Training Minds and Hearts: Principle-Centered Education Reform

A lecture by Steve Forbes at Hillsdale College (Feb. 1999):

At the heart of the American experiment is the belief that no matter how ordinary we human beings may be, we are able to accomplish extraordinary deeds when we take responsibility for ourselves, our families, and our communities.

How do we learn to take responsibility? One vital way is through the education we receive as children and young adults. Education enables us not only to gain knowledge but also to develop sound character, to discover our God-given talents, to lead honorable lives, to become truly good parents, neighbors, and citizens.

For several years I attended a boy’s school—a politically incorrect form of education if there ever was one. The headmaster, Frank Ashburn, was fond of quoting the Bible verse, “The bond are free, and the free are bond.” He told us that “bond” meant “bound” and that the message of the verse was this: When you develop discipline, you become a free person. If you don’t develop it, you will suffer a blighted, narrow, and constricted life. He explained further,

You might say that a boy was free who never had to do any learning at all. But he would be free as an animal tied to a stake is free. He would be free in the sense that he would have more time on his hands, but he would be limited by his own experience and culture.

You cannot read or write without the bondage of having learned to read and write. You cannot play football without giving time and energy to practice.

Mr. Ashburn went on to tell us,

What is training? Training is preparing oneself to be able to do what one can’t count on having to do. In a football game, training is the thing that keeps one’s muscle from giving when the unexpected strain is applied, which means that little extra bit of wind when everyone’s wind is gone. Training of the mind is that which enables one to handle not the problem that we have been over—most of us can do that—but the problem we have never met before. Training of the heart is that kind of conditioning that makes one steady when he is sick in fear, or bewildered by strangeness, or hurt and bruised in the mind.

He noted that there were four main fields of study that ought to comprise the core of any school curriculum. The first is communication, or literature; the second is the physical world, or science; the third is the social world, or history; and the fourth is the spiritual world, or religion and philosophy. In the end, these fields must merge into one unified body of knowledge. He concluded, “When this happens, we may say with confidence that a boy has experienced the essence of a liberal arts education. He is a free intellectual and spiritual being, free as only the bound are free—the bound who have benefited from knowledge, training, and discipline.”

……………………

The New Classroom

The old classroom is an invention of the Prussians. After the battering they took in the Napoleonic Wars in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, they decided to create a classroom that would be specifically designed to instill discipline and obedience in students. They did not do this for any noble reason but because they wanted to turn out more bureaucrats and soldiers. The word “kindergarten” may mean “garden for the children,” but in Prussia, kindergarten was more like boot camp. It removed children, especially young boys, from the “weak” influence of their mothers and taught them that they owed their primary allegiance to the state.

By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, liberal American educators and politicians were successfully leading the drive for public education based on the Prussian model. The model suited them perfectly because it put government and the “experts” in charge. It was the beginning of a slow, steady decline in the quality of education and of an assault from within the gates on the traditional values and curriculum that my old headmaster Frank Ashburn described.

But in the new era the Prussian model has been widely discredited. It has not produced well-trained or well-educated students, and it has not been consistent with the principles of the free society. Thanks to technology, students are learning more outside the old classroom than they are inside. And parents, fed up with the public school system’s failure to adapt, are at last demanding genuine educational choice.

That is why it is time to open the doors to a new era for our schools, because educational freedom is the next great civil rights battleground, and it is a battle we must win. How do we move forward? One immediate way is to take all the funds the Department of Education awards and turn them into block grants that cannot be released to states and local communities unless they are accompanied by this directive: Let parents choose schools that work-schools that are safe, clean, drug-free, disciplined, and academically challenging and that reinforce rather than undermine the moral and spiritual values that are being instilled at home.

Real school choice means public and private schools, charter schools and home schools and parochial schools, tuition tax credits and educational savings accounts and vouchers. A parent should not be forced to send a child to a lousy school. Just imagine if parents and teachers—not politicians and bureaucrats—ran our schools. With this new freedom, together with real accountability and competition, we could send a message to all schools: perform or perish. That would raise the standards and quality of all schools.

Another vital step is to encourage pastors, priests, and rabbis to open a new frontier of faith-based schools, especially in our inner cities. Already many religious leaders are turning Sunday School rooms into classrooms during the week. They are helping children to find faith in God and their place in the world. We should do everything we can to help in this effort because education is about more than just developing our intellects. It is about building the architecture of our souls.  [read more]

An interesting and informative speech. I’ve read four of his books including the Flat Tax Revolution (2013) which I own and blogged about in a past posting.

The Control Factor and Islamic Terrorism

While watching the horror film, the audience understands that the suspense will be over within a few hours. Knowing there is a time limit to the tension and an eventual end to the film allows the audience to succumb more easily to it and become absorbed in the terrifying experiences.

Not so with a real threat to our security. In fact, it is extremely difficult for the American mind to remain in such a state of insecurity, danger, and terror that our Islamic Enemy poses. Instead, our minds are geared to eliminate as efficiently as possible any horrifying experience and re-establish the sense (or illusion) that control exists or is attainable. That part of the mind tasked with eradicating the experience of losing control is labeled here “the Control Factor.” …. When challenged, the Control Factor will seek to combat any obstacle and keep its perceptions and beliefs alive.

………………..

Our minds are programmed to protect the perceptions and beliefs with which we navigate the world. We weave narratives, storylines, and “histories” to solidify these understandings and establish a sense of security. When these protective or defensive ideas are seriously threatened, the result is fear, alerting the system there is a challenge. And the human mind is capable of tolerating only a limited amount of fear.

Source: The Control Factor: Our Struggle to See the True Threat (2012) by Bill Siegel.

The Control Factor (CF) according to the author is always active and creating and independent of intelligence. An example of the CF is the narrative that the Islamists are committing acts of terrorism because America wronged them somehow, or because they don’t have jobs, etc. In other words, they are victims. All of which is wrong. People who think this think they can control the terrorism by appeasing the terrorists or changing their environments and the terrorists will stop being terrorists. Life doesn’t work this way. If you want to make the Islamists happy you and the whole world has to become fundamentalist Muslims. Period. Maybe, people who can’t realistically deal with the Islamists should ponder The Serenity Prayer:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

Courage to change the things I can,

And wisdom to know the difference.

One other note, Mr. Siegel’s CF theory is similar to the cognitive dissonance theory and other “balance” theories.

H/T: Glenn Beck’s book It Is About Islam.

Government's $15 Minimum Wage Advocates Aren't Paying Their Interns

From FEE.org (July 10):

Almost all of the lawmakers who co-sponsored a bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour also hired unpaid interns to supplement their staffs, a survey shows.

A report from the Employment Policies Institute reveals that 174 of the bill’s 184 co-sponsors, or 95 percent, hire interns who are paid nothing.

“It’s hypocritical to rally for a $15 minimum wage when these lawmakers don’t pay their own entry-level employees a cent,” said Michael Saltsman, managing director of the Employment Policies Institute.

…………………………

The study counted members of Congress who advertised a limited number of stipend positions as having paid interns, even if they also use unpaid interns. So the 95 percent figure is conservative.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, a leading voice in the calls for a $15 minimum wage, is the only senator to offer an hourly wage to interns, the study found. However, Sanders’ office offers $12 an hour while he proposes $15 in the private sector.

Progressive lawmakers will argue that paying interns more will limit the number of available opportunities, the Employment Policies Institute notes, yet don’t recognize this same concern in the private sector. [read more]

I looked at the pdf of the list of Congressmen who don’t pay or pay very little to their interns and not one is a Republican. I repeat not one is a Republican. A bunch of hypocrites. So much for the little guy. Then again the Dems in Congress think they are elites and elites don’t have to abide by the rules they make for the common people or as they call everyone else--the masses. Why don’t they have to abide by the rules they make you might ask? Because they believe they are special.

Study Finds Fracking Doesn’t Harm Drinking Water in Texas

From The Daily Signal.com (June 19):

Hydraulic fracturing hasn’t contaminated groundwater in Texas, isn’t an earthquake hazard, and has been a boon for the state’s economy, according to a study released Monday.

