Leaderboard
Popular Content
Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/13/25 in all areas
-
Reblogged:Loyalty vs. Justice (and Law and Order)
EC and 2 others reacted to Gus Van Horn blog for a topic
A joke making the rounds on Twitter concerns Bill Cosby trending, and people wondering which cabinet position Trump nominated him for. Some of his nominations, particularly of Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for Health and Human Services, are at least equally ridiculous in terms of the qualifications a serious person would require for such posts. But Donald Trump is not a serious person. He is a wannabe mob boss, and the primary qualification for underlings in that field of endeavor is loyalty to him above all else. This explains both his worst cabinet nominations and his blanket pardon of the January 6th insurrectionists, who ranged from unwitting trespassers (who could reasonably be pardoned) to real criminals (who should have served their terms):Image by the January 6th Committee, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain.There seems to be a fairly big misconception that only peaceful J6 protesters got pardons while violent felons got commutations. That's not true. Among those who received full, unconditional pardons: Peter Stager, who beat a cop with a flagpole; Daniel Rodriguez who drove a stun gun into a cop's neck; and Peter Schwartz, who attacked police with a chair & chemical spray. The text of the pardon reads in part that it serves to end "a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the American people over the last four years." Whatever one makes of those events, unleashing real criminals is no way to achieve justice. Absent real justice, the poetic variety has already come for one of these criminals, a repeatedly-convicted man who would still be alive today if not for Trump's actions and his own lawlessness:An Indiana man recently pardoned by President Donald Trump for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol has been shot and killed by a sheriff's deputy during a traffic stop. Just after 4 p.m. on Sunday, a Jasper County Sheriff's deputy pulled over 42-year-old Matthew Huttle of Hobart, Indiana State Police said in news release. While trying to arrest Huttle, police say he resisted and began struggling with the deputy. "An altercation took place between the suspect and the officer, which resulted in the officer firing his weapon and fatally wounding the suspect," police said.Meanwhile, another of these outstanding citizens, Daniel Ball, is in jail for federal gun charge, and yet another is wanted for soliciting a minor online. A major motivation for many Trump voters was law and order. This reckless mass release is a poor start, to say the least. -- CAVLink to Original3 points -
Reblogged:RFK's 'Show Me the Data' Game
EC and one other reacted to Gus Van Horn blog for a topic
Former Vice President Mike Pence correctly states "RFK's hearings remove all doubt: He's not fit to lead a key federal health agency," in an editorial for which my only criticism is that it doesn't go far enough. While it is true that Kennedy's views about vaccines are enough alone to disqualify him, Pence makes a common, wrong concession in his argument:True, he does support some worthwhile lifestyle changes that can make folks healthier -- like better diets and exercise. But there's too much wackiness in his background to trust America's health to such a figure. Does he really understand, let alone support the "good parts?" I'm not so sure. I happen to know, for example, that Kennedy advocates "sustainable" agricultural policies that would lead to famine if implemented consistently for very long. He also rails against "ultra-processed" foods without ever defining the term, and as an advocate of the nanny state, would happily take the decision to avail ourselves of such convenience out of our hands. But let's set that aside for a moment, and even grant that he has a few suggestions about diet and exercise that would promote health, if practiced: He does, after all, look pretty good for someone his age. The below, which he says about vaccines, would make me hesitant to take advice of any kind from him:"Will you reassure mothers -- unequivocally and without qualification -- that the measles and hepatitis B vaccines do not cause autism?" the would-be HHS boss was asked. "If you show me data, I will be the first person to assure the American people that they need to take those vaccines," he responded. Uh, has he heard of Google? [bold added]This is not someone who actually cares about "the data" on vaccine safety, of which there is an overwhelming amount, all freely available. And if he's going to ignore this data, while pretending to be receptive to it, why should we believe he approaches anything else differently? Anything "good" coming from his mouth will be by chance, and in spite of the way his mind normally functions. Some people do compartmentalize, but for a post with so much influence, we need someone who is as rational as possible across the board. Kennedy is not only obviously wrong about vaccines, his whole approach to science is suspect, and disqualifies him from possessing authority over even a small part of HHS. -- CAVLink to Original2 points -
Reblogged:RFK's 'Show Me the Data' Game
EC and one other reacted to DavidOdden for a topic
What makes RFK dangerous is the fact that he will have and exercise the power of arbitrary force, and paired with his boss’s contempt for law, there is no reason to think that the use of force will be even the slightest under control of objective law. Trump has already done an excellent job of proving the Republicans cannot be trusted as the “defenders of individual rights”. In an Atlas Shrugged sense this could bring about the collapse of civilization which may teach the masses a lesson about the delusion that government control “protects” us. For a real clean sweep, I guess the plan is to completely discredit science and reason, make us return to the stone age, and see if reason and civilization can be re-discovered after a few millenia.2 points -
This is the sort of thing that happens when science becomes a government bureau, and then that bureau becomes dishonest, and then gets caught being dishonest. Nobody knows what to believe anymore. Nobody knows how deep the lies go. This is not RFK's fault and I guarantee you that if RFK dropped out and Trump got somebody else, the same problem would still exist. There are certain people in Congress who want things to go back to the way they were before, as if their lies had never been caught, and these people would only confirm somebody who is willing to go back to going along with all the old lies. They're still trying to push the notion that the government could never be wrong about anything, that it's a conspiracy theory to think that they ever could be wrong. Or lying. I think it's better to be suspicious of government bureaus, especially now that we have a sense of what kind of trouble they can create. You can find studies showing all sorts of stuff, and you can also find studies that have been retracted -- but were they retracted because they were inaccurate, or for political reasons? Was there arm-twisting going on behind the scenes? There is after all a lot of money on the line. Government money. Ayn Rand wrote that such money can make people indifferent to what's true and what's false. So how can we ever know? It used to be that we trusted these people, but now there is no way of knowing what's true anymore, except to sweep aside all the questionable nonsense and start over again from scratch, from reality, which can be verified. Discovering reality is what science is supposed to do anyway, and that's the only cure for this particular illness. So I don't see why RFK is dangerous. Maybe he'll make the bureaucracy less trustworthy? As if that is even possible.2 points
-
Reblogged:The Dunning-Kruger Coalition Spurns Advice
Jon Letendre and one other reacted to Gus Van Horn blog for a topic
This man could save numerous lives simply by voting no today. (Image by United States Congress, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain.)According to the Constitution -- and, frankly, common sense -- it is the job of the Senate to provide "advice and consent" regarding government officials the President wishes to appoint. Why wouldn't a President want to be surrounded by the best possible advisors? Who wouldn't want an ally to stop him short of making a stupid move? I don't know, either, but the Dunning-Kruger Coalition (aka MAGA) is working overtime to make sure Senators with very good reservations about two of Trump's worst cabinet nominees make it to a floor vote. These are Tulsi Gabbard for Intelligence and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Health and Human Services:[Todd Young's (R-IN)] potential opposition [to Gabbard] pushed Trump allies into overdrive over the weekend to heap pressure on him. Leading that effort was Elon Musk, who posted on X that the Indiana Republican is "a deep state puppet." Musk eventually deleted the post after talking directly with Young, saying later that the senator is "a great ally in restoring power to the people from the vast, unelected bureaucracy." [link omitted]The Trump Party is applying similar pressure to Bill Cassidy (R-LA), a physician (!) who has raised very good questions about Kennedy's fitness for office. (In my opinion, if any physician in the Senate -- there are four -- votes for Kennedy, he deserves to be stripped of his license.) As if that isn't bad enough:There's been chatter around the Capitol about the possibility of getting Gabbard to a floor vote even if she doesn't win the support of all nine GOP members on the panel, though it's unclear if Republicans will attempt the maneuver. The Republican majority on the two committees voting today is one. In each case, a single vote could save us from the consequences of particularly inept leadership in a major area of government. Or, to put it in the words of a Republican I heard: One vote is all it could take now to preserve Trump's legacy. It says something that Trump would make such reckless, objectively bad nominations in the first place: It's beyond incredible that even that last consideration apparently gives pause to very few on the Trump Train. -- CAVLink to Original2 points -
Reblogged:MORE Golf for Trump, PLEASE!
