quotes):
The government decides to try to increase the middle class by subsidizing things that middle class people have: If middle-class people go to college and own homes, then surely if more people go to college and own homes, we’ll have more middle-class people. But homeownership and college aren’t causes of middle-class status, they’re markers for possessing the kinds of traits — self-discipline, the ability to defer gratification, etc. — that let you enter, and stay, in the middle class. Subsidizing the markers doesn’t produce the traits; if anything, it undermines them.
Change rarely comes from the outside, in. Recall "urban renewal." Now, those brownstone "slums" that didn't get torn down go for millions in New York, while the "modern" and "dignified" public housing projects are nightmares, socio-cultural wastelands which even cops are reluctant to enter.
All over the developed world, nations are coming to terms with the fact that the social-democratic welfare state is turning out to be untenable. The reason is partly institutional: The administrative state is dismally inefficient and unresponsive, and therefore ill-suited to our age of endless choice and variety. The reason is also partly cultural and moral: The attempt to rescue the citizen from the burdens of responsibility has undermined the family, self-reliance, and self-government. But, in practice, it is above all fiscal: The welfare state has turned out to be unaffordable, dependent as it is upon dubious economics and the demographic model of a bygone era. Sustaining existing programs of social insurance, let alone continuing to build new ones on the social-democratic model, has become increasingly difficult in recent years, and projections for the coming decades paint an impossibly grim and baleful picture. There is simply no way that Europe, Japan, or America can actually go where the economists' long-term charts now point — to debts that utterly overwhelm their productive capacities, governments that do almost nothing but support the elderly, and economies with no room for dynamism, for growth, or for youth. Some change must come, and so it will.
But fully grasping this reality will not be easy. Our attachment to the social-democratic vision means that we tend to equate its exhaustion with our own exhaustion, and so to fall into a most un-American melancholy. On the left, fear of decline is now answered only with false hope that the dream may yet be saved through clever tinkering at the edges. On the right, the coming collapse of the liberal welfare state brings calls for austerity — for less of the same — which only highlight the degree to which conservatives, too, are stuck in the social-democratic mindset.
I invite you to consider the limits of simple moral impulse as a sufficient justification for making a choice. The fashion for assuming that to discover how we should act we need only look within our own hearts has gone too far.
The failure of blue social policy to create an environment which works for Blacks is the most devastating possible indictment of the 20th century liberal enterprise in the United States. Helping Blacks achieve the kind of equality and opportunity long denied them was more than one of many justifications for blue social policy: it was the defining moral task that has challenged and shaped American liberalism for the last fifty years.
The Census tells us that in the eyes of those who know best, these well intentioned efforts failed. Instead of heaven, we have hell across America’s inner cities. Blue economic policy has cut the creation of new private sector jobs to a trickle in our great cities, while the high costs of public union urban services (and policies that favor government employees over the citizenry at large) impose crippling taxes and contribute to the ruinously high costs that blight opportunity. All the social welfare bureaucracies, diversity counselors and minority set-asides can’t make up for the colossal failure of blue social policy to create sustainable lower middle class prosperity in our cities.
I do not agree with some of what Mead says in his essay, but it's an interesting piece. I am more of the Moynihan persuasion; to get government out of the way. I do wonder, however, how come every minimart and deli and coffee shop and dry cleaners I see opening is opened by new immigrant Moslems who hardly speak English, instead of by American black folk who have attended American schools and speak English. Despite the Leftist assaults, I suppose, family remains the cornerstone of civilized, structured, and productive life. If you do not build supportive bonds with the people you create, no government can save your life, your soul, or provide you with dignity.
But don’t worry. Individual liberty is overrated and inherently messy, anyway — and besides, who wants to follow a plan set out by dead white European males? Did the stupid patriarchy spell out the right to collectively bargain, or the right to high speed internet access for all?
No. So fuck them right in their tri-corned hats. It’s 2011. Like, over a hundred years after these slave owners scribbled on a parchment. We have computers now. And Twitter. Time to fix shit. You know, for freedom.
Obamacare is like that, isn't it? And Romneycare. And do not forget to smile while you eat that government cheese. "Freedom" means eating what the government gives you: FDR taught us that.
It is politically risky to try to be a responsible politician (and most politicians don't want to have to go back to real, productive jobs unless all it is is to be a lunching lobbyist rainmaker). See Politico's Govs face budget blowback.
Better just keep borrowing from the Chinese until they own the US. Let our kids worry about it.
I keep saying that the "entitlement mentality" is not just a problem here; it's a problem in the entire industrialized world. England, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, the USA...governments are beggaring themselves (and their productive taxpaying citizens) trying to fund their brobdingnagian welfare-state apparatus.
As Steyn said in our link this morning: "The collapse of the Entitlement State is not going to be pretty."
This state of childishness, this dependency explains the stunningly supine acceptance of the take over of Sweden by an alien human horde that couldn’t be more incompatible with Sweden’s centuries-old culture even if they rode around on giraffes and lived off boiled vulture. Getting your mouth on the tit is Job No. 1 and daddy and mommy will take care of any unpleasantness, notwithstanding the complete absence of evidence that mommy and daddy want to take care of the Unpleasantness in Question.
- the attitude that society should be governed by an elite group of individuals
- 1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. 2. (A) The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class. ...
- someone who believes in rule by an elite group
Well, if you perused my pedigree, resume, career, J. Press tweedy and conservative life style, and the respectable, intelligent, accomplished, well-educated, well-behaved and refined people with whom I tend to associate, some might consider me one of America's elite. Given the definitions I found, however, I am not: I have no interest in power or control over anybody, and despise anybody who thinks they deserve that position. I lack all desire to tell anybody how to live other than myself, and I am not even especially good at that. Beneath my superficial aspects beats the simple heart of my free, crusty and cantankerous independent Yankee farmer ancestors who had far more freedom than we have today.
For example, when it comes to politics, the only politicians I trust are the crooked ones. They don't seek power over me and have no plans to make my life "better" - they just want money, chicks, easy jobs without meaningful accountability, and maybe some support for their weak egos. Let them have that if that's what they need, just so long as they leave me, my life, and my hard-earned assets alone. I will not be an obedient and passive serf like some of my Brit ancestors doubtless were, sending most of their grain or wool to their superiors.
We are not an aristocracy here. Let the elites figure out how to run their own lives (in general, I am not impressed), instead of trying to run mine. A few relevant links:
All over the developed world, nations are coming to terms with the fact that the social-democratic welfare state is turning out to be untenable. The reason is partly institutional: The administrative state is dismally inefficient and unresponsive, and therefore ill-suited to our age of endless choice and variety. The reason is also partly cultural and moral: The attempt to rescue the citizen from the burdens of responsibility has undermined the family, self-reliance, and self-government. But, in practice, it is above all fiscal: The welfare state has turned out to be unaffordable, dependent as it is upon dubious economics and the demographic model of a bygone era.
At 
At Pajamas, 
I don't think you can attribute all of the prosperity of Medieval Europe to the Medieval Warm Period, but surely some of it.
GOP Appears