The new study’s conclusions on drinking water are in line with multiple other studies of hydraulic fracturing, popularly known as fracking.

Hydraulic fracturing is the process of drilling into rock and injecting a high-pressure mixture of water, sand, and chemicals to obtain shale gas and oil, which is produced from fractured rock. Some environmentalists argue that it can harm water supplies.

The report initiated by the Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas, based in Austin, asserted that “direct migration of contaminants from targeted injection zones is highly unlikely to lead to contamination of potential drinking water aquifers.”

To conduct the three-year study, the academy assembled a panel called the Task Force on the Environmental and Community Impact of Shale.

“In Texas and pretty much everywhere, hydraulic fracturing has not been proven to have an adverse impact on drinking water,” Christine Ehlig-Economides, a professor of petroleum engineering at the University of Houston who is chairwoman of the task force, told The Daily Signal.

The study examined the impact of fracking on drinking water.

“The average annual water use for hydraulic fracturing activities in 2011 and 2012 in Texas was about 20 billion gallons of water,” the report said, citing an Environmental Protection Agency study from last year. “Because this volume represents on 0.2 percent of total water use in the state, and 0.7 percent of total state consumptive use, it might be considered small.”

The study also explored the impact of fracking in five other areas: geology and earthquake activity; land resources; air quality; the economy; and society. It found generally positive results for each.  [read more]

Even with the study’s results, the environmental extremists will still insist that fracking is bad. 

Al-Qaeda’s 20-Year Plan: From 9/11 to Final Victory

From English.Al-Akhbar.com (Jan. 29, 2014):

In certain Salafi-jihadi circles, a so-called strategic plan of al-Qaeda is being circulated. Al-Qaeda has ostensibly been working to implement this plan according to a two-decade timetable, beginning in 2000, with preparations for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and concluding in 2020.

The widespread belief that al-Qaeda’s bloody activities are random and not governed by any clear strategy is a misconception. To be sure, counterterrorism agencies possess dozens of documents on al-Qaeda’s projects and long-term strategic plans, which have well-defined goals.

For example, one security agency, nearly a year after the beginning of the conflict in Syria, was able to intercept correspondence between the leader of al-Nusra Front, Abu Mohammed al-Golani, and a prominent al-Qaeda figure in Lebanon, outlining the jihadi group’s plans after the fall of the Syrian regime, which included recruiting experts in medicine, chemistry, IT, and telecommunications, and spreading out across Lebanon in preparation for operations.

Documents obtained by this security agency reveal that al-Qaeda’s strategy in Lebanon and the region includes specific objectives, both on the ground and at the level of recruitment and mobilization.

Some of the features of the plan were mentioned in a book published in 2005 by Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein, titled Zarqawi – Al-Qaeda’s Second Generation. Hussein interviewed Sheikh Abu Mohammed al-Maqdisi, a prominent al-Qaeda ideologue, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in the Swaqa prison in Jordan.

…………………….

The first phase from 2000 to 2003 is dubbed the awakening stage. This phase focused on “reawakening the nation” by “dealing a powerful blow to the head of the snake in New York. The aim: to push the United States to react in a way that would “crown al-Qaeda as the leader of the nation.” This is in reference to what al-Qaeda calls the US “crusade” against Islam with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, which – according to al-Qaeda – made the Americans easy prey and al-Qaeda the viral brand it is today. This phase ended with the US occupation of Iraq in 2003.

The second phase from 2003 to 2006 is dubbed the “eye-opening stage.” In this phase, al-Qaeda’s plan was to perpetually engage the enemy in combat, while developing so-called “electronic jihad” capabilities, in preparation for the third phase.

In parallel, al-Qaeda would expand quietly in strategic parts of the Arab and Islamic world, while using Iraq as a base to build an army to be deployed in neighboring countries, also with the start of the third phase. In addition, efforts would be stepped up to raise funds from Muslims though charities and alms, to be diverted to al-Qaeda.

The third phase from 2007 to 2010 is dubbed “rising up and standing on the feet,” a phase of proactive al-Qaeda activities. During this stage, important changes would be introduced in the region surrounding Iraq.

First, the focus would be on al-Sham (Greater Syria), with sayings of the Prophet Mohammad interpreted to suggest that this region would be next after Iraq in the conflict, “not to mention the clear plans to partition Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan into sectarian statelets to reshape the region.”

…………………………………

The fourth phase, from 2010 to 2013, dubbed “recovery,” coincided in reality with the Arab Spring wave of uprisings and the crisis in Syria. In this phase, al-Qaeda would focus on toppling regimes by directly participating in insurgencies against them.

Al-Qaeda’s plan, according to the documents, would seek to “discredit the regime in the eyes of the people by helping expose their collaboration with US policy.” This, according to al-Qaeda’s plan, would be coupled with the growth of al-Qaeda and the exhaustion of US power through direct combat, but also “electronic attacks targeting the US economy, and attacks against Arab oil installations, to hurt regimes and their Western backers.”

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda seems to favor gold as an international reserve currency and wants to peg other currencies to gold. In its belief, this would lead to the US dollar’s collapse, since it is not pegged to gold.

In this phase, too, according to al-Qaeda’s plan, Israel would be in a weak state as a result of internal conflict, declining international support, and the collapse of Arab regimes that protect Israel.

The fifth phase from 2013 to 2016 would see the “declaration of the caliphate or the Islamic state,” al-Qaeda’s ultimate goal. This phase would see many international transformations, beginning with the demise of the Anglo-Saxon axis and the emergence of new world powers that Muslims have no strong antagonisms with, such as India and China, in tandem with the exponential rise of al-Qaeda.

The sixth phase from 2016 to 2020 is the phase of “total war.” Al-Qaeda’s ideologues estimate that the beginning of 2016 would be the “beginning of the confrontation between faith and disbelief, which would begin in earnest after the establishment of the Islamic caliphate,” echoing Osama bin Laden’s discourse in many of his speeches. This would be followed by the final phase, the phase of “final victory,” sometime in 2020. By then, according to al-Qaeda’s plans, “the Islamic state’s capabilities will be great beyond measure when Muslims would number more than 1.5 billion.”  [read more]

It looks like parts of the plan are being implemented. Scary.  America really needs to start talking these Islamofascists seriously. It looks like President Trump is.

H/T: It Is About Islam. Exposing The Truth About ISIS, Al Qaeda, Iran, and the Caliphate (2015) by Glenn Beck. Beck mentions Fouad Hussein’s book.

Do We Need the Department of Education? Lecture

Lecture by Charles Murray at Hillsdale College (October 28, 2011):

The case for the Department of Education could rest on one or more of three legs: its constitutional appropriateness, the existence of serious problems in education that could be solved only at the federal level, and/or its track record since it came into being. Let us consider these in order.

(1) Is the Department of Education constitutional?

At the time the Constitution was written, education was not even considered a function of local government, let alone the federal government. But the shakiness of the Department of Education’s constitutionality goes beyond that. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the things over which Congress has the power to legislate. Not only does the list not include education, there is no plausible rationale for squeezing education in under the commerce clause. I’m sure the Supreme Court found a rationale, but it cannot have been plausible.

On a more philosophical level, the framers of America’s limited government had a broad allegiance to what Catholics call the principle of subsidiarity. In the secular world, the principle of subsidiarity means that local government should do only those things that individuals cannot do for themselves, state government should do only those things that local governments cannot do, and the federal government should do only those things that the individual states cannot do. Education is something that individuals acting alone and cooperatively can do, let alone something local or state governments can do.

I should be explicit about my own animus in this regard. I don’t think the Department of Education is constitutionally legitimate, let alone appropriate. I would favor abolishing it even if, on a pragmatic level, it had improved American education. But I am in a small minority on that point, so let’s move on to the pragmatic questions.

(2) Are there serious problems in education that can be solved only at the federal level?