Jon Letendre and one other reacted to Gus Van Horn blog for a topic
Well! It didn't take long for some political opponent of Trump to drag out the modern version of Nero fiddled while Rome burned, which is "Uhhh! The President is playing golf too much." Cropped from image by the White House, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain.My news digest for the day includes a link to the Trump Golf Track (sic), which, as of this morning, shows a red-hatted Trump leaning on a golf club, with numbers for days in office, days and percentage of time spent golfing, graphs of egg and gas prices (over which no President should have any control), and links to X/Twitter for substantiation of the implicit charge of laziness. I have said it before of Trump I and Obama, and I will say it again: [H]is policies [are] so bad for America, I'd frankly rather he spent much more time on the links! In his short time in office, Trump has started needless trade wars with our closest allies (which really amount to a self-imposed national trade embargo) and, in the case of Denmark, rattled his saber at them. While his agenda isn't 100% awful, he seems to have made the most energetic moves on these foolish policies, so I would have to say that, on balance, criticizing him for not being hard-enough at it is ridiculous. When we have a bad employee, we don't put that employee on more shifts. We find a way to lessen the damage en route to firing him. -- CAVLink to Original2 points -
Reblogged:How NOT to Rein in Government
EC and one other reacted to Gus Van Horn blog for a topic
As regulars know, I advocate bringing government back to its proper scope, protecting individual rights. That is a very long-term goal that I am almost certain I will not live to see accomplished. Why? First, the reason government is so out of bounds now has to be addressed, given that this is a republic, and its leaders broadly respond to what the people want. Until a significant minority is out there making a case for limited government that the majority will buy, the welfare state will live on. And, until such altruistic ideas as I am my brother's keeper -- and the collectivist notion that the state should make me keep him -- are no longer dominant in the culture, good luck with that. Second, once the above happens, the process of unraveling the state from the economy and our lives is complicated. Take Social Security: It has to be sunsetted thanks to the government's "promise" causing millions of people to take it into account when planning their retirements. Certain government controls -- like "rational" regulations -- that take the place of things that would exist in a free economy need to be replaced carefully. Even with wind in the sails, this will take time and careful planning to do. Let me state now that what Trump is doing -- making a show of combating "inefficiency" and laying off bureaucrats with no discernible plan to eliminate their employers -- is about as close to the opposite of how I would attack the problem as I can imagine -- and I'm pretty sure he's more interested in taking over the bureaucracy than ending it, anyway. Needless to say, the federal workers Trump is attempting to eliminate via executive order are in a panic, leading them to inundate. employment experts like Alison Green with questions. Her answers are interesting, and include the following:A lot of what the administration is doing is designed to demoralize people and get them to quit on their own and stop carrying out the missions of their agencies. One school of thought is not to make it easy for them; if they want to lay off you, make them lay you off (which will also make you eligible for unemployment benefits, which quitting won't). That said, it's not always that simple. You need to balance that against your morale, how you feel ethically about staying, what work will be asked of you, your finances ... Different people may make that calculation differently, and those of us watching from the outside should begrudge absolutely no one who decides to get out. One big caution: the memo that went out yesterday asking for "voluntary resignations" in exchange for getting paid through September 30 should not be trusted. Senator Tim Kaine noted last night that it's a trap, the administration doesn't have the authority to offer it, and the promised pay-outs may not materialize. They want you to take that offer so they can avoid lawsuits, and there's a reason it sounds a lot like what Elon Musk did at Twitter (when, as it happens, workers also didn't receive promised severance). [bold added]Green also notes:For an idea of what else might be coming, [see] the Project 2025 agenda -- which is now being openly implemented, despite Trump distancing himself from it during the campaign...Whatever the results, the underhanded, hamfisted, and legally dubious approach Donald Trump is taking risks discrediting anyone who is actually interested in returning government to its proper scope. This will happen in much the same way Herbert Hoover's policies ahead of the Depression discredited capitalism for generations to come: the majority of people who don't think that much or that clearly about such matters will associate those things, and the cause of freedom will suffer. -- CAVLink to Original2 points -
Reblogged:Coming for Vaccines: Anti-Vax Theocrats
EC and one other reacted to Gus Van Horn blog for a topic
Another "Trump Effect" We Can Do Without His confirmation hearings haven't even started yet, and Donald Trump's careless nomination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to Health and Human Services has emboldened legislators in 15 states to introduce legislation challenging vaccination requirements, such as for attending government schools: Religious exemptions for school vaccine requirements are among the most popular proposals so far. Lawmakers in New York, Virginia, Connecticut and Mississippi have introduced bills that would allow more people to waive routine shots. Indiana lawmakers will weigh religious exemptions for medical students. ... [Brian Festa, co-founder of an anti-vaccination law firm] credited West Virginia's new religious exemption to Trump's nomination of Kennedy, as well as a 2023 federal court ruling that required Mississippi to allow residents to cite religious beliefs when seeking exemptions from state-mandated vaccinations for children. "I think the writing's on the wall and they did feel the pressure," Festa said of West Virginia.After the heavy-handed policies of the left during the pandemic, and less-than-ideal explanations of the benefits of the Covid vaccines, Republican politicians seem rather to have doubled down on the kind of perspective I noticed during the pandemic:...While I applaud DeSantis being wary of and opposing government-imposed vaccine mandates and "passports," he was wrong to prevent businesses who wanted them to require vaccinations of their employees or customers if that is what their (individual!) owners wanted to do. This is almost blatantly contradictory and indicates that, for his admiration of America's founding principles, he does not understand them appreciably better than most other politicians.But Gus, the government runs the public schools! you might object. This is true, but ideally, the educational sector would be privatized and each school free to set its own vaccination policy. Given the choice and accurate information about vaccines, most parents would send their children to schools that required vaccinations of pupils as a condition for enrollment. Absent a private education sector, the government should have the most rational, scientific vaccination policies in place for schools. That is generally the status quo now, and changing that at the state level as these Republicans are proposing will endanger herd immunity, which will make attending school especially dangerous for any child who has to forgo vaccination for legitimate medical reasons, such as allergies -- and for anyone whose vaccination was ineffective for any reason. RFK, Jr., ahead of his confirmation hearings has said We're not going to take vaccines away from anybody. No matter: Between the trial lawyers he will empower and politicians like these, he won't have to. -- CAVLink to Original2 points -
Executive rewriting of The Constitution
EC and one other reacted to DavidOdden for a topic
The most significant first salvo in Trump’s attack against foreigners is his interpretative directive regarding “citizen”, which says that Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth. One has to fill in some gaps to make this argument complete. These points will no doubt be explicitly argued when the case reaches the appeals courts. Para 6 of the TRO against the order only gives a simple statement of why plaintiffs are likely to succeed. For our temporary entertainment (or, in anticipation of a forthcoming legal apocalypse), we can consider the probable logic that can be applied to this case. The key constitutional clause is that “All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”. Exceptions have long been recognized by reference to English law for a definition of “natural-born British subject”, whereby one is not a natural-born British subject. First, “Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien” and “Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien”. This defines the common law presumption that underlies the US Constitution. In the Slaughterhouse Cases (16 Wall. 83 U. S. 72), the court makes a distinction between citizenship in a state, and citizenship in the US: The distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union. That ruling also states the standard interpretation of ‘subject to its jurisdiction’: The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." In US v. WAK, the court dials back this position a bit, noting that “neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest…”, referring to Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 166-168. Instead, Allegiance and protection are, in this connection…reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. Here is the ticking time bomb: As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The court in US v. WAK then claims that The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. It is uncontroversial that there exists a traditional definition of those who are not natural born citizens (a fatal lacuna in Roe v. Wade). The core of the “subject to jurisdiction” argument starts at p. 169. It is utterly uncontroversial that every alien who is present in the US, other than a POW or diplomat, is subject to the laws of the US. Were that not the case, and were Trump’s assertion about offspring of aliens who are either illegal or temporary not being “subject to US jurisdiction” true, that would mean that offspring of such persons are, like POWs and diplomats, immune from criminal prosecution of civil action – a ludicrous assertion. That is the difference between those subject to jurisdiction, and those immune to jurisdiction. Whenever the court utters an unprincipled statement like “For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts”, you can predict that such failure to identify a principle will come back to bite you, or more precisely, us. There is a strong argument from tradition that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has an extremely narrow application. I predict that the order will be obliterated, possibly even by SCOTUS explicitly reaffirming the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Still, nothing is certain with this court.2 points -
Reblogged:GOP Ignores Inaugural Lesson at Own Peril
tadmjones and one other reacted to Gus Van Horn blog for a topic
Conservative columnist Rich Lowry correctly notes how the Democrats paved the way for Donald Trump to win the last election. He concludes: The Democrats appeared to believe that it didn't matter how out of touch and radical they'd become, so long as they were running against a Donald Trump, who could be ruled out of bounds. But if the public concluded that Trump made more sense than his adversaries, a campaign to render him ipso facto unacceptable was going to fail. This is not to say that Trump is an anodyne centrist. His zeal for tariffs, his revisionist views of Jan. 6 (unmentioned in his address) and his apparent determination to re-take the Panama Canal are hardly consensus positions. No matter how much momentum Trump has now, controversies will pile up and events will take a hand. The current goodwill could prove quite transitory. Still, it was Trump who was the focus of all the attention at his inauguration, Trump who is setting the agenda and Trump who can plausibly define himself as closer to the middle than his opponents -- and they brought it on themselves. [bold added]This is about the same Trump who angered enough voters to get a nonentity like Biden elected in the first place. It is interesting to note that Lowry earlier mentioned how Democrats cut less "progressive" voters out of their nomination process, but that there is no mention of the extremely foreshortened Republican primary process. I don't know if it's Lowry's intent above, but it practically screams Trump is running a 24/7 pro-Democrat ad for the 2028 election to me. Whichever party (if either) that can find a way to give more centrist voters a real say in nominating candidates first will be able to achieve a positive victory in the following election. Otherwise, we can keep expecting alienated voters to cast ballots against incumbents who weren't ever really popular in the first place. -- CAVLink to Original2 points -
Reblogged:Tariffs and Deportations -- or Prosperity?
