My Neo-Marxist professor got me thinking yesterday. He talked about how economists always recommend libertarian policies but never argue for the abolishment of government. (I am paraphrasing. He is a Neo-Marxist and presented an argument about how wealth generating government services provided benefits that were forgotten in welfare analysis.)
Of course; the economists are getting paid by the government. Nobody wants to completely chop off the hand that feeds them. No economist is confident enough to believe that they could succeed without government handouts.
They put up a new bulletin board highlighting the College of Agriculture's goals. I am ashamed. The whole building and everyone who works in it, including myself, is looting Virginia's and the United States's citizens. We are modern day Robin Hoods. We take from the competent and give to the incompetent, making sure to get our share.
"Economics is political." James Buchanan
I am at a crossroads. I can either continue down the path I have chosen. It is safe. It is the interstate. I know what is coming ahead. I know there are plenty of well-marked exits. Or, I can take the treacherous backroad. The Sirens of those backroads are so tempting. And maybe, just maybe, the Sirens are worth it.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Personal Rights Declaration
No, I cannot know it all. Yes, there will always be someone better. But, I will always be correct in pursuing perfection. No matter if the pursuit is through books or a small grocery store.
"I have the right to exist." I have the right to pursue happiness as I deem fit.
Nobody can take my "right to exist" away from me unless I allow them. If I allow them, then I have given them my soul.
I am right; they are wrong.
(The "right to exist" was coined and explained best by Ayn Rand.)
"I have the right to exist." I have the right to pursue happiness as I deem fit.
Nobody can take my "right to exist" away from me unless I allow them. If I allow them, then I have given them my soul.
I am right; they are wrong.
(The "right to exist" was coined and explained best by Ayn Rand.)
Friday, September 23, 2005
The Difference and Wherever I End Up
I got to sit behind James Buchanan at a seminar today, therefore even though I know better, I feel like the study of economics has purpose.
Donald McCloskey writes "the reader is sovereign." I add that 'the audience is sovereign.' Presentation is everything (that is why pornstars shave). If you have a great idea but you cannot convince people that it is great, then it is your fault not the audience's or the reader's. You cannot call everyone (except for yourself) idiots and retreat to your office. You must do some honest self-reflection and improve your idea or your presentation.
Today's seminar taught me that pure positivism is masturbation without climax. Who cares about what is? I know what is. I do not need someone to tell me about it. It is not interesting that temperatures have risen for the past 50 years. The interesting questions are: Why has temperature risen? and What can we do about it?
"The political philosopher cannot discharge his task if he confines himself to be limited by positivism of the scientist, which confines his functions to showing what is the case and forbids any discussion of what ought to be. If he does so, he will have to stop long before he has performed his most important function." F.A. Hayek
Economists are political philosophers. No, good economists are political philosophers.
I just purchased "August and Everything After" again. I can remember my first reaction (at 14 or so) his (Duritz's) voice is monotone. "I have been here before and I deserve a little more. I belong in the service of the queen. I belong anywhere but in between."--Rain King
Where do I belong?
Donald McCloskey writes "the reader is sovereign." I add that 'the audience is sovereign.' Presentation is everything (that is why pornstars shave). If you have a great idea but you cannot convince people that it is great, then it is your fault not the audience's or the reader's. You cannot call everyone (except for yourself) idiots and retreat to your office. You must do some honest self-reflection and improve your idea or your presentation.
Today's seminar taught me that pure positivism is masturbation without climax. Who cares about what is? I know what is. I do not need someone to tell me about it. It is not interesting that temperatures have risen for the past 50 years. The interesting questions are: Why has temperature risen? and What can we do about it?
"The political philosopher cannot discharge his task if he confines himself to be limited by positivism of the scientist, which confines his functions to showing what is the case and forbids any discussion of what ought to be. If he does so, he will have to stop long before he has performed his most important function." F.A. Hayek
Economists are political philosophers. No, good economists are political philosophers.
I just purchased "August and Everything After" again. I can remember my first reaction (at 14 or so) his (Duritz's) voice is monotone. "I have been here before and I deserve a little more. I belong in the service of the queen. I belong anywhere but in between."--Rain King
Where do I belong?
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Meaningless Papers, Oaks, Maples, and Apple Trees Or That Girl In The Gym
Spending the majority of your life redefining greatness
You cannot spend life
It is neither a good nor a service
You are here; You are there
Forget that fucking fear
Yeah, you would like your dreams
Everybody wants heaven
But nobody gets it
We live to formulate teams
But there are no wins
Just ties
When you think you're losing
When you think you're down
Somebody stood and blocked your way
When you'd give it all just to escape the fray
Remember short shorts in the month of May
Those papers, those tests, those arbitrary points
Don't mean much
But legs that go all the way up
That beauty--that fucking beauty
Makes everything worth it
You cannot spend life
It is neither a good nor a service
You are here; You are there
Forget that fucking fear
Yeah, you would like your dreams
Everybody wants heaven
But nobody gets it
We live to formulate teams
But there are no wins
Just ties
When you think you're losing
When you think you're down
Somebody stood and blocked your way
When you'd give it all just to escape the fray
Remember short shorts in the month of May
Those papers, those tests, those arbitrary points
Don't mean much
But legs that go all the way up
That beauty--that fucking beauty
Makes everything worth it
Monday, September 19, 2005
What If We Gave Deer Guns?
They could not shoot them, because they do not have opposable thumbs.
What if we ended welfare and social security?
Those effected people would find new ways of surviving or perish. Just like with Katrina, people would come to the aide of their fellow man.
What if we withdrew from the WTO and eliminated all subsidies and tariffs?
We would be better off than we are now.
What if we ended welfare and social security?
Those effected people would find new ways of surviving or perish. Just like with Katrina, people would come to the aide of their fellow man.