The first major federal spending on education was triggered by the launch of the first space satellite, Sputnik, in the fall of 1957, which created a perception that the United States had fallen behind the Soviet Union in science and technology. The legislation was specifically designed to encourage more students to go into math and science, and its motivation is indicated by its title: The National Defense Education Act of 1958. But what really ensnared the federal government in education in the 1960s had its origins elsewhere—in civil rights. The Supreme Court declared segregation of the schools unconstitutional in 1954, but—notwithstanding a few highly publicized episodes such as the integration of Central High School in Little Rock and James Meredith’s admission to the University of Mississippi—the pace of change in the next decade was glacial.

Was it necessary for the federal government to act? There is a strong argument for “yes,” especially in the case of K-12 education. Southern resistance to desegregation proved to be both stubborn and effective in the years following Brown v. Board of Education. Segregation of the schools had been declared unconstitutional, and constitutional rights were being violated on a massive scale. But the question at hand is whether we need a Department of Education now, and we have seen a typical evolution of policy. What could have been justified as a one-time, forceful effort to end violations of constitutional rights, lasting until the constitutional wrongs had been righted, was transmuted into a permanent government establishment. Subsequently, this establishment became more and more deeply involved in American education for purposes that have nothing to do with constitutional rights, but instead with a broader goal of improving education.

The reason this came about is also intimately related to the civil rights movement. Over the same years that school segregation became a national issue, the disparities between black and white educational attainment and test scores came to public attention. When the push for President Johnson’s Great Society programs began in the mid-1960s, it was inevitable that the federal government would attempt to reduce black-white disparities, and it did so in 1965 with the passage of two landmark bills—the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education Act. The Department of Education didn’t come into being until 1980, but large-scale involvement of the federal government in education dates from 1965.

………………….

As far as I can determine, the Department of Education has no track record of positive accomplishment—nothing in the national numbers on educational achievement, nothing in the improvement of educational outcomes for the disadvantaged, nothing in the advancement of educational practice. It just spends a lot of money. This brings us to the practical question: If the Department of Education disappeared from next year’s budget, would anyone notice? The only reason that anyone would notice is the money. The nation’s public schools have developed a dependence on the federal infusion of funds. As a practical matter, actually doing away with the Department of Education would involve creating block grants so that school district budgets throughout the nation wouldn’t crater.

Sadly, even that isn’t practical. The education lobby will prevent any serious inroads on the Department of Education for the foreseeable future. But the answer to the question posed in the title of this talk—“Do we need the Department of Education?”—is to me unambiguous: No. [read more]

Interesting and informative speech. I’ve read two of Mr. Murray’s books.

We Could Have Had Cell Phones 40 Years Earlier

From FEE.org:

The basic idea of the cellphone was introduced to the public in 1945 – not in Popular Mechanics or Science, but in the down-home Saturday Evening Post. Millions of citizens would soon be using "handie-talkies," declared J.K. Jett, the head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Licenses would have to be issued, but that process "won't be difficult." The revolutionary technology, Jett promised in the story, would be formulated within months.

But permission to deploy it would not. The government would not allocate spectrum to realize the engineers' vision of "cellular radio" until 1982, and licenses authorizing the service would not be fully distributed for another seven years. That's one heck of a bureaucratic delay.

The Cell in Cellular

Before there were cellphones, there was the mobile telephone service, or MTS. Launched in 1946, this technology required unwieldy and expensive equipment – the transceiver could fill the trunk of a sedan – and its networks faced tight capacity constraints. In the beginning, the largest MTS markets had no more than 44 channels. As late as 1976, Bell System's mobile network in New York could host just 545 subscribers. Even at sky-high prices, there were long waiting lists for subscriptions.

Cellular networks were an ingenious way to expand service dramatically. A given market would be split into cells with a base station in each. These stations, often located on towers to improve line-of-sight with mobile phone users, were able both to receive wireless signals and to transmit them. The base stations were themselves linked together, generally by wires, and connected to networks delivering plain old telephone service.

The advantages of this architecture were profound. Mobile radios could use less power, because they needed only to reach the nearest base station, not a mobile phone across town. Not only did this save battery life, but transmissions stayed local, leaving other cells quiet. A connection in one cell would be passed to an adjacent cell and then the next as the mobile user moved through space.

……………………….

Blocking Mobile Wireless

When AT&T wanted to start developing cellular in 1947, the FCC rejected the idea, believing that spectrum could be best used by other services that were not "in the nature of convenience or luxury." This view – that this would be a niche service for a tiny user base – persisted well into the 1980s.

"Land mobile," the generic category that covered cellular, was far down on the FCC's list of priorities. In 1949, it was assigned just 4.7 percent of the spectrum in the relevant range. Broadcast TV was allotted 59.2 percent, and government uses got one-quarter.

Television broadcasting had become the FCC's mission, and land mobile was a lark. Yet Americans could have enjoyed all the broadcasts they would watch in, say, 1960 and had cellular phone service too. Instead, TV was allocated far more bandwidth than it ever used, with enormous deserts of vacant television assignments – a vast wasteland, if you will – blocking mobile wireless for more than a generation.

How empty was this spectrum? Across America's 210 television markets, the 81 channels originally allocated to TV created some 17,010 slots for stations. From this, the FCC planned in 1952 to authorize 2,002 TV stations. By 1962, just 603 were broadcasting in the United States. Yet broadcasters vigorously defended the idle bandwidth.

When mobile telephone advocates tried to gain access to the lightly used ultra-high frequency (UHF) band, the broadcasters deluged the commission, arguing ferociously and relentlessly that mobile telephone service was an inefficient use of spectrum.  [read more]

This is exactly how unaccountable gov’t agencies disrupt the natural flow of innovation in a free-market system. Why? Because they think they are smarter than the free-market system.

Happy Birthday, America!

Here’s an article about Frederick Douglass and “The Star Spangled Banner” by The Daily Signal.com:

Frederick Douglass, an escaped slave who played a critical role in the abolitionist movement in the mid-19th century, had been a frequent critic of American policy and the existence of the “peculiar institution.” However, he believed that the dearly held principles of the Declaration of Independence, and its unequivocal statement that all men are “created equal,” would eventually lead to slavery’s dissolution.

Douglass pulled no punches in criticizing slavery as a massive contradiction in American life, but he understood the evils of the system would be corrected by embracing the country’s origins rather than rejecting them. He encouraged black Americans to sign up and fight for the Union under the American flag during the Civil War, played a crucial role in recruitment efforts, and convinced many former slaves to serve in the military and embrace the United States as the vessel—not the thwarter—of freedom.

Douglass was known to frequently play “The Star-Spangled Banner” on his violin for his grandchildren in the years after the war. He said in an 1871 speech at Arlington National Cemetery that “if the star-spangled banner floats only over free American citizens in every quarter of the land, and our country has before it a long and glorious career of justice, liberty, and civilization, we are indebted to the unselfish devotion of the noble army.” [read more]

Here is conservative thinker Russell Kirk’s ideas on the Founders:

[The] American revolution and the American restoration of order had been accomplished earlier by experienced public men who had known themselves entitled to the “chartered rights” of Englishmen; who were steeped in knowledge of British constitutionalism, law, and history; whose interest lay in maintaining a political and social continuity. That is one reason why the Constitutional Convention may be called a gathering of friends.
Another reason why it was possible for the delegates to work out a political consensus was their sharing of an inherited literary culture.

Most of the Framers, twenty or thirty years earlier, had been required to study certain enduring books that were intended to develop a sense of order in the person and in the commonwealth. Among the ancients, they studied Cicero, Plutarch, and Vergil especially. They had memorized Cicero’s praise of Roman mores, the high old Roman virtue; their imagination had been roused by the lives of Plutarch’s heroes; they had come to understand Vergil’s labor, pietas, fatum.

The Framers had read attentively Montesquieu (The Spirit of Laws being first published in English translation in 1750), David Hume, Samuel Johnson, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke (whose Annual Register had been for them a principal reliable source of knowledge of events during their own years).