EC and one other reacted to Gus Van Horn blog for a topic
Writing at the Bulwark Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) cautions President Trump that two of his major planks -- tariffs and mass deportation of undocumented immigrants -- will damage the economy and argues that moderate members of his party would be happy to work with him to improve the economy in other ways. Although I am sure I would disagree with some of what Coons would hope to accomplish -- I admit that environmental standards coming from a Democrat raises my hackles -- his warnings are on point and merit serious consideration, if not by Trump himself, the fellow Republicans he is about to lead son a primrose path:... The Peterson Institute estimates that your tariffs will cost the typical American household more than $2,600 a year. These tariffs will also cripple your efforts to bring jobs and investment back to the United States. American-made cars are built using parts and raw materials imported from around the world, and so are American-made semiconductors, electronics, and machine tools. Putting tariffs on the raw materials those industries need will raise the cost of American production and make it more likely those businesses move these jobs overseas. This is also before the retaliatory tariffs come -- and they will. When our trading partners fight back, we will struggle to sell our goods overseas, hurting our farmers and killing good-paying export-oriented manufacturing jobs. We know this will happen because it happened during your last administration. ... [Y]ou seem serious about trying to deport every undocumented immigrant, even if it takes mobilizing the National Guard and the military. The United States already faces a labor shortage, and roughly one in twenty workers here in our country is undocumented. Many of them work in areas like agriculture, construction, and hospitality that are most sensitive to inflation. How are you going to keep the cost of food down when you've deported half of our farmworkers? The upshot of these policies you ran on isn't lower inflation, but exploding costs. Even close allies of yours like Elon Musk are admitting that these policies will lead to markets crashing in an economic "storm." [bold added]Coons is a rare voice of common sense on today's political scene. I hope more than a few members of each party hear him. -- CAVLink to Original2 points -
Reblogged:A Little Red Pill on Tariffs
EC and one other reacted to Gus Van Horn blog for a topic
David Herbert of the American Institute for Economic Research critiques President McKinley Trump's infatuation with tariffs by offering a short primer on how they work that anyone but Trump himself will probably understand. My annoyance with Trump aside, there are points any layman will appreciate being made clear, which is why I recommend the article. For example, just about anyone who gives a moment's thought to tariffs will realize they are indeed sales taxes, but one will not necessarily see the devil in the details of the incidences of the tax, economic and legal:Image by W. Carter, via Wikimedia Commons, license....It could also be the case that the incidence of the tax is only 25 cents for consumers and 75 cents for seller, in which case the consumer would pay $2.25 and the seller would keep $1.25 per candy bar sold. Again, the difference between the price paid by consumers and the price received by sellers is always going to be the amount of the tax: one dollar. The above represents the economic incidence of a tax. But there is also what we call the legal incidence of a tax. The legal incidence of a tax refers to whom must actually send the tax money to the government. With candy bars, we typically assign the legal incidence to the gas station, i.e. the seller... ... The only difference between a tariff and a traditional sales tax is the location of the seller. A sales tax is imposed on a seller within the US, and a tariff imposed on a seller located outside the US...The piece then continues with a straightforward real-world example of how an Obama-era tariff worked. (Good thing we elected a Republican!) I hear that Trump plans to slam our wallets via 25% tariffs on goods bought from sellers in Canada and Mexico come February 1. Keep this five-minute red pill in mind for the time between when our prices start going haywire and the conspiracy theory machine starts churning. -- CAVLink to Original2 points -
Reblogged:Trump II: A Chance for More Energy Freedom?
EC and one other reacted to Gus Van Horn blog for a topic
I voted against Donald Trump in the last election and have never been a fan of his. That said, I am cautiously optimistic that the next four years come with a real possibility of improvement in energy policy at the federal level. The optimism comes from the fact that energy advocate Alex Epstein will have some influence over energy policy in the new administration, and he has a clear, well-thought-out plan for things that are both possible during that time and will cause improvements within a comparable time span. Any of these happening would be great news. And he has proposed 25. The caution comes from the fact that this is happening on Donald Trump's watch. Yes, very little, if any, would have happened in a Harris administration, but while Trump might be receptive to these ideas, he is an inconsistent thinker: This means that he could seriously undercut whatever improvement he makes in energy policy with, for example, punitive tariffs that will cause gas prices to skyrocket as the initial shock to the energy (and energy-related) markets that would destabilize. And longer-term, if Trump undercuts these improvements badly enough, he will play into the hands of anti-capitalists, who will point to his policies, good and bad alike, and promise to dismantle them all. That said, I highly recommend reading them all at Epstein's blog, where he presents them in an easily-digestible bullet format, with related measures grouped together under broader goals. These goals are: Unleash Responsible Development End Preferences for Unreliable Electricity Set Environmental Standards Using Cost-Benefit Analysis Address Climate Danger Through Resilience and Innovation, Not Punishing America Unleash Nuclear Energy From Pseudoscientific RestrictionsThe six ideas for unleashing nuclear, each of which he briefly elaborates, are: Change the NRC's mission from infinite risk reduction to maximum facilitation of safe nuclear energy. Set science-based safety thresholds for radiation. Embrace cost-effective approaches to used nuclear fuel. Promote nuclear R&D using existing DOE resources. Expedite permitting for nuclear plants. Base nuclear evacuation guidelines on objective cost-benefit analysis.This is not a plan to completely separate the government from the economy, or even just the energy sector, as moral and practical a long-term goal that be. But it can be a first step, and it buys time to work towards such a goal: As history has shown repeatedly, when an economy stifled by central planning is freed up even a little bit, prosperity noticeably improves. I recently enjoyed seeing Epstein mop up the floor with RFK, Jr. in a debate about fossil fuels. (As a bonus, RFK, Jr. reacts defensively at one point to Epstein's apt and often-used analogy of vaccine skepticism to bad thinking about fossil fuels.) Donald Trump is no capitalist, and he could more than undercut these fantastic policy suggestions with atrocious trade policy, but his second presidency may well bring Americans relief from decades of destructive energy policy caused by environmentalism. -- CAVLink to Original2 points -
Here's One for the Trump Fans Out There in OO Land
Jon Letendre and one other reacted to Reidy for a topic
'Ignorant': Trump gets schooled as he proposes new agency to collect tariffs2 points -
Reblogged:Coming Soon: Trump Stickers on Pumps?