What if we withdrew from the WTO and eliminated all subsidies and tariffs?
We would be better off than we are now.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Sickening Or A Fat Man Thinks Differently Than A Skinny Man
I am sitting at this seminar. These two girls sitting behind me comment on how much they dislike Wal-Mart. Target was okay, but Wal-Mart was the anti-Christ.
I happened to be sitting with six colleagues from developing countries. I told them after the seminar what the girls had said. I then went on a rampage about how half of America (including most of my American colleagues) want to go back to the horse and buggy days. "Horses and buggies, I tell you." I told them how half of the world hated success and that is the real reason those girls hated Wal-Mart. They were champions of mediocrity. I went to a seminar last Friday that said that in developing countries smaller grocery store chains had one strategy, "copy Wal-Mart." I told them how the girls thought they knew what was best for everyone. They wanted to tell me where to shop and what to buy. I would have loved to see those girls riding in a horse and buggy and trying to not step in horse shit. I would have loved to see what they thought of their anti-consumer (not anti-consumerism, Bastiat said it best, "we are all consumers.") philosophy when they were dying of the bubonic plague in a barn without electricity trying to defend themselves from rats eating at their dying bodies.
My developing country colleagues just smiled at me. They knew in those champions of mediocrity lay opportunities for their children. They also knew it was easy for a fat man to complain.
I also saw these sorority girls running around in boy's underwear trying to get boys to sign their tighty whities. Unfortunately, the underwear was wore on top of jeans. They did not ask me to sign. I don't think I would have anyway.
Nobody has ever attempted to convert me to a religion either. Should I be concerned?
I happened to be sitting with six colleagues from developing countries. I told them after the seminar what the girls had said. I then went on a rampage about how half of America (including most of my American colleagues) want to go back to the horse and buggy days. "Horses and buggies, I tell you." I told them how half of the world hated success and that is the real reason those girls hated Wal-Mart. They were champions of mediocrity. I went to a seminar last Friday that said that in developing countries smaller grocery store chains had one strategy, "copy Wal-Mart." I told them how the girls thought they knew what was best for everyone. They wanted to tell me where to shop and what to buy. I would have loved to see those girls riding in a horse and buggy and trying to not step in horse shit. I would have loved to see what they thought of their anti-consumer (not anti-consumerism, Bastiat said it best, "we are all consumers.") philosophy when they were dying of the bubonic plague in a barn without electricity trying to defend themselves from rats eating at their dying bodies.
My developing country colleagues just smiled at me. They knew in those champions of mediocrity lay opportunities for their children. They also knew it was easy for a fat man to complain.
I also saw these sorority girls running around in boy's underwear trying to get boys to sign their tighty whities. Unfortunately, the underwear was wore on top of jeans. They did not ask me to sign. I don't think I would have anyway.
Nobody has ever attempted to convert me to a religion either. Should I be concerned?
Sunday, September 11, 2005
N'Awlins and September 11th
I invite people to read ESPN.com's E-Ticket http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=nawlins. I think it was supposed to flatter New Orleans, but it did not do much for me. New Orleans seemed like a town that held a lot of memories for tourists, but in the end, it seemed like that guy who got into drugs in the 8th grade and just never stopped doing them. You always had a good time with him, but you did not want anybody of importance to know that you knew him. His lifestyle always intrigued you, but you would never give up your lifestyle and join him permanently. You might hang out for a while, but you really were not his friend.
What I am trying to say with this rambling paragraph is that I think ESPN.com should have rethought their Eticket article. Or maybe New Orleans was just that guy.
Here is an essay on remembering September 11th. What worries me most about many of my colleagues is that they do not want to lay blame on the terrorists.
---------
1. What Have We Lost?
by Robert Tracinski
originally published September 10, 2002
One year later, the hole in New York's skyline where the World Trade Center towers once stood is a visual reminder of something else that is missing: the ideas and attitudes that make a vigorous war in America's self-defense possible.
For many of us, the immediate reaction to September 11 was more than anger. It was a livid indignation that demanded that America strike back with overwhelming force.
But this natural war frenzy was carefully suppressed from the very beginning. A typical news story was one that appeared just two weeks after September 11, presenting one-paragraph descriptions of viewers' reactions when they saw the World Trade Center towers collapse on live television. The interviews expressed sorrow, shock, disbelief--but conspicuously absent were any expressions of indignation at our enemies or the desire to kill them. Such statements were carefully screened out, with one exception. A high-school teacher explained, "There were a lot of kids who said, 'We need to just blow them away.' ... 'I want us to go to war. I want to go over there and kill them all.' And I said, 'Anyone who wants us to go into a war does not have the mental maturity to fight in that war.' "
This sums up the relationship, over the last year, between the American people and the intellectuals--the writers, professors, and media pundits who are supposed to provide guidance in times of national crisis. These intellectuals view it as their job to belittle the American people's natural self-assertiveness and to beat down our national pride. As one columnist sneered: "Has there ever been a nation before in all of history so confident of the superiority of its cause and its power?"
The question was meant rhetorically, as if national self-confidence were a self-evident evil. But that kind of confidence--and the fact that we can back it up--is one of America's greatest achievements.
National pride is the conviction that our ideals and institutions are both moral and practical, that they make us good and they make us strong. America is the first and only nation founded on the moral principle of individual rights, and we have historically been the standard-bearers of liberty. At the same time, the clear lesson of history is that our liberty makes us prosperous and powerful; America is known to the whole world both as the "land of opportunity" and as the world's sole "superpower."
The result, in American culture, is the unique brand of fearlessness and optimism that our intellectuals regard as an arrogant presumption. Americans do not accept the idea that man is doomed to suffering and death; we do not accept that we must resign ourselves to being a target of other people's hatred; we do not accept that we should scale back our ambitions to avoid offending our enemies. Americans believe that it is natural for us to succeed, which means: to win wars and preserve our inviolability from external attack.