A third influence that made the Constitutional Convention a gathering of friends, rather than an assembly of political fanatics, was the concept of a gentleman. The first article of the Constitution would provide that the United States might grant no title of nobility, and that no office-holder should accept a foreign title without the consent of the Congress; but the delegates at Philadelphia, quite unlike the French constitution makers a few years later, had no intention of putting down gentlemen.

Source: “The Framers: Not Philosophes but Gentlemen.” The Essential Russell Kirk: Selected Essays (2006) by George A. Panichas [editor].

America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand. -- Harry S. Truman

The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults. -- Alexis de Tocqueville

I have been with Donald for 18 years, and I have been aware of his love for this country since we first met. He never had a hidden agenda when it comes to his patriotism because, like me, he loves this country so much. -- Melania Trump

Where liberty dwells, there is my country. — Benjamin Franklin

May the sun in his course visit no land more free, more happy, more lovely, than this our own country! — Daniel Webster

Happily for America, happily, we trust, for the whole human race, they pursued a new and more noble course. They accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of human society. — James Madison

America means opportunity, freedom, power. – Ralph Waldo Emerson, Public and Private Education
America.. it is the only place where miracles not only happen, but where they happen all the time. – Thomas Wolfe

Here are some transcripts of Hillsdale College lectures:

• “All Honor to Jefferson”
• A Man Worth Knowing (John Adams)
• The Character of George Washington
• According to Their Genius: American Politics and the Example of Patrick Henry
• Four Points of the Compass: Restoring America’s Sense of Direction

Finally, here are some links from Hillsdale College’s free Introduction to the Constitution course:

• The Declaration of Independence—Universals and Particulars
• The Declaration of Independence—The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God
• The Declaration of Independence—All Men Are Created 

The Guide for the Perplexed on Trump-Russia

From News Max.com (June 23):

When it comes to the Russian-Trump collusion "smoke" we keep hearing about, one thing has become crystal clear: there isn't any smoke, there isn't any fire, and this nothingburger isn't even worth lighting a match for.

This "scandal" has been the major topic of press attention since Election Day last year.
Yet, no one has provided one scintilla of evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians in hacking or otherwise interfering in the U.S. election.
No evidence. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Consider that we've had Obama's own Director of National Intelligence James Clapper tell "Meet the Press" there is "no evidence" of collusion.
………………….
With so many false reports and innuendo being placed in the public sphere, let's review key points the fair-minded person should consider:

1. To repeat, no one has provided any evidence the Trump campaign worked with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton.

The closest they come is that the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak showed up at the Republican convention last year in Cleveland and rubbed shoulders with party big-wigs.

The media reports conveniently forget to mention the Obama State Dept. organized the effort to have diplomats like Kislyak attend the convention.

2. There is no question the Russians tried to interfere in the U.S. election. 

3. This interference took place during Obama's watch.

Obama did little to stop it. Putin took these actions with impunity because he viewed the Obama administration as weak. Putin saw this weakness first hand when he invaded Crimea and Obama slapped him on the wrist.

It was only after Trump was elected did the Obama administration raise the temperature against the Russians over the interference.

4. The Obama administration took the unusual step of "unmasking" the identities of Americans, including people close to Trump, discovered in classified NSA and intelligence intercepts.

Still, this highly questionable action found no evidence of collusion.

5. There is no evidence the Russian interference changed the election outcome or helped Trump.

In fact, Russia's involvement may have actually hurt Trump.

Any review of the election results shows Hillary not only won the popular vote, she actually outperformed Obama's 2012 result in many states, including Blue States like California (she won by over 4 million votes, Obama beat Romney by just 2 million) and Red States like Texas (Hillary cut Obama's loss of 16 points almost in half to 9).

……………

The president is right to be worried about an investigation that was created with no evidence of a crime. Apparently finding no evidence, it is careening into other areas as it seeks to justify its own existence. [read more]

I agree with President Trump that this whole investigation is a witch hunt and is hurting the country. What I want to know is where is the exit strategy? When does the investigation come to an end? A citizen who is arrested for a felony at least gets a speedy and fair trial. The president doesn't get both. The fake news has him already convicted. Three weeks should be enough time for an investigation of this sort. After that it is time to move on and let this great country get back to business.

What Happens when You Replace Shared Humanity with Ethnic Identity

From FEE.org (June 18):

Recently Daniel Lattier wrote about an elementary school in Edina, Minnesota, where public school children “are being trained to see the world through the lens of race.”

Robert Jones, writing in The New York Times, warns that our distinctly American identity is in danger of being lost.

Jones is not talking about the loss of ethnic identity. For Americans, unlike Europeans, identity does not “rely on ethnic kinship.” Rather, our American identity arose “by voluntary assent to commonly held political beliefs.” The “core political beliefs” to which Jones points are anchored in our shared humanity and are “enshrined in founding ‘sacred texts,’ like the Declaration of Independence.” 

What can go wrong as we move away from an American identity centered around common core beliefs and toward splintered ethnic and racial identities?

History provides powerful lessons about societies placing paramount importance on ethnic identities.

The Nazi Community

Valdemar and Nina Langlet, like their more famous Swedish counterpart Raoul Wallenberg, have been enshrined for saving Jews in Hungary during World War II. In 1946, Langlet published his book Reign of Terror, which described the terrible 1944-45 period in Hungary.

When Germany occupied Hungary, the Nazis mandated that all Jews wear a yellow star and few Jews dared to resist. Langlet explains why: he describes how “a wretched system of [Hungarian] informers... immediately began to flourish.” The zeal of the informants “even took the Germans by surprise.” The number of informers was so large “that [for Jews] it was a dangerous thing even to poke your nose outside your house without wearing the star.”

Langlet had witnessed Hungarian anti-Semitism in the years leading up to World War II. He was a language professor at Budapest University, and recounts recurring anti-Semitic demonstrations at the University. Protesting students demanded, among other things, strict enforcement of quotas for the maximum number of Jewish students attending the University.

Under German rules, individuals were considered Jewish even when their families had converted to Christianity generations ago. Hungarians apparently had been tracking families of converted Jews over the generations.

……………………………..

As Americans, a distinctly American identity built on principles unites us. Yes, we have been imperfect as a nation, but our principles have served as a North Star to guide us towards correcting our wrongs.

Does Langlet’s account of informers in Hungary provide a cautionary tale? The informers in Hungary had tribal identity on their minds. For those informers, there was no idea of shared common humanity. Differences were what they saw.  [read more]

It doesn’t necessary have to be ethnic identity that the Left sees as more important than American identity. The Left could just as well see gender as more important than American identity. Actually, any group identity is more important than American identity to them since America is the bully—the oppressor--in the world. The Left doesn’t like stereotypes or profiling people but they are ones who are obsessed with classifying people. And if you don’t fit their image or model of a “true believer” or if they can’t classify you at all—you’re the enemy. Not just someone with different viewpoints—but the enemy. Hence, you must be destroyed. They are the ones who have a tribal mentality.

Without a cultural identity, a country will eventually descend to chaos.

A History of Fake Media

The Great Moon Hoax (1844): The New York Sun announced that the British astronomer Sir John Herschel had discovered life on the moon by means of a new telescope "of vast dimensions and an entirely new principle." Creatures supposedly seen by Herschel included lunar bison, fire-wielding biped beavers, and winged "man-bats." The public was fascinated. It took several weeks before they realized it was all a hoax.

The Petrified Man (1862): Nevada's Territorial Enterprise reported the discovery of a petrified man in nearby mountains. The body was in a sitting posture, leaning against a rock surface to which it had become attached.

The Traveling Stones of Pahranagat Valley (1867): Journalist Dan De Quille published an article about some unusual stones discovered in Nevada. Whenever separated from each other, the stones spontaneously moved back together. The article was a joke, but De Quille discovered that a lie once told cannot easily be untold. Years later, despite confessing to the hoax, he was still receiving numerous letters from people around the world wanting to know more details about these traveling stones.