Jon Letendre and one other reacted to Gus Van Horn blog for a topic
Over at Reason is a piece about concerns within the incoming administration about the effects tariffs might have on gas prices, which Trump's favorite brand of snake oil is poised to increase:Soon, a new face may adorn your local gas pump. (Image cropped from Amazon. The author believes this use of the image is protected as fair use under U.S. coyright law.)[Alberta Premier Danielle] Smith had pitched Trump on exempting Alberta's crude oil exports from the 25 percent across-the-board tariffs that the incoming president has threatened to impose, the Edmonton Journal reported. Alas, Trump seems unmoved. "I haven't seen any indication in any of the president's public commentary or even in the comments that he had with me that he's inclined to change his approach," Smith told the paper. ... A new tariff on that crude oil will be passed along to consumers down the supply chain. Among other things, that likely means higher prices at the pump. The specifics remain to be seen, but analysts believe prices could jump by 40 cents or even 70 cents per gallon. If those tariffs spiral into a broader trade war, energy companies are already warning about "volatility in crude oil prices, impacting refineries and downstream fuel markets, especially for gasoline and diesel." [links omitted, bold added]Not only will Trump have thrown a monkey wrench into energy prices, but everything else, since energy factors into manufacturing and transportation. Trump seems oblivious to the problem, but his advisors are concerned enough that a slower ratcheting up of Trump's new tax may be in the offing. -- CAVLink to Original2 points -
Here's One for the Trump Fans Out There in OO Land
Pokyt and one other reacted to DavidOdden for a topic
By expanding the swamp through creation of yet another redundant federal bureaucracy, he will clearly Make America Great Once More. Actually, the remit of CBP is extremely broad, extending way beyond taxing imports. For example, that lengthy wait to get back into the US is one of the duties of CBP; they are charged with keeping undesirables out, they enforce laws against importing prohibited items including importing undesirable non-human life forms that threaten US agriculture, they combat fraud. They do not currently confiscate seditious literature but in the future when such imports are outlawed, they would be in charge of restricting the flow of forbidden ideas. By creating yet another separate agency focused only on tax-collection, confiscation of money will be more efficient, which will make us Greater (it will embiggen the nation). Congress will have to get in line with this proposal, since they actually passed a law (19 USC 1505) handing that authority to CBP. This raises an alternative possibility for greatness via efficiency: generalize the IRS into RS. They already are in charge of taking money away from people in the US, it could be simpler to merely transfer CBP tax-collecting authority to the IRS.2 points -
Reblogged:Will Reality Bite Trump Before It Bites Us All?
Pokyt and one other reacted to Gus Van Horn blog for a topic
The Washington Monthly carries a headline that will surprise no one with a functioning brain: "Trump's Campaign Pledges Are on a Collision Course With Reality." The real question on everyone's minds outside MAGA is when? and this piece argues that the answer is already, and that Team Trump will be walking back its promises while pretending not to. This has already happened with grocery prices, and I would say that the most likely correct argument the piece makes regarding the others is for mass deportations:They've seen the budget numbers showing that his deportation will be $100 billion-plus yearly throughout his term. The economists in the group presumably know that 7 million of those immigrants hold down jobs, so deporting them will disrupt many labor markets. The dose of economic reality here is that pulling millions of people from the workforce will create temporary shortages in the products they produce, temporarily pushing up their prices. Replacing them will force their employers to pay higher wages, pushing up prices for the long term. So, the word from Mar-a-Lago is that Trump's immigration promises will be downsized into a plan to kick out those charged or convicted of serious crimes or links to foreign terrorism. The embarrassing part is that this will affect only 4 to 5 percent of those Trump promised to deport and was already U.S. policy under Joe Biden and Barack Obama.Good news if true, and not just because of how expensive this would be in taxes or economic impacts. Misusing the military this way would be a horrendous precedent, and I can't imagine how to carry this out absent numerous other abuses of the rights of citizens and noncitizens alike. I am less optimistic about tariffs: If a bad idea can be someone's Svengali, tariffs are Trump's. On this, the piece summarizes what seemingly everyone but Trump knows about tariffs. (The length and incompleteness of said summary should show why Trump doesn't understand the issue like he presumably does the mass deportation, which has the more easily-graspable flaw of super expensive.) To support its case, it cites anonymous sources from his inner circle to the effect that they're exploring less-draconian, but still-destructive policies -- rumors which Trump has already denigrated as fake news. My take is that reality hasn't bitten Trump hard enough to keep it from also biting the rest of us regarding tariffs, but at least it seems we have a reasonable chance of being spared the disaster of an anti-immigration police state. -- CAVLink to Original2 points -
Reblogged:Hawley-Sanders Rate Caps: Pre-Debunked
Jon Letendre reacted to Gus Van Horn blog for a topic
At RealClear Markets, Patrick M. Brenner of the Southwest Public Policy Institute considers the Hawley-Sanders proposal to cap credit card rates at 10% and finds it wanting on two levels. Regulars here and at RealClear Markets will likely already be familiar with the theoretical objections to this proposal, which is simply an attempt to impose price controls on borrowing. On top of being an improper violation of liberty, price controls lead to shortages:Image by John Tenniel, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain.Capping interest rates at 10 percent is not a free-market reform; it is an interventionist policy that will lead to unintended consequences, much like the economic restrictions seen in progressive strongholds. Some supporters of the proposal argue that credit unions already function under an 18 percent cap and continue to issue credit, so a 10 percent cap should be feasible for traditional banks. This comparison ignores the unique structure of credit unions, which are member-owned cooperatives with different incentives than for-profit banks. Credit unions also have more flexibility to impose fees and limit access to credit in ways that traditional banks cannot. Credit availability under a 10 percent cap would not resemble credit unions, as banks would be forced to reduce credit lines, close accounts, and eliminate many of the benefits consumers currently take for granted. [bold added]This can not only be seen for all kinds of price control attempts throughout history, there are two recent examples of states attempting exactly this particular type of price control!The effects of a national rate cap would mirror those seen in states like New Mexico and Illinois, where similar policies have already restricted the availability of small-dollar loans. A 10 percent ceiling would not only make traditional credit cards unprofitable for banks but also eliminate the financial flexibility many consumers rely on. Those who can no longer qualify for credit cards will face limited choices, including expensive alternatives with hidden fees and fewer consumer protections. [bold added, links omitted]This is a terrible idea, economists know exactly why it doesn't help anyone, and "real-world" data are there for the asking. Nevertheless, if Trump's rubber stamp Congress passes this monstrosity, I expect Trump to sign it into law. He is, after all, a big fan of tariffs, and those were similarly debunked -- centuries ago -- but also have real-world data showing that they are terrible ideas. Why should things be any different here? In a free society, some people will inevitably make bad choices. It is ironic that this bill is ostensibly to save such people from themselves, but would instead force Trump's mistakes on all of us. -- CAVLink to Original1 point -
Reblogged:ESG, RIP?