Today's intellectuals attack this attitude directly, by denouncing America's "jingoistic bluster" or "imperialism." But more insidious--and effective--are the subtle ways they try to break down American self-assertiveness.
Consider the basic pattern of the mainstream media coverage of September 11--and its one-year anniversary. The safe, uncontroversial approach is to focus on America's loss, on the suffering of the victims and the grief of their families. It is impolite to focus too much on who caused that loss. This attitude is best captured in one memorial message that refers to the "September 11 disaster," as if it were an earthquake or a mudslide, not an act of mass-murder.
After an act of war by a hostile foreign power, to focus primarily on the suffering of the victims turns our attention inward, discouraging us from looking outward to ensure the destruction of our enemies. It makes us think that the appropriate way to memorialize September 11 is to devote a day to "volunteerism" and "national service"--rather than, say, the bombing of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
But what if we decide to look outward to our enemies? Those whose job is to show us the big picture are trying, instead, to shrink the range of our vision, fixing our attention only on the narrowest concretes. Iraq is working to develop weapons of mass destruction, and Iran is the leading sponsor of Islamic terrorist groups--but what, we are asked, does that have to do with September 11? In this outlook, September 11 is not one event out of a larger pattern; such wider abstractions as "terrorist states" or "Islamic fundamentalism" do not exist. Thus, a worldwide conflict between civilization and barbarism is dissolved into a criminal prosecution against a single gang of terrorists.
By crippling the range of our minds and focusing on suffering instead of self-assertiveness, our intellectual leadership is trying to dampen our pride and blunt our resolve. September 11 should be the one day, every year, that we regain the sense they want us to lose--our sense of America's virtue and of her power--and when we resolve to use the second to defend the first.
What I am trying to say with this rambling paragraph is that I think ESPN.com should have rethought their Eticket article. Or maybe New Orleans was just that guy.
Here is an essay on remembering September 11th. What worries me most about many of my colleagues is that they do not want to lay blame on the terrorists.
---------
1. What Have We Lost?
by Robert Tracinski
originally published September 10, 2002
One year later, the hole in New York's skyline where the World Trade Center towers once stood is a visual reminder of something else that is missing: the ideas and attitudes that make a vigorous war in America's self-defense possible.
For many of us, the immediate reaction to September 11 was more than anger. It was a livid indignation that demanded that America strike back with overwhelming force.
But this natural war frenzy was carefully suppressed from the very beginning. A typical news story was one that appeared just two weeks after September 11, presenting one-paragraph descriptions of viewers' reactions when they saw the World Trade Center towers collapse on live television. The interviews expressed sorrow, shock, disbelief--but conspicuously absent were any expressions of indignation at our enemies or the desire to kill them. Such statements were carefully screened out, with one exception. A high-school teacher explained, "There were a lot of kids who said, 'We need to just blow them away.' ... 'I want us to go to war. I want to go over there and kill them all.' And I said, 'Anyone who wants us to go into a war does not have the mental maturity to fight in that war.' "
This sums up the relationship, over the last year, between the American people and the intellectuals--the writers, professors, and media pundits who are supposed to provide guidance in times of national crisis. These intellectuals view it as their job to belittle the American people's natural self-assertiveness and to beat down our national pride. As one columnist sneered: "Has there ever been a nation before in all of history so confident of the superiority of its cause and its power?"
The question was meant rhetorically, as if national self-confidence were a self-evident evil. But that kind of confidence--and the fact that we can back it up--is one of America's greatest achievements.
National pride is the conviction that our ideals and institutions are both moral and practical, that they make us good and they make us strong. America is the first and only nation founded on the moral principle of individual rights, and we have historically been the standard-bearers of liberty. At the same time, the clear lesson of history is that our liberty makes us prosperous and powerful; America is known to the whole world both as the "land of opportunity" and as the world's sole "superpower."
The result, in American culture, is the unique brand of fearlessness and optimism that our intellectuals regard as an arrogant presumption. Americans do not accept the idea that man is doomed to suffering and death; we do not accept that we must resign ourselves to being a target of other people's hatred; we do not accept that we should scale back our ambitions to avoid offending our enemies. Americans believe that it is natural for us to succeed, which means: to win wars and preserve our inviolability from external attack.
Today's intellectuals attack this attitude directly, by denouncing America's "jingoistic bluster" or "imperialism." But more insidious--and effective--are the subtle ways they try to break down American self-assertiveness.
Consider the basic pattern of the mainstream media coverage of September 11--and its one-year anniversary. The safe, uncontroversial approach is to focus on America's loss, on the suffering of the victims and the grief of their families. It is impolite to focus too much on who caused that loss. This attitude is best captured in one memorial message that refers to the "September 11 disaster," as if it were an earthquake or a mudslide, not an act of mass-murder.
After an act of war by a hostile foreign power, to focus primarily on the suffering of the victims turns our attention inward, discouraging us from looking outward to ensure the destruction of our enemies. It makes us think that the appropriate way to memorialize September 11 is to devote a day to "volunteerism" and "national service"--rather than, say, the bombing of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
But what if we decide to look outward to our enemies? Those whose job is to show us the big picture are trying, instead, to shrink the range of our vision, fixing our attention only on the narrowest concretes. Iraq is working to develop weapons of mass destruction, and Iran is the leading sponsor of Islamic terrorist groups--but what, we are asked, does that have to do with September 11? In this outlook, September 11 is not one event out of a larger pattern; such wider abstractions as "terrorist states" or "Islamic fundamentalism" do not exist. Thus, a worldwide conflict between civilization and barbarism is dissolved into a criminal prosecution against a single gang of terrorists.