The Bigamist of San Bernardino (1873): On December 16, 1873 the Los Angeles Evening Express published an article describing a man in San Bernardino who, because of a loophole in the law, was legally allowed to remain married to two women, despite the efforts of townsfolk to force him to divorce at least one of his wives. News of the case caused an uproar in California. However, the story was entirely fictitious, as the Evening Express revealed two weeks later. Unfortunately, the retraction was not as widely publicized as the original story, and so the case made its way as fact into a number of legal textbooks.

The Man-Eating Tree of Madagascar (1874): On April 28, 1874, the New York World ran an article announcing the discovery in Madagascar of a remarkable new species of plant: a man-eating tree. The article included a gruesome description of a woman fed to the plant by members of the Mkodos tribe. Numerous newspapers and magazines reprinted the article, but 14 years later the journal Current Literature revealed the story to be a work of fiction written by NY World reporter Edmund Spencer.

The Global Warming Hoax of 1874: In early February 1874, the Kansas City Times ran a story claiming that scientists had discovered that the transatlantic telegraph cables were acting like enormous electromagnets, pulling the earth into the sun. Calculations indicated that if the earth's current trajectory continued unchecked, Europe would become tropical in 12 years, and the entire earth would be uninhabitable soon after. Finally the planet would plunge into the sun.

King Tut’s Curse (1923): In November 1922 Howard Carter located the entrance to the tomb of Tutankhamun. By February he and his team had unsealed the door of the Burial Chamber. But a mere two months later, on April 5, 1923, the sponsor of his expedition, Lord Carnarvon, died in his Cairo hotel room, having succumbed to a bacterial infection caused by a mosquito bite. The media immediately speculated that Carnarvon had fallen victim to King Tut's Curse. This curse supposedly promised death to all who violated his tomb.¹

The War of Worlds Mass Hysteria Hoax (1938): On Halloween Eve 1938, Orson Welles sent a great fright through America with his radio adaptation of “The War of the Worlds.” It was the hysterical newspaper headlines the next morning, however, that turned the program into the most notorious radio broadcast in American history. The newspaper industry also felt unease from the increasing popularity of radio as an informational and advertising medium, and, seeing a chance to strike back at its growing rival, it gleefully collected the sporadic reports of individual confusion generated by “The War of the Worlds” and weaved them into a narrative of “mass hysteria.” Newspapers reported suicide attempts, heart attacks and exoduses from major metropolitan areas. ¹

Robert Patterson’s Tour of China (1971): In June 1971 Robert Patterson, a 66-year-old newsman, filed a series of five reports for the San Francisco Examiner detailing his odyssey through mainland China. His journey was inspired by the popular interest in Chinese culture following President Nixon's official visit to that country. The series ran on the Examiner's front page. Patterson discussed details such as his difficulty obtaining an entry visa, witnessing Chinese citizens doing calisthenics in the street every morning, and receiving acupuncture at a Chinese hospital for chronic hip pain.²

Janet Cooke and Jimmy’s World (1980): Janet Cooke's article in the Washington Post about 'Jimmy,' an 8-year-old heroin addict, won her a Pulitzer Prize. But pressure mounted for Cooke to reveal where Jimmy lived so that authorities could help him. As Cooke steadfastly refused to do this, rumors began to swirl suggesting there was no Jimmy. Finally, the editors at the Post confronted Cooke and demanded she provide proof of the boy's existence. Cooke then admitted that she had never met Jimmy and that much of her story was fictitious. Cooke resigned, and the Post, humiliated by the incident, returned the Pulitzer Prize.³

Once upon a time newspapers made-up stories just to sell papers or just to advance the careers of reporters. Or just to get even as in the War of the Worlds mass hysteria hoax. Now, they do political hit jobs.

Maybe journalists should heed the advice of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics: Seek Truth and Report It. Minimize Harm. Specifically, as part of the Seek Truth the website suggests:

Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.

Just because there is a Freedom of the Press in the Bill of Rights don’t absolve journalists the responsibility of what they produce. As for sources, here is what the website says:

• Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
• Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.

I wonder if the these so-called “unnamed” sources are even known to the reporters? Or do the reporters even care as long as the ideology of the source fits in with the agenda or narrative of the reporter? It would be interesting to know if any of these ethic suggestions are even taught in journalism schools.

Here’s something to ponder: Fake news drives out real news because eventually no one will trust any news at all. Call it Gresham's law of news.

As for consuming news stories, here is good advice from the Buddha:

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it - even if I have said it - unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

Don’t take news on its face value.

By the way, if the reader wants to read more fake news (s)he can click on the Hoaxes by Journalists link where I got most of content.

¹ The curse was made-up.  I heard about the fake curse first on the “Mysteries at the Museum” show which got me thinking about the history of fake news.

²The whole journey was made-up and the journalist was fired.

³Also heard about this fake new story on the “Mysteries at the Museum” show. The journalist said she made up the story because she was pressured by the paper. In actuality, she did it to advance her career.

What's Wrong with the Three Rs of Environmentalism

From FEE.org (Sept. 19, 2016):

Reduce, reuse, recycle. On its face, following the “three R’s” seems to be the obvious path to environmental nirvana:

Reduce – Use less. Turn off the lights when they’re not needed, don’t let the water run while you’re brushing your teeth, use both sides of every piece of paper, replace incandescent light bulbs with more efficient light sources, put more insulation in the attic, buy energy efficient appliances and toilets that use less water.

Reuse – Use items again. Don’t get lost in the “paper or plastic” trap at the grocery store, get a reusable shopping bag. Don’t toss those plastic water bottles, refill them.

Recycle – Send glass, aluminum, paper, and plastic to the recycler, not the dump.

Clearly, the “Three R’s” are a win for everyone; saving resources, energy, and labor all while reducing pollution. What could be wrong with that?  Nothing. But only if resources, energy, and labor really are saved and pollution really is reduced.

The catch is that while reducing, reusing, and recycling save some resources, each activity also costs other resources. Determining whether a given “R” saves more resources than it costs can be difficult, especially when we are spending “apples” to save “oranges.”  But even when we’re dealing with “apples-to-apples” cases, the trade-offs may not be obvious.

Consider, for example, reducing electricity use by replacing old appliances with newer, higher efficiency models. Won’t this result in a net energy saving?  Maybe, but manufacturing new appliances uses energy and, not incidentally, creates pollution.

The question is, will the new appliance save more energy over its lifetime than it costs to make, transport, and install?  We can imagine a situation in which the answer is clearly “no.”  Suppose, for example, that dishwasher manufacturers come out with new models that are slightly more energy-efficient every six months. Obviously, replacing your dishwasher twice a year would waste far more energy than it would save. But what about replacing the dishwasher every five years, or every ten?

Reduce or Not?

A few (relatively) simple present value calculations can provide the answer. The expected life of the appliance and the estimated energy savings over that life are typically provided by the manufacturer. We can compare the present value of the cost of electricity that would be used over those years to the cost of purchasing and installing the dishwasher.

If the present value of the energy saved is higher than the purchase price, we can be reasonably confident that replacing our old dishwasher will result in a net energy saving. Without market prices, however, we would be unable to determine the better course – keeping or replacing the old appliance. Economics to the rescue! [read more]

Basically it’s a trade-off with the three Rs. For example, the author talks about plastic versus paper bags. Plastic bags are cheaper to make but decompose longer. I actually give my plastic bags back to the grocer.  And reusable grocery bags are not much better.  From the article:

According to a study by the British Environment Agency, a nonwoven polypropylene bag would have to be used 11 times to “break even” with the cost of one single-use plastic bag, while a cotton bag would have to be used 131 times.

Even recycling even has costs. According to the article,

For instance, old newsprint must be collected, transported, and processed. This requires trucks, which must be manufactured and fueled, and recycling plants, which must be constructed and powered.

Some people do the three Rs because they think they are saving the earth even though that may or may not be the case. The article gives the reader something to think about.

The Death of Creativity

From FEE.org:

The death of originality in modern life extends from the political to the cultural. This is especially amazing where politics is concerned as there is virtually no issue which is beyond the concern of the federal government. Yet, public discourse is like a worn record stuck on repeat. In time to the biennial electoral cycle, the same tired issues of welfare, regulatory reform and jobs are debated, in the same hackneyed language of politicians calling on the ethos of their party’s most famed members, who in their day had exactly the same debates.