EC reacted to Gus Van Horn blog for a topic
John Stossel reports that, after enough large companies lost their shirts, many are scaling back on the leftist ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) fad. He cites numerous example of businesses losing focus on their purpose -- making money by offering value -- and losing money, oddly enough:Modified from image by John Thomas, via Unsplash, license.America needs high-performance computer chips. Intel was once the leading manufacturer of such chips. But now, even as Congress gives Intel billions in taxpayer handouts, the company is cutting thousands of jobs. Why? While Intel's competitors innovated, Intel obsessed about "sustainability." Intel's website lists endless ESG goals like "environmental, health, wellness, and safety programs to care for people and the planet." It even brags about "green software," whatever that is. That's a lot of energy spent not making the best chip...While many correctly predicted that ESG would lose its momentum once its unprofitability became evident, the above quote contains data that should alarm us: Intel is wrongly being subsidized in the name of "industrial policy," with bipartisan support. This is bad for two reasons. First, any company favored in any way by a government is, to the degree of that special treatment, rendered numb to market forces, such as the need to earn money through high quality. Second, ESG, and past programs like it, were improperly encouraged by the government, such as through the investment strategies of state pension funds and regulatory guidance contrary to the commonsense idea that a fund manager has a fiduciary duty to invest for high returns -- rather than using your money without your consent to finance political schemes you may or may not agree with. The government has no business dictating (or "encouraging") investment behavior of any kind, and the fact that nobody bats an eye at this (or other ways it meddles with trade) practically guarantees that some other consideration than profit will pollute the investment landscape in a matter of time. This can be in the form of yet another reincarnation of ESG under a leftist administration or pressure to conform to some sort of right-wing ideological agenda, rather than simply being left alone. I'm happy to bury ESG, but fully expect it to return like the zombie that it is, until our society's culture changes for the better, to embrace freedom once again. -- CAVLink to Original1 point -
Birthright Citizenship
human_murda reacted to Boydstun for a topic
Correct.* THAT was who the songwriter was talking about with his line "you're my hot ma-gandhi" in You're the Top.* ". . . making all American Indians US citizens."1 point -
How to Balance Federal Budget
Jon Letendre reacted to DavidOdden for a topic
Every year, most adults directly pay many thousands of dollar to the federal government in income taxes. Then there are state income taxes, various wealth taxes, innumerable excise taxes. One of those taxes is FICA. There is confusion among people over whether they have a “right” to direct federal give-aways, such as free peanut butter (only if you claim a certain income level), housing and so on, but usually people understand that at best there might be some indirect benefit such as a paying job resulting from some federally subsidised program. FICA is special, though: it is a direct tax on income with the promise of a return. It is structured to deceive people into thinking it is an investment program, in that your return is a function of your payments, and not a function of your “need”. In relation to balancing the budget and in search for a single big-ticket cut that could at least temporarily reduce the deficit, there are two obvious solutions. One would be to stop SS payments entirely and reassign all of those 4 trillion dollars to the general fund, which could slightly reduce the federal debt by about 10%. The other obvious solution is an increase of taxes. Neither would be particularly popular as a solution, but at some point, reality will become self-enforcing and popularity be damned. In terms of “fair share” where all people are burdened equally, each us us currently owes around $100,000. To pay down this debt, a repayment plan will be necessary, stretched over multiple years. This might be realized as a tax of $10,000 per person per year over 10 years – more and longer of course if the goal is to actually pay the debt. The problem is that for every $10,000 paid into the government, Congress will think “Oh boy, free money! Now we can spend more on programs!”, so the debt will increase exponentially and the debt-tax will have to increase to keep pace. There is a bold alternative, though, and it would be very popular: shift the burden to the top 20% of earners. People whine about the 1%, but let’s get real, they could just confiscate 50% of everything held by the 20%, and the vast majority could be entirely free of the burden of taxation, with no loss of government entitlements. They could adjust those numbers variably, depending on the level of whining that results from rich people being forced to finally pay their “fair share”. The focus on “inefficiency” and “fraud” is just plain populist fraud, a side-show to appease the masses. The cause of the sky-rocketing federal debt is the fraudulent premise that the government can create wealth by requiring money to be spent, then printing more money to cover those expenditures. Since The People are unwilling to forego ever-expanding federal benefits and they are unwilling to have their own property subject to increased confiscation, the only solution is going to be to go after the 20%. But even then, after you have wiped out the top 20% and there has been no decrease in federal spending, they will have to next go after the top 40%, and at that point your chances of being unaffected by wealth-nationalization have plummeted, and you might be receptive to one of those other unthinkable solutions. Like, put an end to government spending.1 point -
How to Balance Federal Budget
Jon Letendre reacted to Boydstun for a topic
Let me be more specific. The real solution to making up the 1.8 trillion dollar deficit will come from the OMB under its new director. That will be actual serious stuff such as reducing the amount that people are receiving in their SS checks. I doubt he will propose increasing taxes directly. The rub for the fiscal conservatives in Congress and the head at OMB is that Trump likes to be popular. So they may have to settle for the small-potatoes show-time distractions of Trump/Musk cuts in government payroll and the usual phony talk about just gaining by greater efficiency and routing out corruption. Then budgets in the red will continue, translating into continued inflation, and Trump's affection for tariff power is going to continue to bolster financial uncertainty and higher prices. PS – I calculate that the amount we would have to reduce SS payments annually to each recipient is about $28,000. That would cover the 1.8 trillion dollar shortfall in the annual budget. But that reduction is $4,000 more than the SS annual incomes of the recipient. So there will have to be additional cuts, such as to Medicare, and/or there have to be big rise in taxes. There is also the alternative of more inflation which steals from people's life savings and their pensions. Readers of Heinlein remind us "there is no such thing as a free lunch." Rand reminds us "reality is not cheated."1 point -
Reblogged:RFK's 'Show Me the Data' Game
Jon Letendre reacted to whYNOT for a topic
"How deep the lies go". There should be little remaining doubt that one vaccine was promoted by multiple governments/ NGO's/health ministries/Pharma, etc, well beyond its potential efficacy or health benefits - the Covid one/s. The vaccines: Didn't stop infection; didn't stop transmission; had no upsides for the very young, the youngish, and older and healthy, but - some severe and minor downside risks for that group have emerged. They did not need it. A fact known early on, yet silenced. The MMR and polio vaccines have long proven themselves beneficial on balance. Autism has not once been validated as a risk, but not to my slight knowledge completely invalidated either by extensive studies. But that's beside the point. I'd suppose the liberty-rights stance to be non-interference: 'Government-scientists' [!], should have no more powers than advisory, so to leave the decisions to the parents of children and those individuals themselves (for any vaccination/innoculation). If one looks back just recently, in fresh memory, the psychological blackmail, intimidation, disinformation and force from authorities to vaccinate entire societies, often against the choice-necessity by many, was horrendous - heads must roll. A non-controversial (today) recap.1 point -
Reblogged:RFK's 'Show Me the Data' Game
Jon Letendre reacted to EC for a topic
And of course the idiot coward Jon with no mind and an evil conservative pretending to have any link to Objectivism does his mindless laughing emoji.1 point -
Reblogged:RFK's 'Show Me the Data' Game
Jon Letendre reacted to DavidOdden for a topic
This is a good subject for a bit of rational thought about science. Has been an increase in autism; for fun, also let’s ask whether there has been an increase in thrombosis (blood clots), and deaths from heart attacks. It seems simple, surely somebody is keeping track of these facts and we just look up the official record. Death by heart attack is not terribly difficult to diagnose, it’s reasonable to think that scientific models fairly closely model reality. Rate of death by heart attack has decreased over the last 15 years. Thrombosis, on the other hand, is not self-evident until (a) you have a severe symptom or (b) for some reason, you get a scan. Turns out that the instance of undiagnosed thrombosis is higher than expected, there are more ticking time bombs than doctors have been aware of. There has to be some good mechanism of diagnosis and reporting, other than very expensive scanning on a routine basis. Autism is in an even worse category: it is an arbitrary classification without well-defined, stable boundaries. As they say, it is a “spectrum” (ASD), an ever-expanding set of functional symptoms without a specific known physical cause. There is no blood test for “autism”. A person is “on the spectrum” if and only if they exhibit symptoms described in a particular publication. One of them is ICD-11 CDDG which was precede by ICD-10 and as you can tell from the name, there were multiple preceding versions. There is also DSM-5-TR, DSM-5, DSM-IV and so on. Things like schizophrenia, Asperberger syndrome and ASD and so on are classified differently depending on version. The question of whether there has been an “increase” depends on the current definition, and the surveys conducted to test where there has been an increase or decrease. It is generally agreed by researchers in that area that existing