By crippling the range of our minds and focusing on suffering instead of self-assertiveness, our intellectual leadership is trying to dampen our pride and blunt our resolve. September 11 should be the one day, every year, that we regain the sense they want us to lose--our sense of America's virtue and of her power--and when we resolve to use the second to defend the first.
Saturday, September 10, 2005
"I Ain't No Glamour Boy, I'm Fierce"*
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000129.html
It is long, but it needs to be read.
Somebody has to prevent the wolves from killing the sheep, and some have to teach the wolves that killing sheep does not make the wolves' lives any better. Voluntary forbearance is a concept that every person in any successful society must understand. Unfortunately, there are a many people in America who do not understand that laws are not made by government but made by eternal Truths. Murder is not against the law because the State of Virginia says it is. It is against the law because it should and has to be.
I was conversing with ten intelligent people one night, and the subject of whether the building code required fans in bathrooms was discussed. One faction said that it was not in the building code; the others said that it definitely was. Individuals started calling their architect friends and other experts on the building code. I suggested that the proper discussion was whether it should be part of the building code (and should we even have a building code). Nobody wanted to talk about this normative subject. It was much easier to accept that our government and its laws were always just. I was the only one who understood that if it was right to put fans in bathrooms, then I would put a fan in the bathroom. If it was not right, then I would not put a fan in the bathroom. I did not give a shit (I had to do it) what the bureaucratic building code said.
When everybody accepts positive and pragmatic philosophies, the world has no chance at progressing. All one has to do is look at the economics profession to see where positivism gets oneself.
REM's Up is a great album that no one fully appreciates.
*from Living Colour's "Glamour Boy"
It is long, but it needs to be read.
Somebody has to prevent the wolves from killing the sheep, and some have to teach the wolves that killing sheep does not make the wolves' lives any better. Voluntary forbearance is a concept that every person in any successful society must understand. Unfortunately, there are a many people in America who do not understand that laws are not made by government but made by eternal Truths. Murder is not against the law because the State of Virginia says it is. It is against the law because it should and has to be.
I was conversing with ten intelligent people one night, and the subject of whether the building code required fans in bathrooms was discussed. One faction said that it was not in the building code; the others said that it definitely was. Individuals started calling their architect friends and other experts on the building code. I suggested that the proper discussion was whether it should be part of the building code (and should we even have a building code). Nobody wanted to talk about this normative subject. It was much easier to accept that our government and its laws were always just. I was the only one who understood that if it was right to put fans in bathrooms, then I would put a fan in the bathroom. If it was not right, then I would not put a fan in the bathroom. I did not give a shit (I had to do it) what the bureaucratic building code said.
When everybody accepts positive and pragmatic philosophies, the world has no chance at progressing. All one has to do is look at the economics profession to see where positivism gets oneself.
REM's Up is a great album that no one fully appreciates.
*from Living Colour's "Glamour Boy"
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Fear and Two Questions
I tried to tell a colleague earlier this week that there were only two things that made me scared: talking to a beautiful woman and heavy squats. I was wrong. The fear of failure eats me like a rat would, in slow purposeful bites. I want to kick the damn thing to get it off of me, but I am paralyzed.
Karl Malone went to three NBA Championships with the motivation from this fear. Michael Jordan won six NBA titles without fear of failure. It is the difference between being good and great. As long as fear of failure consumes me, one cannot be great.
What would have happened if government did not take over money printing?
What would have happened if government did not incubate the internet?
Both of these questions are threatening to destroy my philosophical foundation.
Karl Malone went to three NBA Championships with the motivation from this fear. Michael Jordan won six NBA titles without fear of failure. It is the difference between being good and great. As long as fear of failure consumes me, one cannot be great.
What would have happened if government did not take over money printing?
What would have happened if government did not incubate the internet?
Both of these questions are threatening to destroy my philosophical foundation.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Sarah Vaughan Singing "My Favorite Things"
Two professors proposed an alternative to traditional economics. But instead of rejecting the idea that economics is science, they said that we have to adjust our methods to make it more scientific. One concentrated on improving empirics. The other concentrated on changing the limiting assumptions that handcuff economics.
Neither one has convinced me that they are right. Economics is philosophy, and one cannot make it more scientific without rejecting its didactic lessons. James Buchanan put it best, "Economics is a very peculiar "science."
It should be a fun semester.
There are two songs that stimulate my tear ducts: Dave Brubeck's "Somewhere" and Sarah Vaughan singing "My Favorite Things".
"Somewhere" reminds me that the emptiness man feels is matched by a Truth (God) that is somewhere waiting to be found.
"My Favorite Things" is lyrically and musically pretty simple, but Vaughan's unrelenting attempt to be cheerful in the midst of hopelessness destroys the protective shell that functional adults must erect.
Neither one has convinced me that they are right. Economics is philosophy, and one cannot make it more scientific without rejecting its didactic lessons. James Buchanan put it best, "Economics is a very peculiar "science."
It should be a fun semester.
There are two songs that stimulate my tear ducts: Dave Brubeck's "Somewhere" and Sarah Vaughan singing "My Favorite Things".
"Somewhere" reminds me that the emptiness man feels is matched by a Truth (God) that is somewhere waiting to be found.
"My Favorite Things" is lyrically and musically pretty simple, but Vaughan's unrelenting attempt to be cheerful in the midst of hopelessness destroys the protective shell that functional adults must erect.
Monday, August 22, 2005
I Might Be Breaking Copywrite Law, But Something Wonderfully Said Needs A Wider Audience
TIA Daily Feature Article
9. From Shindler to Sheehan
How Two Mothers Demonstrate the Convergence of Faith and Feelings
by Robert Tracinski
For the next issue of TIA Monthly, I have recently been finishing up a feature article on the life of Pope John Paul II and the Terri Schiavo case--and what they show, philosophically, about the relationship between faith and freedom. Along with the unenviable task of slogging through long, poorly written papal encyclicals, this work emerged me back into some of TIA Daily's coverage of the Terri Schiavo case. And while reading through the details of that case--particularly stories about Mary Schindler, Terri Schiavo's mother, who fought against the court ruling which ended her daughter's living death--I got an eerie feeling of deja vu.