Nothing is ever settled; there is no incentive to do so, for while politics stifles the originality that stands as a threat to its existence, the state is not a producer and has no imagination. Its discretionary judgment is reactive, not proactive. Problem solving requires ingenuity; it is in the state’s interest to perpetuate the most prominent and pressing inequities for it cannot grasp the nuances of subtler injustices.

Having expanded its stifling provenance beyond the bounds of politics, the rest of society stagnates. Political discourse is an obligatory and routine masque; this becomes true of culture as well. Creativity is not unbounded. Originality becomes relative, a matter of reinterpreting the known and safe. Old tropes and messages are recycled in the same manner as political messages.

The result is the emergence of a hierarchy of creativity. Society, working in concert with the state, implicitly endorses appropriate forms of expression. Since culture must evolve but politics is rooted in stasis, the genesis of popular entertainment is really a devolution between an increasingly narrowed choice of old and familiar – and therefore not a threat to the state’s survival – modes of creative expression.

This constant winnowing creates a hierarchy amongst creators which is monistic. The dominant creative modalities can coexist with less prominent artistic forms, but there can be no serious cross-collaboration because the popular carries the blessing of the state while the alternative carries a stigma.

It is no mistake that culture is becoming increasingly fragmented and imitative at the same time all the most authoritative of pundits are obsessed with the problem of a fractured and partisan polity. The former issue drives the latter. Culture is not the primary problem. A cognitive state which wields unbound latitudinous powers is the root cause of the deficit of creativity.  [read more]

The author starts the article with saying that creativity can be the enemy of the State. True, but creativity can be enemy of any establishment—especially if the establishment is afraid of losing power.  Any organization that doesn’t want change is afraid of creative people. The physics community at first didn’t accept Einstein’s theories. Galileo had his resisters too. Even Einstein resisted the scientists who developed quantum theory.

What do creative people represent? Risk. They buck the system. The more there is group think (or a mob mindset) in a social system the more the creative people in the system will be seen as the outsider. And if universities suppress creative or even diverse thoughts not only does this hurt the creative individual, it doesn’t help the university community as a whole.

It also doesn’t help anything when group rights are more important than individual rights.

What ISIS Really Wants

Commentary from Graeme Wood on The Atlantic.com (March 2015):

The Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), follows a distinctive variety of Islam whose beliefs about the path to the Day of Judgment matter to its strategy, and can help the West know its enemy and predict its behavior. Its rise to power is less like the triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (a group whose leaders the Islamic State considers apostates) than like the realization of a dystopian alternate reality in which David Koresh or Jim Jones survived to wield absolute power over not just a few hundred people, but some 8 million.

We have misunderstood the nature of the Islamic State in at least two ways. First, we tend to see jihadism as monolithic, and to apply the logic of al-Qaeda to an organization that has decisively eclipsed it. The Islamic State supporters I spoke with still refer to Osama bin Laden as “Sheikh Osama,” a title of honor. But jihadism has evolved since al-Qaeda’s heyday, from about 1998 to 2003, and many jihadists disdain the group’s priorities and current leadership.

Bin Laden viewed his terrorism as a prologue to a caliphate he did not expect to see in his lifetime. His organization was flexible, operating as a geographically diffuse network of autonomous cells. The Islamic State, by contrast, requires territory to remain legitimate, and a top-down structure to rule it. (Its bureaucracy is divided into civil and military arms, and its territory into provinces.)

We are misled in a second way, by a well-intentioned but dishonest campaign to deny the Islamic State’s medieval religious nature. Peter Bergen, who produced the first interview with bin Laden in 1997, titled his first book Holy War, Inc. in part to acknowledge bin Laden as a creature of the modern secular world. Bin Laden corporatized terror and franchised it out. He requested specific political concessions, such as the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia. His foot soldiers navigated the modern world confidently. On Mohamed Atta’s last full day of life, he shopped at Walmart and ate dinner at Pizza Hut.

There is a temptation to rehearse this observation—that jihadists are modern secular people, with modern political concerns, wearing medieval religious disguise—and make it fit the Islamic State. In fact, much of what the group does looks nonsensical except in light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse.

The most-articulate spokesmen for that position are the Islamic State’s officials and supporters themselves. They refer derisively to “moderns.” In conversation, they insist that they will not—cannot—waver from governing precepts that were embedded in Islam by the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers. They often speak in codes and allusions that sound odd or old-fashioned to non-Muslims, but refer to specific traditions and texts of early Islam.

To take one example: In September, Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the Islamic State’s chief spokesman, called on Muslims in Western countries such as France and Canada to find an infidel and “smash his head with a rock,” poison him, run him over with a car, or “destroy his crops.” To Western ears, the biblical-sounding punishments—the stoning and crop destruction—juxtaposed strangely with his more modern-sounding call to vehicular homicide. (As if to show that he could terrorize by imagery alone, Adnani also referred to Secretary of State John Kerry as an “uncircumcised geezer.”)

But Adnani was not merely talking trash. His speech was laced with theological and legal discussion, and his exhortation to attack crops directly echoed orders from Muhammad to leave well water and crops alone—unless the armies of Islam were in a defensive position, in which case Muslims in the lands of kuffar, or infidels, should be unmerciful, and poison away.

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal.  [read more]

Interesting article.

Hack Your Pancreas and 3D-Print Your Smile

From FEE.org (May 26):

The more government involves itself in health care, the harder it becomes to find quality services at affordable prices. As the state has inserted itself more heavily into the health sector over the last several years, many Americans are left searching for alternatives to traditional services.

Luckily, as technology continues to advance far beyond anything our grandparents thought possible, health care itself is becoming more decentralized as individuals are now able to take personal control over their medical decisions.

While older generations may be content to wait on others to improve existing services, millennials are too impatient to let others change the world without taking an active role.

As America’s favorite scapegoat, the country’s youth is constantly being accosted for not caring enough about our futures and specifically, for lack of desire when it comes to buying health insurance. Proponents of nationalized health care will say just about anything to convince young Americans to buy insurance policies we have no interest in purchasing. But while we may not be purchasing health care premiums, millennials are doing something no other generation has done before: open-sourcing health care.

3D Print a Perfect Smile

Just last year, college student Amos Dudley was making headlines after he utilized his campus’ 3D printer in order to make his own orthodontic retainers. Unsatisfied with the appearance of his own teeth but unable to afford braces, which can cost several thousand dollars, Dudley spent his free time researching various methods of straightening teeth and applied that knowledge as he designed and 3D-printed several “invisible” retainers for his own use.

…………………….

Health In Your Hands

Alabama resident Dana Lewis’ inspiration for designing and manufacturing artificial pancreases was born out of her own struggle with type 1 diabetes.

Since diabetes patients do not enjoy a fully functioning pancreas, which helps produce and regulate the flow of insulin throughout the body, the trick is finding some sort of device that automatically monitors the levels of blood sugar in the body and then adjusts the insulin administered. As of now, nothing on the market or available through a physician is able to adequately perform the tasks of a real pancreas, which has caused many diabetes patients to take their health in their own hands.  [read more]

Thank you Obamacare for making these desperate young people to make their own medical equipment! If some Congress person who likes over-regulation reads about this he or she would be thinking about outlawing this practice. You never know.

Be Wary of the Orwellian "Enlightened" Class

Commentary from Robin Koerner on FEE.org:

It’s Not What You Believe. It’s How You Believe It

George Orwell’s novel 1984 has been selling in large numbers to people scared of a lurch toward authoritarianism in the USA. I recently noted that both that book and Animal Farm were written not as a warning against a particular political ideology but against the implementation of any ideology, however progressive, by people who think themselves too smart to have to test their politics against the emotions, sentiments, and experiences of those they would affect.

In his essay, My Country Right or Left, Orwell referred to such people as "so ‘enlightened’ that they cannot understand the most ordinary emotions."