standard criteria are ineffective. If you don’t know how to diagnose cancer versus heart attacks then it’s obviously going to be difficult to compare a count of one versus the other. In addition, mental illness has become somewhat trendy (or, less stigmatized). One can find evidence for a historical “increase in homosexuality” not because people have changed over time but because people are now less fearful of telling the truth about themselves. Homosexuality used to be stigmatized as a mental illness, but was removed from the revision of ICD-9 to ICD-10. You should expect there to be an increase when diagnosis relies on a patient’s willingness to report facts (implying a prior willingness to seek treatment). If there isn’t a stable diagnosis of “autism” then establishing a genetic as opposed to environmental cause is quite the stretch. Maybe some day they will find a family with a huge rate of unambiguous autism which will lead to a genetic diagnosis, for now the only responsible thing to say is “cause unknown”. So now let us address the data question. The response “Uh, has he heard of Google” is just shockingly ignorant and irresponsible. The only thing stupider than Google for scientific knowledge is ChatGPT. Google does not give you marginally reliable scientific answers, but there is a chance that you can stumble onto a link to a credible scientific article in a peer-reviewed medical journal by Googling something (can you access the article and actually interpret it?). The responsible reply to “show me the data” is to show the actual primary data. RFK’s purported response is a trivial knee-jerk response to any scientific claim, to deny that there is any data. You may have heard of “climate-change deniers”. It is scientifically stupid to engage in scientific debates in a political forum with a denier non-scientist, when those asking the questions are also scientifically incompetent. This kind of issue is standardly addressed in court by having testimony from both sides. Scientist A would testify, citing specific data, that “vaccines are safe in this fashion”. Scientist B would counter-testify, citing other specific data, that “vaccines are unsafe in this fashion”. Pitting observation against observation, reason against reason. The closest thing to that during the Senate interrogation was when Bill Cassidy mentions a meta-study apparently by Pietrantonj et al (doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub5), which looked not at the primary data but on the conclusions reached in 138 studies of 23,480,668 subjects. Not a single concrete observational datum was at issue in the hearing. How do you scientifically refute a meta-study? What exactly is RFK “denying”? Apparently, that vaccines are provably safe. How do you prove that something is “safe”, for example decapitation, cigarettes or some randomly-selected medicine? It is pretty firmly concluded that decapitation is 100% “unsafe”. Oddly, some people smoke yet don’t die instantly, but reasonable people don’t conclude that “smoking is safe”. You might get away with it. Some small number of people might have an adverse reaction to some generally safe medical treatment, we don’t therefore declare that “One adverse reaction means it is unsafe!”. The question whether vaccines are “safe” is scientifically stupid, the proper question is whether there is substantial credible evidence that proves that vaccines are unsafe. The burden of proof lies on the person who claims that the treatment is unsafe and should therefore be restricted by the government. The meta-study does fling out a bunch of conclusions drawn in the primary studies and they do not conclude that “vaccines are safe”. They give concrete numbers for various kinds of “unsafeness”. So what? Injections of heroin or cyanide are probably unsafe, everything else like peanuts “has some risk”. Those huge micro-printed medical synopses that come with your prescription drugs (which nobody bothers to read) all say very clearly “Nothing is completely safe”. The medical profession has one standard for assessing risk, you can accept or reject that standard, and you have to live with the consequences of your decision. That is, unless the government intervenes and prohibits a treatment because it isn’t “proven to be safe” – the wrong question to be asking. The danger of RFK as Sec’y of HHS is not his medical ignorance, it is the risk that his testimony to Cassidy will turn out to be a lie. Cassidy asks “If you are confirmed, do you commit that you will not work to impound, divert, or otherwise reduce any funding appropriated by Congress for the purpose of vaccination programs” (response: yes) then “And do you commit that you will not impose new grant conditions outside of congressional direction for state, local, or global entities that in any way limits, restricts, or rescinds access to vaccines or vaccine promotion programs”, (response: yes). The only problem here is that this is not an enforceable, binding commitment. This is the nature of promises by all politicians, which are even less reliable in the case of unelected bureaucrats.1 point -
There is no "rise" in autism. There are just people who create imaginary false diagnosis in a collectivist attempt to control the lives of others and sell unnecessary drugs.1 point
-
Reblogged:The Dunning-Kruger Coalition Spurns Advice
necrovore reacted to DavidOdden for a topic
First point: requiring licenses for a person to engage in a business is the epitome of leftist nanny-state thinking, the opposite of the position one would expect from a supposed free-market advocate. Second point: stop whining about Trump pushing the limits on government power when you just advocated a massively unconstitutional governmental action. Read Art. I, Sec. 6 and the First Amendment to the US constitution. Third point: a corollary of the second: there is no existing legal mechanism in any state for stripping a physician of his license to practice for an particular vote or expression of opinion. Argue that he deserves to be defeated at the polls, if you can make a cogent argument. Fourth point: this irrational ideology can be extended in infinitely many ways, most obvious “any Senator or Representative who is a lawyer and votes for a law that violates the rights of an individual deserves to be stripped of his license to practice”, or more simply “anyone who enables further rights violations should be permanently barred from existing”. Now that I say it, maybe that is the solution – it is much more principled than this ad hominem attack. Maybe you should issue a shoot-on-sight fatwa against any rights-violator. Maybe you are engaged in the fine art of hyperbolic rhetoric and you don’t “really” believe what you literally said. There has been a recent exponential expansion of rhetorical lies in politics, where people knowingly say false things in order to make a point. Hitler knew that people could be induced to believe so colossal a lie because they would not believe that someone ‘could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously’. Trump is famous for having repeatedly made the accusation that he was “cheated” out of the presidency in 2020. Should the big lie be promulgated because it might result in a desirable short-term goal? Your question “Why wouldn't a President want to be surrounded by the best possible advisors? Who wouldn't want an ally to stop him short of making a stupid move?” is based on a premise that needs to be carefully examined. What kind of advice should a president be seeking, and what constitutes a “stupid move”? One answer is “whatever protects the political position of ruling party”. Another is “whatever yields the greatest common good”. That is complicated math: is it better to make 20% suffer 10% more, or should 1% be made to suffer 99% more. False dichotomy! As every Objectivist knows. The question of the efficacy of vaccinations is a medical question, not a moral-political one. The only valid moral-political question about vaccination whether the government should, via taxation and regulation, control the development and distribution of vaccines (as opposed to letting entrepreneurs and customers in a free market determine what medicines will be created). The only competent question about a nomination for secretary of HHS is “What the hell are we doing having such a bureaucrat in the first place?”. The one relevant issue regarding RFK in this position is whether he will use the power of the position to massively violate individual rights, more so that others would. This question applies not just to RFK, but to every Secretary of HHS and the answer is “of course they will! That is the essence of the job description”. Any journalist who does not see this should have his license to write revoked (see the preceding paragraph about hyperbolic statements). The “best possible” advisor on federal health and human services would be an ideologue who advises that “health and human services is not within the scope of proper government”, one who completely rejects the premise that the government’s job is to make medical decisions for you. Let’s see, who was the most recent “best advisor” on that point… To make the case that a particular nomination for a government position is “objectively bad”, you have to go beyond an irrational emotional outburst that the candidate is “objectively bad”. Give us some actual facts and principles that support the claim that these are “objectively bad” nominations, beyond the simple observation “There shouldn’t be such a position in the first place”. Links to equally emotional but factually unsupported denunciations of candidates as “unqualified” just kicks the can down the road. A person isn’t objectively unqualified just because Bernie Sanders or NPR say they are. Recall that Bush I was not a spy, yet was served as Director of the CIA. Where is the outrage. Leon Panetta was just another unqualified hack politician, who briefly served in the Army intelligence corps after graduating from college, where is the outrage? Indeed, his being unqualified – lack of exposure to CIA bureaucracy was a fact cited in support of his nomination.1 point -
A Question on Ethics
Jon Letendre reacted to DavidOdden for a topic
However, nature can be commanded, so you can command nature to take a specific course, if we understand nature.\ I invite the Letendre troll to post yet another laughing hyena emotional outburst in response to Objectivism.1 point -
A Question on Ethics
Jon Letendre reacted to DavidOdden for a topic
It is often useful to quote Rand's actual words, in trying to explain what Objectivism says about a topic. So, Life or death is man’s only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course. Causality Versus Duty, PWNI 991 point -