I was reminded of the whole "feel" of Schindler's campaign: her maudlin, emotional appeals to the "special bond" between mother and child; her imputing of her own religious views onto her daughter, contrary to evidence about her daughter's actual views; her unscrupulous campaign to smear Michael Schiavo as a wife abuser and murderer; her willingness to ally herself with any crazy fanatic or showboating politician, from abortion-clinic bombers to Jesse Jackson; her apparent enjoyment of the role of the victimized mother and the time it gave her in the spotlight--and, above all, the willingness of conservatives to play along with this circus, as when Daniel Henninger, in the March 25 Wall Street Journal (see http://tinyurl.com/5boo7) came out in favor of "her poor mother, whose connection to her child-like daughter is more authentic and earned than anything that existed between Terri and Michael Schiavo."
Does any of that feel familiar?
Today, down in Texas, we have another mother, who is demanding an American surrender in Iraq, and her campaign has exactly the same "feel": her maudlin, emotional appeals to her grief over her lost son; her imputing of her own political views onto him, contrary to evidence about his actual intentions; her unscrupulous campaign to smear President Bush as a liar and "terrorist"; her willingness to ally herself with any crazy fanatic or showboating politician, including open terrorist sympathizers; her apparent enjoyment of the role of the victimized mother and the time it gives her in the spotlight--and this time, it is liberals who are playing along with this circus, as when Maureen Dowd, in her August 10 New York Times column (now only available in their pay-per-article archive), granted Cindy Sheehan an "absolute moral authority"--never mind the views of the thousands of other parents and spouses who have lost loved ones in this war.
Cindy Sheehan, in short, is the left's answer to Mary Schindler. And the circus surrounding both women is equally nauseating.
The common element is clear: each case is a pure, raw appeal to emotion. And worse, this is not an appeal to the viewer's _own_ emotional reaction--that is, it is not an attempt to elicit the viewer's own spontaneous evaluation in response to certain facts. Rather, it is an utterly second-handed appeal: it is an appeal to Mary Shindler's or Cindy Sheehan's emotions, on the expectation that this other person's emotions should influence or outweigh our own conclusions and evaluations.
This is another demonstration of the way in which the left and right support each other. Of course, the left and right disagreed in their evaluations of the two women and their causes. The left dismissed Mary Schindler, while the right reviles Cindy Sheehan. But both sides are united in their method: when it comes to issues that form the core of their agenda, they think that emotion overrules reason. And for each side, this is an ineradicable part of their basic philosophy: for the subjectivist left, emotion is a metaphysical issue, since emotions are the shapers of reality; for the religious right, emotions are a mystical tie to God, who is the creator of the world and the source of moral law.
And so, for all of the disagreement of the two camps on specific applications, these two women show us the convergence of the seemingly opposite methodologies of religion and subjectivism, of faith and feelings.
9. From Shindler to Sheehan
How Two Mothers Demonstrate the Convergence of Faith and Feelings
by Robert Tracinski
For the next issue of TIA Monthly, I have recently been finishing up a feature article on the life of Pope John Paul II and the Terri Schiavo case--and what they show, philosophically, about the relationship between faith and freedom. Along with the unenviable task of slogging through long, poorly written papal encyclicals, this work emerged me back into some of TIA Daily's coverage of the Terri Schiavo case. And while reading through the details of that case--particularly stories about Mary Schindler, Terri Schiavo's mother, who fought against the court ruling which ended her daughter's living death--I got an eerie feeling of deja vu.
I was reminded of the whole "feel" of Schindler's campaign: her maudlin, emotional appeals to the "special bond" between mother and child; her imputing of her own religious views onto her daughter, contrary to evidence about her daughter's actual views; her unscrupulous campaign to smear Michael Schiavo as a wife abuser and murderer; her willingness to ally herself with any crazy fanatic or showboating politician, from abortion-clinic bombers to Jesse Jackson; her apparent enjoyment of the role of the victimized mother and the time it gave her in the spotlight--and, above all, the willingness of conservatives to play along with this circus, as when Daniel Henninger, in the March 25 Wall Street Journal (see http://tinyurl.com/5boo7) came out in favor of "her poor mother, whose connection to her child-like daughter is more authentic and earned than anything that existed between Terri and Michael Schiavo."
Does any of that feel familiar?
Today, down in Texas, we have another mother, who is demanding an American surrender in Iraq, and her campaign has exactly the same "feel": her maudlin, emotional appeals to her grief over her lost son; her imputing of her own political views onto him, contrary to evidence about his actual intentions; her unscrupulous campaign to smear President Bush as a liar and "terrorist"; her willingness to ally herself with any crazy fanatic or showboating politician, including open terrorist sympathizers; her apparent enjoyment of the role of the victimized mother and the time it gives her in the spotlight--and this time, it is liberals who are playing along with this circus, as when Maureen Dowd, in her August 10 New York Times column (now only available in their pay-per-article archive), granted Cindy Sheehan an "absolute moral authority"--never mind the views of the thousands of other parents and spouses who have lost loved ones in this war.
Cindy Sheehan, in short, is the left's answer to Mary Schindler. And the circus surrounding both women is equally nauseating.
The common element is clear: each case is a pure, raw appeal to emotion. And worse, this is not an appeal to the viewer's _own_ emotional reaction--that is, it is not an attempt to elicit the viewer's own spontaneous evaluation in response to certain facts. Rather, it is an utterly second-handed appeal: it is an appeal to Mary Shindler's or Cindy Sheehan's emotions, on the expectation that this other person's emotions should influence or outweigh our own conclusions and evaluations.