He understood that the morality of a political ideology in practice cannot be determined from its theoretical exposition – but only from the actual experiences of those who would be affected by its real-world application.

To make the point to the people he felt most needed to hear it, Orwell, a self-identified socialist, called out the arrogance of his friends on the Left who experienced themselves as so “enlightened,” to use his word, that they did not need to consider the sentiments – let alone ideas – of those who were to them clearly politically ignorant.

Orwell had a name for this kind of self-righteous certainty – and it wasn’t fascism, capitalism, or communism.  It was “orthodoxy,” which he explains in 1984, “means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.” It is a state exhibited by people who already know they have the right answers – at least in the areas that matter.

There is no political system so perfect that it will not be deadly when imposed against the will of others by people sure of their own righteousness. Orwell saw that no political theory – even the egalitarian socialism that he believed to be the most moral – can prevent its adherents from being anything other than tyrants if they are committed to it in a way that is immune to the protests and experiences of other people.

In other words, tyranny is not the result of a belief in a bad political theory; it is the result of a bad belief in a political theory – and that is an entirely different thing.

………………………………..

The Epistemology of Tyranny

Science and scientism are superficially similar but epistemic opposites.

A true scientist remains doxastically open. That means that she works always on the assumption that her theory is a) false or incomplete and b) will therefore change.

The daily task of science is to identify the ways in which our current understanding is lacking. In so doing, science’s understanding of the world becomes less false.

Scientism, in contrast, is doxastically closed. That means that it identifies our best theory but then behaves as if it is a) absolute truth and b) will therefore not change.

Scientism, unlike science, has no need for data. It is deadly because it always uses the current paradigm to explain away potentially problematic observations. (E.g. the cat’s squeal isn’t telling me it’s in pain; it’s confirming that machines, including cats, have predictable responses to physical stimuli.)

Orwell’s “unthinking orthodoxy” is “political scientism.” That’s the epistemology of tyranny.

In my earlier article, I wrote about the authoritarianism of some of the “Social Justice Warrior” Left today, who would give moral privilege to groups they identity as victim groups in the name of eliminating privilege; who would eliminate the free speech of people with whom they disagree in the name of giving everyone an equal voice; who equate speech with violence to justify violence against those who speak.

Bizarre as those paradoxes clearly are, their advocates are not automatically dangerous if they are open to revising their moral or political theory in the light of falsifying data or contradictions in the theory’s application.

What makes it all dangerous is that it is allied with an a priori belief about competing views and political opponents that eliminate the possibility that any experiences or perspectives could provide data that could challenge the theory.

If potentially contradictory data can be rejected a priori on account of being explained away as the result of “fascist”, “racist”, “sexist” attitudes, for example, then the theory is inoculated against the human data against which all political theories must be tested.

……………………..

Since these scientistic non-scientists experienced themselves, rightly, as believing in nothing more than the most certain and proved human knowledge, if you disagree with them, you aren’t just wrong (which would be allowable), you are intellectually backward.* If you believe in spirit, whatever that might be, in a mechanistic universe, you aren’t just factually mistaken, you are rejecting human progress; you are believing in something that isn’t just not the case but isn’t even worthy of consideration.  [read more]

*Hillary Clinton called these people “irredeemable deplorables. “

Here is what conservative thinker Russell Kirk said on the matter:

Fascism, Naziism, and communism all have claimed to be scientific. A good representative of reformed scientific opinion is Dr. Edmund W. Sinnott, dean of the graduate school of Yale University, writing in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (December 1956). After presenting very fairly and even evangelically the case for scientific positivism and objectivity, he proceeds to demolish it. With Aristotle, Sinnott recognizes final causes: he is a teleologist. What animates every organism, what constitutes its nature, is purpose: “If it be accepted, the idea of purpose, of intention, of the motive power of a goal or ideal rather than of an organic‘drive,’ changes the orientation of our psychical lives.” Man, he argues, is drawn toward a goal; and that goal often cannot be perceived or apprehended through the methods of exact science. “The closest contact with reality for many people is through this unexplained, mysterious urgency in life experienced in flashes of insight, for these carry with them a great weight of authority.”

“The days of the evolutionary optimists are gone,” Sinnott continues, “who believed that progress is inherent in the nature of things and that man is bound to grow better almost automatically. If we are to find a way out of our troubles, we must appeal not only to the rational attitudes and methods of the scientist but also to man’s inner spiritual motivation. Love may turn out to be a more valuable resource than logic.”

For Sinnott, science cannot supplant religion; both science and religion “have indispensable contributions to make to the great task of building a society in which men will not only be safe and wise and happy and loving but will gain the serene confidence that their lives are in harmony with the universe itself.”

Source: “The Drug of Ideology.” The Essential Russell Kirk. Selected Essays (2007) by George A. Panichas [editor].

4 Reasons Trump Was Right to Pull Out of the Paris Agreement

From The Daily Signal.com (June 1):

President Donald Trump has fulfilled a key campaign pledge, announcing that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

The Paris Agreement, which committed the U.S. to drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, was a truly bad deal—bad for American taxpayers, American energy companies, and every single American who depends on affordable, reliable energy.

It was also bad for the countries that remain in the agreement. Here are four reasons Trump was right to withdraw.

1. The Paris Agreement was costly and ineffective.

The Paris Agreement is highly costly and would do close to nil to address climate change.

If carried out, the energy regulations agreed to in Paris by the Obama administration would kill hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm American manufacturing, and destroy $2.5 trillion in gross domestic product by the year 2035.

In withdrawing from the agreement, Trump removed a massive barrier to achieving the 3 percent economic growth rates America is accustomed to.

……………….

In terms of climate benefits produced by Paris, there are practically none.

Even if every country met its commitments—a big “if” considering China has already underreported its carbon dioxide emissions, and there are no repercussions for failing to meet the pledges—the changes in the earth’s temperature would be almost undetectable.

2. The agreement wasted taxpayer money.

In climate negotiations leading up to the Paris conference, participants called for a Green Climate Fund that would collect $100 billion per year by 2020.

The goal of this fund would be to subsidize green energy and pay for other climate adaptation and mitigation programs in poorer nations—and to get buy-in (literally) from those poorer nations for the final Paris Agreement.

………………..

3. Withdrawal is a demonstration of leadership.

…………………

Certainly, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement will be met with consternation from foreign leaders, as was the case when the U.S. withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol.

However, it could very well help future negotiations if other governments know that the U.S. is willing and able to resist diplomatic pressure in order to protect American interests.

4. Withdrawal is good for American energy competitiveness.

……………………..

Whether it is conventional fuel companies or renewable ones, the best way for American energy companies to be competitive is to be innovative and competitive in the marketplace, not build their business models around international agreements.

There is nothing about leaving the agreement that prevents Americans from continuing to invest in new energy technologies.

The market for energy is $6 trillion and projected to grow by a third by 2040. Roughly 1.3 billion people do not yet have access to electricity, let alone reliable, affordable energy.  [read more]

I’m glad Trump kept this campaign promise and decided to pull out the stupid Paris Agreement. He’s right. The agreement is unfair to America. All it did was to stick it to America and raise energy costs on the poor. Like the Left cares about that. All they care about is saving the earth from a future mythical raise in global temperature while they fly in their gas guzzling airplanes. Then again they’re special so I guess it is alright.

Here are some more articles the reader might like:

• The Amazing Arrogance of the Paris Climate Agreement
• UN "Green Climate" Program Is a Slush Fund for Dictators
• Paris Climate Agreement: What you need to know

Under Socialism, Morality Is Scarcer than Bread

Commentary by Marian L. Tupy on FEE.org (May 15):

A couple of weeks ago, I visited New Orleans, where I gave a talk on human progress. My talk centered on improvements in standards of living across the world over the last 200 years – a period of historically unprecedented growth in prosperity caused by the industrial revolution and global trade.

One of the questions from the audience concerned the morality of capitalism. “You have shown that capitalism creates more wealth than socialism,” a young man conceded. “But is it moral?” he asked.