No, guys. The metaphysics comes first, prescribing the ethics. Existence precedes consciousness. The fundamental ~moral~ choice each faces is not either existing or perishing, which might introduce the possible and irrelevant option of actual suicide, it's living a life by the qualities and capabilities appropriate to "man". In short, how to prevent 'spiritual suicide': THE self-sacrifice; while remaining yet alive.. Your biological life is 'the given' and an immeasurable value, nobody fairly sane will throw it away needlessly. How to go about living it to its fullest is optional and non-automatic, non-given. I remind, Rand most distinctly did *not* state that "life" (one's own - or all life, in general) is the "standard" of value, rather, man's life - the abstraction one each measures our own purpose and performance by. The issue of "Suicide" itself may be amoral, immoral or moral for someone, according to this gauge. Can he/she continue a proper "man's" life under unavoidable and constant physical/mental suffering etc.?, is answerable by them alone.1 point
-
Reblogged:Blog Roundup
Jon Letendre reacted to Gus Van Horn blog for a topic
A Friday Hodgepodge 1. Gregory Salmieri of the Ayn Rand Society discusses "Two New Books, an Upcoming Meeting, and a New Platform" st Check Your Premises:The first piece of news is that we have moved our web content and our communications to Substack. This message should be reaching you through that platform. If you were a contributor to the Society for AY 2023-24 or have paid your dues in AY 2024-25, we've set you up with a one-year subscription. After that you can contribute simply by re-subscribing annually to our Substack. If you had a recurring subscription to our previous website, this will be cancelled in the coming days so that no future payments are taken via that means. The next two pieces of news concern our book series with the University of Pittsburgh Press. As of this summer, the series includes Tara Smith's monograph, Egoism Without Permission. [links in original]Although the event has already happened, the post is good for descriptions of the two books. 2. Jean Moroney of Thinking Directions analyzes "Three Misconceptions Concerning Analyzing Negatives" at her site's blog. The misconceptions are:Doesn't analyzing negatives stop you from orienting to values?Aren't the values at stake obvious as soon as you identify the negatives?Can't you just name all of the values you want without actually introspecting threat-oriented emotions?The refutation of the second memorably analyzes the all-too-common phrase wage slavery as an example of exaggeration of negatives causing positives to become less than obvious. It was productive industrialists like Rocekfeller, not looting politicians like McKinley, who made America prosperous. (Image by Scientific American, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain.)3. Harry Binswanger considers a common historical charge against John D. Rockefeller, and argues that Cartels Are Fine at Value for Value, incidentally addressing a misconception that has been rearing its ugly head a lot lately:The whole animus against "giant" firms and "monopolies" comes from confusing production and destruction. Since a bigger army means more power, it is assumed that a bigger business means more power. Well, it often does: more productive power, not coercive power like an army.I also recommend a couple of the newer entries at the blog, which are samples of Binswanger's new Substack blog. 4. Ben Bayer of the Ayn Rand Institute considers the abortion controversy from an individual rights perspective in "Individual Rights and the Right to Abortion" at New Ideal:[T]he task of defending abortion rights is far from hopeless, precisely because the intellectual tradition behind the American founding documents derives from the doctrine of individual rights, a doctrine originally formulated by radical Enlightenment philosophers. Few who engage in the current abortion debate (on either side) bother to examine the history or implications of that radical doctrine for this debate. In fact, the concept of individual rights was such a revolutionary intellectual development that even its originators did not grasp all of its implications. Most people today realize that it took time to appreciate how the doctrine would support the case for the abolition of slavery. In my view, fully grasping the doctrine would also support the case for abortion rights, and this essay will show how.I read more slowly than most, but my computer tells me that an average reader will require about 25 minutes to read the whole thing. The blog post also appears as an essay in an expanded edition of the forthcoming Why Abortion Rights Are Sacrosanct. -- CAVLink to Original1 point -
That view of 30's Germany regarding their own and Europe's Jews, was not of hatred as such, but of widely accepted ("normalized" in the parlance today) Jewish sub-humanism, I think. (Although how that may be considered of individuals of a tiny "tribe" who produced, and continued producing, more pro rata in many fields, commerce, science, medicine, philosophy, literature, politics etc. than any other known in history, demands extreme mind contortions.) Of all citizens, the Jews were then the least reactionary and best assimilated, loyal Europeans. "We didn't know!" was the common German, postwar justification. Not of the "work camps" and subsequent mass murders, perhaps, but of Jews they knew and saw being picked out and picked upon, while some saw them loaded onto rail-cars - for the fault of "being Jewish", religious and not, they each knew very well. For all that, one cannot rationally hold a grudge against modern Germans. With the Nazis no longer to blame, the neo-Fascists in another, combined, form with Islamists have sprung back, lately. They have more in common than immediately meets the eye. I'd envisage it an internet-and-street "Holocaust". No one today can say they didn't see "it" happening while it happens.1 point
-
Reblogged:GOP Ignores Inaugural Lesson at Own Peril
tadmjones reacted to DavidOdden for a topic
But he just did! So I don't understand your position that it is impossible.1 point -
Trump Talking Up New US Imperialism - Any Visual-Show Greatness Will Do
Jon Letendre reacted to Boydstun for a topic
In 1968 Ayn Rand wrote: “But even Humphrey looks like the remnant of a civilized past—like a decaying dowager who is ending her days in genteel poverty and clutching at musty mementos—when compared to the third candidate in this election: George C. Wallace. "I have said repeatedly that the ‘liberal’ welfare-statist movement in this country represents not socialism, but fascism—a hidden, disguised, unadmitted, implicit fascism. (See my article on ‘The New Fascism—Rule by Consensus’ 1965.) George Wallace represents the emergence of an open fascism in this country—or, more exactly, the crude elements from which an explicit fascism is to come. “Observe the symptoms: RACISM (which he denies, but which is quite obvious in his own utterances and in his past record)—a primitive, undefined NATIONALISM (not a rational patriotism, but nationalism in the form of a pseudo-self-esteem)—militant ANTI-INTELLECTUALITY (not an opposition to a specific group or kind of intellectual, but to all intellectuals, to the intellect as such)—the constant appeal to ‘the little people, or ‘the plain people’ or ‘us folks’ (which, socially, is an appeal to the lowest elements in society, and, psychologically, an appeal to an individual’s lowest potential: to self-righteous mediocrity)—and FORCE, the explicit and implicit reliance on the ‘activism’ of physical force as the solution to all social problems. . . . “It is the fact that some of his statements—apart from and out of HIS context—are true and needed saying that deludes many people into the belief that he is a defender of freedom or capitalism. Quite obviously, he is not. . . .” In the past, I have often referred to Trump and his MAGA faction as proto-fascist. That would be a faction such as Rand had described in 1968. However, I now think that faction evolved into something more decidedly fascist. Much window dressing with the American flag, but the old representation of the flag for a nation of individual liberty is now fading. The rights and legal equality won by Black Americans during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s are being suffocated by the newly elected LEADER in control of executive Departments. On every front, the new administration is deliberately moving the form of government here at the federal level to the fascist form. It is not merely making moves which, independently, will be picked up and put into the purpose of fascism. If you visit whitehouse. gov, you find it has been dumbed down to adulatory photos and vague pleasant slogans, not the long-standing repository of texts of presidential public speeches and other presidential remarks. The free and independent press is under continual threats from LEADER. Loss of individual rights and the release of his Brown Shirts from prison for their individual criminal actions in support of his continuing rule coddling White Supremacist propaganda is called freedom and justice by LEADER and his ideological circle. Other public smearing of individuals opposing HIM and Big Lie after Big Lie, and HIS use of presidential power to rewrite history of his crimes and crimes of his Shirts is daily faire. To the glee of millions of citizens. Since 1968, there were changes in the proto-fascist (now deliberate) faction. They took over the Republican Party and thereby could win more than the seven States won by Wallace. The so-called Moral Majority became a block in the party which candidates therein must placate to win a nomination. The Party winners pay empty lip service to rule by the constitution and the rule of law it enables, but support every push by LEADER to test overrunning what remains of legal restraints on HIM. Additionally, an excellent diagnosis already in 2019.1 point -
Executive rewriting of The Constitution
Harrison Danneskjold reacted to necrovore for a topic
There was an actual legal case in the UK a decade or two ago, where someone broke into a house, fell on a defective staircase, and was able to recover damages. But I don't remember that case precisely, so I made up something similar. I'm pretty sure this is the sort of thing that Trump would stand against, though; that's my point. Why? Are we supposed to just accept international law as it is, as if it were handed down from God, and that is the end of the discussion? Even the Constitution itself is not the end of the discussion because we can ask whether the Constitution is right as it is, or whether it needs to be amended. By what standard do we decide whether the Constitution is right or needs to be amended? How about reality, and what humans need in order to live in it, as the standard? Isn't that what Ayn Rand would have recommended? It would be interesting to see an explanation of what in reality makes the concept of citizenship necessary, and where in reality the concept arises from. Once we have that, then it becomes possible to determine what can rightly be done with citizenship. That's not correct. When people join together to defend their property, they are not giving up their property rights. They are expressing them. It would only be "stealing" if they had no actual right to it. And that's the question that needs to be answered here.1 point -