This is another demonstration of the way in which the left and right support each other. Of course, the left and right disagreed in their evaluations of the two women and their causes. The left dismissed Mary Schindler, while the right reviles Cindy Sheehan. But both sides are united in their method: when it comes to issues that form the core of their agenda, they think that emotion overrules reason. And for each side, this is an ineradicable part of their basic philosophy: for the subjectivist left, emotion is a metaphysical issue, since emotions are the shapers of reality; for the religious right, emotions are a mystical tie to God, who is the creator of the world and the source of moral law.
And so, for all of the disagreement of the two camps on specific applications, these two women show us the convergence of the seemingly opposite methodologies of religion and subjectivism, of faith and feelings.
Grand Illusions
I talked to a successful PhD candidate. He said that to be a successful PhD candidate one must memorize efficiently. He also said there is no room for creativity.
I talked to a woman who had a degree in marketing and architecture. She said she could never understand economics, because it lacked practicality.
I explained to a colleague that a failed relationship was a sunk cost. She said that everything could not be broken down into economic terms.
The traditional economics profession will collapse. George Mason will become the premier economics program in this country. Those economists whom can attack practical problems and ingratiate themselves with wider audiences will become the stars and heads of economic departments. Those whom prefer "vain playing with mathematical symbols" will regulate themselves to math departments and anonymity.
As James Buchanan said, "Economics has a didactic role." Those economists whom can teach economic lessons will succeed. Those economists whom either do not know those economic lessons or cannot teach them will be purged from the profession.
I am right with the sunk cost analogy. If a relationship cannot be repaired, then there is no use letting it affect future decisions. There is no use crying over spilt milk. I know it is hard to do, and the Romantic in me will not let me forget the past either. But, economics does have a lesson when it comes to failed relationships. "Economics has a didactic role."
I talked to a woman who had a degree in marketing and architecture. She said she could never understand economics, because it lacked practicality.
I explained to a colleague that a failed relationship was a sunk cost. She said that everything could not be broken down into economic terms.
The traditional economics profession will collapse. George Mason will become the premier economics program in this country. Those economists whom can attack practical problems and ingratiate themselves with wider audiences will become the stars and heads of economic departments. Those whom prefer "vain playing with mathematical symbols" will regulate themselves to math departments and anonymity.
As James Buchanan said, "Economics has a didactic role." Those economists whom can teach economic lessons will succeed. Those economists whom either do not know those economic lessons or cannot teach them will be purged from the profession.
I am right with the sunk cost analogy. If a relationship cannot be repaired, then there is no use letting it affect future decisions. There is no use crying over spilt milk. I know it is hard to do, and the Romantic in me will not let me forget the past either. But, economics does have a lesson when it comes to failed relationships. "Economics has a didactic role."
Thursday, August 18, 2005
"Stealing Hearts At A Traveling Show, For Love Or Money..."*
From www.marginalrevolution.com
U.S. fact of the day
Total tsunami foreign aid from the U.S.: $908 million
U.S. tariff revenue from Sri Lanka, Thailand, India, and Indonesia: $1.87 billion
That is from Foreign Policy, September/October issue.-----Tyler Cowen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not know whether to laugh or cry. Why didn't Clinton and the elder Bush campaign for free trade? What saddens me about these facts is that every consumer in the US has lost pleasure because of policy that was proven ignorant two hundred years ago. If there were no tariffs, would there have already been a tsunami warning system? I do not know. There is no economic study that can show what has been lost and what will be lost without free trade.
*From U2's "Desire"
U.S. fact of the day
Total tsunami foreign aid from the U.S.: $908 million
U.S. tariff revenue from Sri Lanka, Thailand, India, and Indonesia: $1.87 billion
That is from Foreign Policy, September/October issue.-----Tyler Cowen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not know whether to laugh or cry. Why didn't Clinton and the elder Bush campaign for free trade? What saddens me about these facts is that every consumer in the US has lost pleasure because of policy that was proven ignorant two hundred years ago. If there were no tariffs, would there have already been a tsunami warning system? I do not know. There is no economic study that can show what has been lost and what will be lost without free trade.
*From U2's "Desire"
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Personal Growth
I changed clothes in front of a homosexual and felt no animosity.
I think I could handle co-ed (co-rec) lockerooms.
I think I could handle co-ed (co-rec) lockerooms.
Monday, August 15, 2005
Stupid Things I Have Done
I see this could-be model standing alone. I talk to her. She is studying statistics. She gives me the slip not once but twice. My testicles would not let her go. I catch her again and say, "I am trying to improve the relations between our department and statistics." The girl in front of me laughs. I just shrink into the little boy that I am. What do you do?
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
A Quote For The Last Post
"An honest man does not desire until he has identified the object of his desire. He says: "It is, therefore I want it." They [the liars] say: "I want it, therefore it is.""
Ayn Rand
Atlas Shrugged
pg. 1036
Ayn Rand
Atlas Shrugged
pg. 1036
How To Look At A Woman
A colleague (yes, the one who called me sexist) and I have been discussing sexuality, sexism, the degradation of women, and beauty. The colleague claims I am inconsistent. She is right.
Sherri Tracinski's short essay in today's TIA Daily on correctly examining a painting states my ideal much better than I ever could. She understands that I often get entrapped in a single feature and miss the greatness or mediocrity of the woman in front of me. I try to fully observe before forming an opinion, but sometimes a single feature clouds my judgment. I want people to thoroughly examine me, and I think women deserve the same.