The Morality of Capitalism

In response, I dwelt on the voluntary and socially beneficial aspects of capitalism.

In order to make money, capitalists need to perform tasks or produce goods that other people want. (Yes, there are exceptions. Capitalists protected from market forces by corrupt public officials, for example, gain monopolistic rents that they are not entitled to. That is what is meant by the phrase “crony capitalism.”)

Similarly, transactions between capitalists and consumers are typically voluntary. Capitalists cannot force their customers to buy private sector goods and services. (Again, there are exceptions. Under Obamacare, for example, the US government can force people to purchase private-sector health insurance.)

Defending capitalism as a morally sound economic system is certainly important, not least because, as I have previously noted, “In so far as capitalism is only the latest iteration of an economy set up based on commerce, private property and profit making, there have always been those who found those three [morally] unpalatable.”

Socialism's False Promises 

Socialism, as my New Orleans questioner implied, is often assumed to be moral. Is that assumption justified?

Socialism is a utopian ideal intended to solve all of humanity’s problems including, above all, poverty and inequality. The theory and practice, alas, have tended to be at odds with one another.

Here is how Karl Marx outlined the future benefits of a socialist society:

“If we have chosen the position in life in which we can most of all work for mankind, no burdens can bow us down, because they are sacrifices for the benefit of all; then we shall experience no petty, limited, selfish joy, but our happiness will belong to millions, our deeds will live on quietly but perpetually at work, and over our ashes will be shed the hot tears of noble people.”

Leon Trotsky, the Soviet revolutionary, wrote that in a socialist society:

“Man will become immeasurably stronger, wiser, and subtler; his body will become more harmonious, his movements more rhythmic, his voice more musical. The forms of life will become dynamically dramatic. The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above these heights, new peaks will rise.”

Fidel Castro declared that the Cuban Revolution was “of the humble, with the humble and for the humble” and that his struggle for socialism was “for the lives of all children in the world.”

…………………….

Collectivism Creates Tyranny

Applying socialist ideas in practice turned out to be much more problematic. One of the most obvious shortcomings of socialism in real life is its tendency to lead toward dictatorship. This relationship, clearly visible in Venezuela today, was first identified by the Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek in The Road to Serfdom.

In 1944, when he wrote his book, Hayek noted that the crimes of the German National Socialists and Soviet Communists were, in great part, the result of growing state control over the economy.

As he explained, growing state interference in the economy leads to massive inefficiencies and long queues outside empty shops. A state of perpetual economic crisis then leads to calls for more planning.

But economic planning is inimical to freedom. As there can be no agreement on a single plan in a free society, the centralization of economic decision-making has to be accompanied by centralization of political power in the hands of a small elite. When, in the end, the failure of central planning becomes undeniable, totalitarian regimes tend to silence the dissenters—sometimes through mass murder.

Political dissent under socialism is difficult, because the state is the only employer. To quote Trotsky again, “In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.” A free economy, in other words, is a necessary, though not a sufficient condition, for political freedom.

Obviously, not everyone feels that dictatorship and mass murder are too high a price to pay for equality. Eric Hobsbawm, the British Marxist historian, for example, was once asked whether, if Communism had achieved its aims, but at the cost of, say, 15 to 20 million people – as opposed to the 100 million it actually killed in Russia and China – would he have supported it? His answer was a single word: Yes. Even today, many people, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau among them, fawn over Cuban dictatorship, because of its delivery of supposedly free health and education to the masses.

I wrote “supposedly” because under socialism, bribes (cash payments, for example, or favours) are ubiquitous. Medical practitioners, who don’t feel that they are being paid enough by the state, demand bribes in order to look after their patients. Teachers, who feel the same, promote the children of doctors in order to get better access to health care. This process goes all the way down the food chain.

Often, bribery and theft go hand in hand. In socialist countries, the state owns all production facilities, such as factories, shops and farms. In order to have something to trade with one another, people first have to “steal” from the state. A butcher, for example, steals meat in order to exchange it for vegetables that the green grocer stole and so on.

Under socialism, favours can be obtained in other ways as well. In East Germany, for example, people often spied on their neighbours and, even, spouses.

…………………..

Socialism, in other words, is not only underpinned by force, but it is also morally corrupting. Lying, stealing and spying are widely used and trust between people disappears. Far from fostering brotherhood between people, socialism makes everyone suspicious and resentful. [read more]

So much for socialism being a close proximity to a utopia. That’s what you get when the individual is less important than the group. Capitalism may not be perfect but socialism is far worse.

Ronald Reagan’s Thoughts on Education

Remarks at the National Forum on Excellence in Education in Indianapolis, Indiana
December 8, 1983:

And today our children need good schools more than ever. We stand on the verge of a new age, a computer age when medical breakthroughs will add years to our lives. Information retrieval systems will bring all the world's great literature, music, and drama into the family home. And advances in space travel will make the space shuttle Columbia look as old-fashioned as Lindbergh's plane, The Spirit of St. Louis. But if our children are to take their places as tomorrow's leaders we must teach them the skills they need.

If America is to offer greater economic opportunity to her citizens, if she's to defend our freedom, democracy, and keep the peace, then our children will need wisdom, courage, and strength—virtues beyond their reach without education. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free . . . it expects what never was and never will be."

And yet, today, some of our schools aren't doing the job they should. Of course, there are many fine schools and thousands of dedicated superintendents, principals, and teachers. But from 1963 to 1980, Scholastic Aptitude Test scores showed a virtually unbroken decline. Science achievement scores of 17-year-olds have shown a steady fall. And, most shocking, today more than one tenth of our 17-year-olds are functionally illiterate.

Now, some insist there's only one answer: more money. But that's been tried. Total expenditures in our nation's schools this year, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, will total $230 billion. Now, that's up almost 7 percent from last year, about double the rate of inflation-more than double the rate of inflation and more than double what we spent on education just 10 years ago. So, if money alone were the answer, the problem would have been shrinking, not growing.

American schools don't need vast new sums of money as much as they need a few fundamental reforms. I believe there are six that can and will turn our schools around.

First, we need to restore good old-fashioned discipline. In too many schools across the land, teachers can't teach because they lack the authority to make students take tests and hand in homework. Some don't even have the authority to quiet down their class. In some schools, teachers suffer verbal and physical abuse. I can't say it too forcefully: This must stop.

We need to write stricter discipline codes, then support our teachers when they enforce those codes. Back at the turn of the century, one education handbook told teachers that enforcing discipline—and I quote—"You have the law back of you. You have intelligent public sentiment back of you." We must make both those statements true once again.

Second, we must end the drug and alcohol abuse that plagues hundreds of thousands of our children. Chemical abuse by young people not only damages the lives of individual users; it can create a drug culture at school. We need to teach our sons and daughters the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse, enforce the law, and rehabilitate the users. Whatever it takes, we must make certain that America's schools are temples of learning, and not drug dens.

Third, we must raise academic standards. Today, 35 States require only 1 year of math for a high school diploma; 36 require only 1 year of science. Many exchange students from foreign countries—Japan, West Germany, and others—are quick to point out that our academic standards are not as tough as theirs.

………………………

Fourth, we must encourage good teaching. Teachers should be paid and promoted on the basis of their competence and merit. Hard-earned tax dollars should encourage the best. They have no business rewarding mediocrity.

Fifth, we must restore parents and State and local governments to their rightful place in the educational process. Decisions about discipline, curriculum, and academic standards, the factors that make a school good or bad, shouldn't be made by people in Washington. They should be made at the grassroots, by parents, teachers, and administrators in their communities.

And sixth and last, we must teach the basics. Too many of our students are allowed to abandon vocational and college prep courses for general ones.

………………………………

One other idea at the core of our basic values. I just have to believe that the loving God who has blessed this land should never have been expelled from America's classrooms. When we open ourselves to Him, we gain not only moral courage but intellectual strength. If the Members of Congress can start each day with a moment for prayer and meditation, so can our children in their schools.   [read more]

Good advice.