1 point
-
Anarcho-Capitalism = the true Objectivism
Solvreven reacted to DavidOdden for a topic
The narator makes a substantial (fatal) error in identifying the “fundamental question”, as being about “scarce resources”. Objectivism clearly understands that “scarce resources” is a distraction, this guy incorrectly thinks of government as a tool of Divine Macroeconomics. The central question is based on the fact that man’s actions are not metaphysically given, then are chosen (with the concommitant concept of “free will” – chosen means “freely, optionally selected”). From this fundamental error in fundamentals, we predict that the discussion will rapidly go off the rails. Divine Macroeconomics is a theory with an invalid unchecked premise, that all actors are rational. Actually, quite a number of people are just plain nuts. The primary concern therefore should be determining “what do we do about people who just plain nuts?”. Some people who are nuts are benignly nuts (sleeping bag guy under the freeway), but others are seriously dangerous to others. This defines the primary job of law, which is to classify “allowed” from “disallowed” actions. This particular spinning of the Non-Aggression Principle as being about “initiating conflicts” is offensively wrong even from the anarchist perspective. “Conflict” is not the same as “force”. This is so obvious and well known that I am offended that he initiated conflicts by forcing me to say that. He follows by making ludicrous false statements about “the law of the jungle”: if Friday takes your stuff, you “cannot complain” because everybody is free to initiate conflicts. Here’s a hidden premise: there’s a list of circumstances under which you can complain. That’s just sloppy thinking. Under all models of government, you can complain, that is an axiom from Objectivism that actions are chosen. You can complain. Under a rights-respecting government, there are different consequences to complaining, compared to under anarchy.1 point -
1 point
-
Trump Talking Up New US Imperialism - Any Visual-Show Greatness Will Do
Jon Letendre reacted to Boydstun for a topic
Whatever are you saying? To ring a bell, I've scanned the index of FFS from "abortion" to "welfare", but I get no association for what it is you indicate here as of your interest. I suspect I'm too old fashioned* to connect with some concerns of contemporary folk. Which institutions do you assess as in bad shape? Or which in good shape? In all the contrivance I go through to raise our flag, that flag does not touch the ground.* And it is not worn as clothing, for crying out loud!1 point -
A bad deal, I'm also sure of, Stephen. Seized upon by Gazans/Hamas as a moral victory. Only delaying the task ahead when the IDF has to return (after an emboldened Hamas no doubt breaks the ceasefire). Apropos, this new poll disturbs me coming out of the USA, it might tell of Israel's future and America's when - some portion - of the society's moral inversion is quite acceptable. https://www.google.co.za/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/21-of-american-voters-support-hamas-over-israel-poll/&ved=2ahUKEwis7bnzt4eLAxXBT0EAHcH0LaIQvOMEKAB6BAgPEAE&usg=AOvVaw3cNySE_uq4reTC2yvbKCv41 point
-
Trump Talking Up New US Imperialism - Any Visual-Show Greatness Will Do
Jon Letendre reacted to Boydstun for a topic
This one Tad, have you ever expressed here criticisms of any Trump policies (such as here)? I don't recall any. Let us know of any specifics. Left unmentioned = going along with = tacit complicity. Even the Brute of Russia needs window dressing. Stalin's dressing was so effective that people on the train for extinction in Siberia wrote letters to Stalin pleading for his intervention, thinking that he surely did not know what was happening to them.1 point -
Trump Talking Up New US Imperialism - Any Visual-Show Greatness Will Do
Jon Letendre reacted to Boydstun for a topic
Greetings from the Subjectivist-in-Chief LEADER down the primrose lane, to his happy praising, uncritical-of-any-policy OO supporters.1 point -
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-024-02528-1.pdf1 point
-
Here's One for the Trump Fans Out There in OO Land
Jon Letendre reacted to Boydstun for a topic
There's Still No Economic Case for New Tariffs1 point -
There will be a session of the Ayn Rand Societyon on 9 January 2025) at the Eastern Division APA Meeting in New York. Three speakers will address the topic: "Valuing and Desire". I've decided not to attend the Meeting this time. I'm getting old, and I attended just this past November the biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association in New Orleans (which was very productive). So I'll just stay home and continue my studies and writing by the fire. I'd like to display some of the fine issues pondered and written in American philosophy today, by a list of topics of sessions I would take in were I attending Eastern APA this year. This is a counter to regular bad-mouthing of academic philosophy today by Objectivist types who really have little knowledge or desire to know of what good things get worked up in American philosophy today: Kant, Apperception, and the Unity of Cognition; Time in Quantum Mechanics; Formal Causation in Early Modern Philosophy; Perceptual Particularity; Representation Theorems and Expected Utility; Causation in Perception; Skepticism and Inference; Kant on Lying and Deception; Descartes on Self-Knowledge and Knowledge of Substance; Method of Mathematical Construction – Kant, Hoyer, and Schelling; Moral Perfectionism – Emerson.1 point
-
What is "Woke"?
Jon Letendre reacted to DavidOdden for a topic
1: Humans do not store vast numbers of true sentences, thus we do not memorize the fact that “yellow dogs have 4 limbs”, “red dogs have 4 limbs”, “black dogs have 4 limbs”… “wolves have 4 limbs”, “bears have 4 limbs”, “non-trans straight male humans have 4 limbs”, “non-trans homosexual female humans have 4 limbs”… “orangutans have 4 limbs” and so on. There is only one worthy sentence to memorize when it comes to the 4 limb proposition (I leave it as an exercise to the reader to reduce all of the preceding epistemological fluff to a small system of actually true sentences. I also leave it as an advanced exercise to the reader to explain why such sentences are). 2: From a decent epistemology and ordinary factual knowledge, you can compute the fact that red dogs have 4 limbs. There is no realistic context where a person would need to be told that red dogs have 4 limbs, but it is the sort of pointless sentence that comes up in philosophy all the time, usually for the purpose of asserting something else (not as a request for information). In asking whether it is true that “spiders have 8 legs”, you are not actually requesting information, you are doing something else. 3: So in the realm of “asked and answered”, I replace your question with a more worthy question: what evolutionary development resulted in chelicerates developing their characteristic body plan distinguishing them from other arthropods, and perhaps auxiliary questions that address counterexamples to a broad 8-legged claim. Knowing that is analogous to knowing the answer to the preceding question, and again knowing the broadest causal principle is vastly superior to knowing a billion taxonomic facts. My suggestion is to question the concept of truth (“check your assumptions”). Re-discover the value of “true” versus “false”. “Sentences uttered while watching the mountain” does not define an epistemologically significant class of sentences, because it is useless. Proper concepts are by nature useful. Then, tell me why you reject the current AI epistemological model (if you do!), where you simply assemble petabytes of data points and mull over that heaving sea of “information”. At some point, you will have to address the question of how “truth” has utility for man. This is where the “is-ought” transition comes in, whereby you can grasp the import of my exercise to the reader in #1. If you understand, integrate, agree and accept the above, then you should reject disingenuous questions that do not seek new information. You might still utter "How many legs do men have?" as a set-up for a real point (perhaps about adult male humans, perhaps about human genetics), but this is not an honest new-information question, so you should quickly, when challenged, reveal the true intent. Uh, show me proof that this has ever happened. Not AI-doctored or Photoshopped video, hard proof.1 point -
Rand was an amateur philosopher of the sort who addresses large traditional issues in philosophy. That is how she is described in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, and it is not meant for amateur to be derogatory, only that she was not an academic philosopher. After her mature philosophical novels, young people on their way to Ph.D.'s in Philosophy got acquainted with her (a couple of them became world-renowned Aristotle scholars), and they and the next generation of Ph.D.'s mentored by them wrote professional-level works in her philosophy, which continues. A Blackwell's Companion book A Companion to Ayn Rand has issued (2016). An auxilliary of the American Philosophical Association was formed called The Ayn Rand Society. Its professional members engage with other professional philosophers who are not Objectivists, and some books collecting many of those papers exchanging views have been published by the University of Pittsburg Press. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (The Bibliography entry by George Walsh, his paper in 2000, in the SEP article on Rand has a reply from me here.)1 point
-
Balancing the budget could just be done mathematically. I think Singapore does something like that: Have Congress spend "points" instead of dollars When the amount of revenue becomes known, determine how many dollars each point will be worth. This can get complicated for various reasons: it might still be necessary to use dollars for some things (e.g., interest on the debt), and there might need to be different types of points. Still, it should be possible.1 point
-
Religion: What It's Really Like
tadmjones reacted to HowardRoarkSpaceDetective for a topic
@grames I totally agree. I think his series on Genesis is brilliant. I think his philosophy is a little corny and his analysis isn't super rigorous, but even his half-baked ideas are still good at showing how the bible is truly an attempt at describing reality.1 point -
Religion: What It's Really Like
tadmjones reacted to Jim Henderson for a topic
I studied the history of science with David Lindberg as my professor at the University of Wisconsin in the early 1970s. He instilled in me and interest in this topic that has continued till today.1 point