A plug:
http://www.TIADaily.com/subscribe
(Bold and Italics Are Mine, WB)
Painting: Princesse de Broglie, 1851-53, by Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres
http://tinyurl.com/9mbog
Or:
http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_of_Art/viewOnezoom.asp?dep=15&zoomFlag=1&viewmode=0&item=1975%2E1%2E186
Thanks to TIA Daily reader Phillip Schearer, who recommended this painting, saying "if this ain't a thing of beauty, nothing is." I heartily agree. I've linked to the Metropolitan Museum of Art's page on this painting for two reasons--this image has the best color representation I've found of this painting, and the museum's site allows you to zoom in to see close-up details of the painting.
There are many different elements that must be present in a work of art for me to consider it good, and an artist has to excel at nearly all of those elements for me to consider a work of art great. As an architect, I am quite used to talking to people about their sense-of-life reactions to a very wide range of things--from the kitchen sink to their most treasured reactions to artworks. And the one constant I've noticed in people's reactions to paintings is that for the most part, they tend to focus on their favorite element while ignoring the other elements of an artwork.
I see people gushing over so-so work because one element of the work hits them on an emotional level--while the rest of the work is merely mediocre. And I see other people react harshly to something truly great because of one tiny element that rubs them the wrong way. In both cases, these reactions are the understandable automatic emotional reactions of their sense of life. But without ever looking carefully at your reactions, you could be gushing over mediocrity while entirely missing greatness.
So when you first look at this painting, note your most positive and most negative reaction about the painting, making your own judgment of this painting's greatness. And then at the end, ask yourself if you considered all of the elements of the painting. If your reaction was anything like Phillip Schearer's, what caused you to declare that this painting beautiful? Is it the princess's physical beauty, the lovingly painted details of the scene, the gentle color harmony, or the calm peacefulness of the scene? And if you look at this painting and declare it terrible, what brings you to that conclusion? Does the subject matter bother you? Do you find a portrait of a woman just standing there lacking in greatness? Do you wish there were more fire in her eye to indicate some conviction or strength of character? Or do the excesses of royalty make you cringe at the exorbitant taxes taken from the rest of society?
Let's take a look at the various elements of this work of art and discover what is good about this painting.
Let's begin by looking at the subject matter--a richly and beautifully cloaked princess. Zoom in to her face and take a look at her expression. While her features are delicate, feminine, and pretty, I can understand someone's reaction to wanting to see something more in her face--some more intense focus, some deeper emotion, some fire of conviction that would provide that emotional fuel we all look for in art. And what about what the princess is doing? She isn't creating anything, she isn't fighting for any value, she is merely leaning against a gold silk chair. My guess is that for those of you who don't see greatness in this work, your response against its might be because you find its subject matter lacking--and that is the weakest aspect of this painting.
It is a natural tendency for people to react to artwork by subject matter alone--subject matter is often the first, and sometimes the only, element of a work of art that generates an emotional response for people. But there are also many other elements to consider.
Take a look at the composition of this painting--it has a calmness and a serenity to it. The princess, all dressed in finery, rests against a chair of equal finery. The background is left quite simple by comparison and is painted in shadow so that our attention is drawn to the princess and the chair. Though our focus is allowed to linger of the richness of the fabrics, the delicacy of the lace, the preciousness of her jewelry, we are eventually drawn to her face. And we wonder, is she waiting to go out for the evening or has she just returned? She rests with her arms on her white wrap with a gold brocade edge, her fan, gloves, and a fine hat rest on the seat of the chair. Notice how the simple composition of all the details of the painting let our eyes travel slowly around the painting, quietly resting on her face. The painter has created a journey for our eyes through the painting that is as languid and calm as the princess.
Then notice the color harmony of this painting. Though the colors (the bright blue of her gown and the rich gold of the chair) are vivid and quite contrasting, we get the sense that all of the colors in this painting blend together to create the world of this painting. Learning to notice when color harmony is present and absent in a painting takes some careful observation. But greater still is the observation skills required of the artist who is able to create color harmony.
Color harmony is a natural aspect of our world and a very important element of good representational art where the laws of physics apply--including the laws of optics. When color harmony is absent in a painting, the painting looks as if it were a coloring book image--each spot of color is filled in with its own color, without thought to the colors next to it.
Then notice the exquisite detail of each material in this painting. Her skin is luminous and like porcelain. Her hair has the beautiful sheen that comes from exquisite care. The gold of her jewelry and the pearls on her wrist have a magnificent luster to them. The lace on her sleeves shine like the gossamer wings of a dragonfly. And the heavy richness of the silks of her dress and the damask of the chair beautifully gleam like only fine silks can.
So the next time you find yourself drawn to a work of art, pause to notice if it measures up in just one element, making it merely so-so, or perhaps good. The great works of art excel in every element--and noticing every element of a work of art can greatly increase your joy in viewing it.
-- Sherri Tracinski
From today's TIA Daily
Sherri Tracinski's short essay in today's TIA Daily on correctly examining a painting states my ideal much better than I ever could. She understands that I often get entrapped in a single feature and miss the greatness or mediocrity of the woman in front of me. I try to fully observe before forming an opinion, but sometimes a single feature clouds my judgment. I want people to thoroughly examine me, and I think women deserve the same.
A plug:
http://www.TIADaily.com/subscribe
(Bold and Italics Are Mine, WB)
Painting: Princesse de Broglie, 1851-53, by Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres
http://tinyurl.com/9mbog
Or:
http://www.metmuseum.org/Works_of_Art/viewOnezoom.asp?dep=15&zoomFlag=1&viewmode=0&item=1975%2E1%2E186
Thanks to TIA Daily reader Phillip Schearer, who recommended this painting, saying "if this ain't a thing of beauty, nothing is." I heartily agree. I've linked to the Metropolitan Museum of Art's page on this painting for two reasons--this image has the best color representation I've found of this painting, and the museum's site allows you to zoom in to see close-up details of the painting.
There are many different elements that must be present in a work of art for me to consider it good, and an artist has to excel at nearly all of those elements for me to consider a work of art great. As an architect, I am quite used to talking to people about their sense-of-life reactions to a very wide range of things--from the kitchen sink to their most treasured reactions to artworks. And the one constant I've noticed in people's reactions to paintings is that for the most part, they tend to focus on their favorite element while ignoring the other elements of an artwork.
I see people gushing over so-so work because one element of the work hits them on an emotional level--while the rest of the work is merely mediocre. And I see other people react harshly to something truly great because of one tiny element that rubs them the wrong way. In both cases, these reactions are the understandable automatic emotional reactions of their sense of life. But without ever looking carefully at your reactions, you could be gushing over mediocrity while entirely missing greatness.
So when you first look at this painting, note your most positive and most negative reaction about the painting, making your own judgment of this painting's greatness. And then at the end, ask yourself if you considered all of the elements of the painting. If your reaction was anything like Phillip Schearer's, what caused you to declare that this painting beautiful? Is it the princess's physical beauty, the lovingly painted details of the scene, the gentle color harmony, or the calm peacefulness of the scene? And if you look at this painting and declare it terrible, what brings you to that conclusion? Does the subject matter bother you? Do you find a portrait of a woman just standing there lacking in greatness? Do you wish there were more fire in her eye to indicate some conviction or strength of character? Or do the excesses of royalty make you cringe at the exorbitant taxes taken from the rest of society?
Let's take a look at the various elements of this work of art and discover what is good about this painting.
Let's begin by looking at the subject matter--a richly and beautifully cloaked princess. Zoom in to her face and take a look at her expression. While her features are delicate, feminine, and pretty, I can understand someone's reaction to wanting to see something more in her face--some more intense focus, some deeper emotion, some fire of conviction that would provide that emotional fuel we all look for in art. And what about what the princess is doing? She isn't creating anything, she isn't fighting for any value, she is merely leaning against a gold silk chair. My guess is that for those of you who don't see greatness in this work, your response against its might be because you find its subject matter lacking--and that is the weakest aspect of this painting.
It is a natural tendency for people to react to artwork by subject matter alone--subject matter is often the first, and sometimes the only, element of a work of art that generates an emotional response for people. But there are also many other elements to consider.
Take a look at the composition of this painting--it has a calmness and a serenity to it. The princess, all dressed in finery, rests against a chair of equal finery. The background is left quite simple by comparison and is painted in shadow so that our attention is drawn to the princess and the chair. Though our focus is allowed to linger of the richness of the fabrics, the delicacy of the lace, the preciousness of her jewelry, we are eventually drawn to her face. And we wonder, is she waiting to go out for the evening or has she just returned? She rests with her arms on her white wrap with a gold brocade edge, her fan, gloves, and a fine hat rest on the seat of the chair. Notice how the simple composition of all the details of the painting let our eyes travel slowly around the painting, quietly resting on her face. The painter has created a journey for our eyes through the painting that is as languid and calm as the princess.
Then notice the color harmony of this painting. Though the colors (the bright blue of her gown and the rich gold of the chair) are vivid and quite contrasting, we get the sense that all of the colors in this painting blend together to create the world of this painting. Learning to notice when color harmony is present and absent in a painting takes some careful observation. But greater still is the observation skills required of the artist who is able to create color harmony.
Color harmony is a natural aspect of our world and a very important element of good representational art where the laws of physics apply--including the laws of optics. When color harmony is absent in a painting, the painting looks as if it were a coloring book image--each spot of color is filled in with its own color, without thought to the colors next to it.
Then notice the exquisite detail of each material in this painting. Her skin is luminous and like porcelain. Her hair has the beautiful sheen that comes from exquisite care. The gold of her jewelry and the pearls on her wrist have a magnificent luster to them. The lace on her sleeves shine like the gossamer wings of a dragonfly. And the heavy richness of the silks of her dress and the damask of the chair beautifully gleam like only fine silks can.
So the next time you find yourself drawn to a work of art, pause to notice if it measures up in just one element, making it merely so-so, or perhaps good. The great works of art excel in every element--and noticing every element of a work of art can greatly increase your joy in viewing it.
-- Sherri Tracinski
From today's TIA Daily
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Monday, August 08, 2005
Intellect
http://opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/08/06/do0601.xml
Read the article. It discusses the lack of rational thought in today's society.
My father always credited my mother with my academic success. She reads all of the time. But, she does not read anything of importance. She reads modern fairy tales. My father does not read much anymore, but he made me read thought provoking books. When I was twelve or thirteen, he suggested I read Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm. He also suggested I read On the Beach about a nuclear apocalypse. My mother has never read any of these books. I tried to get her to read The Plague, but she could not finish it. She did finish Nickel and Dimed though. I love my mother. She is a great nurse and a better person, but I see that she is part of the problem. She is susceptible to irrationality.
Read the article. It discusses the lack of rational thought in today's society.
My father always credited my mother with my academic success. She reads all of the time. But, she does not read anything of importance. She reads modern fairy tales. My father does not read much anymore, but he made me read thought provoking books. When I was twelve or thirteen, he suggested I read Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm. He also suggested I read On the Beach about a nuclear apocalypse. My mother has never read any of these books. I tried to get her to read The Plague, but she could not finish it. She did finish Nickel and Dimed though. I love my mother. She is a great nurse and a better person, but I see that she is part of the problem. She is susceptible to irrationality.
NAFTA
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/08/whos_minding_th.html
Modern economists know math but have no common sense. Smith and Ricardo explained trade completely without any calculus. Calculus has its merits, but economics does not need it.
Everyone should have to learn the implications of the Edgeworth Box Diagram.
Modern economists know math but have no common sense. Smith and Ricardo explained trade completely without any calculus. Calculus has its merits, but economics does not need it.
Everyone should have to learn the implications of the Edgeworth Box Diagram.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)