Say that caucasian students in America are brought up in the classroom from First Grade onward to acknowledge and make confessions of their "white privilege." Can this be expected to:
(1) Improve educational outcomes, create better learners/knowers and more thoughtful citizens, etc.
(2) Have deleterious effects on educational outcomes
(3) Have little to no effect either way
"Progressive educators" are in effect staking their reputations on (1). Are these "progressive educators" nearly as bright and morally advanced as they evidently think they are? Why are they pushing this whole "white privilege" narrative on their impressionable captive audience when they could be advancing the no-brainer Philosophy for Children agenda, instead (or at the least in addition to the "white privilege" crap which is a transparent effort by the left to cover for half a century of cultural and policy failings)?
I, for one, would love to see empirical data on the effects of the "white privilege" crap and the whole cluster of related dogmas and associated Newspeak, etc., on educational outcomes. The "educators" should be more than willing to subject their programs to such empirical scrutiny, or else they wouldn't be very honorable or credible, now, would they.
They should also be more than willing to show how all that additional student loan and other taxpayer money being poured into the "education" system to (e.g.) better bureaucratically administer all this crap, leads to outcomes per dollar worth all that extra expense.
Otherwise, aren't they (as I have come increasingly to suspect) basically caught dead to rights parasitically and hubristically sucking off a surplus from the taxpayer in order to promote easily discredited, toxic af, ideologically-inbred leftist crap?
The likes of AOC are not a positive educational outcome, BTW.
Am I missing anything here?
I'm going with (2). Have you seen the shitshow that has resulted from the "educators" doing their thing up until now, much less going forward? If you haven't seen it, have you been in a cave?
[Addendum: on what planet is it to be expected that a recent "cutting edge" measure, the removal of the mural at the George Washington school in San Francisco, will lead to better outcomes, much less avoid worse ones? The only "lesson" I see being imparted to (i.e., indoctrinated into) the students is that it is okay to feel "harmed" by exposure to history and artworks. No, this story isn't satire, unfortunately; these "educators" in all their cult-like moral fervor are actually behaving this fucking stupidly. See the "inbred" link above for more madness in the same vein.]
Showing posts with label no-brainer dept.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label no-brainer dept.. Show all posts
Saturday, September 28, 2019
Tuesday, July 2, 2019
Reminder: Leading '20 Dems smeared Kavanaugh
In the polling (not as much the betting markets) the leading 2020 Democratic candidates are: Biden, Harris, Warren and Sanders.
All four of them got in on the act of recklessly smearing Brett Kavanaugh, when the chips were down, when a man's career and reputation were on the line. It reveals not just an intellectual bankruptcy in the Democrat Party, but also a moral bankruptcy.
I've commented in detail on this before. (the context) A brief recap:
(1) Biden is quoted by AP (9/28/18) as saying that Dr. Ford, Kavanaugh's accuser, gave credible testimony (9/27/18) and that both he and the country believed her.
(2) Harris appeared on CNN on 9/18/18, two days after Ford's accusation became public, to say she believed Dr. Ford. This career prosecutor said this before hearing from both sides. This is in addition to her almost surreal interrogation of Kavanaugh in the main portion of the confirmation hearings (where it turns out Harris wasn't holding any cards).
(3) Warren on her facebook page (9/28/18) referred to "multiple, credible accusations" against Kavanaugh, including the ridiculous Swetnick allegation of serial drugged gang rapes (which not only falls apart on its merits but about which Swetnick herself fell apart under scrutiny).
(It should be noted that all three of the above are career attorneys, charged with the professional duty to assess the credibility of putative evidence with care.)
(4) Sanders, in a 9/27/18 press release on his own Senate website, said he believes Dr. Ford.
Ford couldn't remember details about time or place of the alleged incident. Not only that, no one else came forward to say where and when this event might have taken place. Not only that, all of the supposed witnesses to the alleged event, including her friend Leland Keyser, provided sworn statements - statements Biden and Warren, at least, chose unaccountably to disregard - that they have no memory of the alleged event. Not only that, Kavanaugh supplied what would be exculpatory evidence in the calendar he kept.
All this, while fellow Democrats and their enablers in the media either fed the anti-Kavanaugh hysteria (which exploited and weaponized the otherwise honorable and valuable #MeToo movement) or failed to speak up about the injustice of the smear campaign. This goes, as far as I can tell, for all the other '20 Democrat candidates. This goes for the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who withheld Ford's accusation for weeks until leaking them to the press at the last minute. My sentiments are with Sen. Graham.
Donald Trump hasn't forgotten about any of this, and will do whatever he can in the general election to eat them alive because of it. As far as I'm concerned, these four leading candidates are caught dead to rights in their epistemic criminality, which they conducted for the sake of power and partisanship. I have some choice expletives for these creatures which I'll refrain from stating here.
What these Demon Rats would have you believe is that their media-frenzy-fed-and-feeding smear campaign is normal and acceptable. They might have you believe that this smear campaign was necessary because the man accused wasn't just anybody, but someone who would assume a position of great power and therefore needs extra "scrutiny." And they would gaslight the rest of us when it comes to standards of evidence and credibility. They then turn around and give fellow Demon Rats a pass under similar circumstances. And if they're this bad when it comes to this no-brainer, how bad must they be on matters of ideology and policy, pray tell? This is the best crop of leading candidates this party can come up with?
The only '20 Dem candidate with much of any prominence in the polling or betting markets, who hasn't morally and intellectually stained himself with this ugliness (except perhaps with his silence about this intended injustice), is Mayor Pete.
"But Trump" or "but Kavanaugh's high school yearbook" (whatever that shows) won't save them from the truth of their own sliminess.
What makes them think they can get away with what they did?
All four of them got in on the act of recklessly smearing Brett Kavanaugh, when the chips were down, when a man's career and reputation were on the line. It reveals not just an intellectual bankruptcy in the Democrat Party, but also a moral bankruptcy.
I've commented in detail on this before. (the context) A brief recap:
(1) Biden is quoted by AP (9/28/18) as saying that Dr. Ford, Kavanaugh's accuser, gave credible testimony (9/27/18) and that both he and the country believed her.
(2) Harris appeared on CNN on 9/18/18, two days after Ford's accusation became public, to say she believed Dr. Ford. This career prosecutor said this before hearing from both sides. This is in addition to her almost surreal interrogation of Kavanaugh in the main portion of the confirmation hearings (where it turns out Harris wasn't holding any cards).
(3) Warren on her facebook page (9/28/18) referred to "multiple, credible accusations" against Kavanaugh, including the ridiculous Swetnick allegation of serial drugged gang rapes (which not only falls apart on its merits but about which Swetnick herself fell apart under scrutiny).
(It should be noted that all three of the above are career attorneys, charged with the professional duty to assess the credibility of putative evidence with care.)
(4) Sanders, in a 9/27/18 press release on his own Senate website, said he believes Dr. Ford.
Ford couldn't remember details about time or place of the alleged incident. Not only that, no one else came forward to say where and when this event might have taken place. Not only that, all of the supposed witnesses to the alleged event, including her friend Leland Keyser, provided sworn statements - statements Biden and Warren, at least, chose unaccountably to disregard - that they have no memory of the alleged event. Not only that, Kavanaugh supplied what would be exculpatory evidence in the calendar he kept.
All this, while fellow Democrats and their enablers in the media either fed the anti-Kavanaugh hysteria (which exploited and weaponized the otherwise honorable and valuable #MeToo movement) or failed to speak up about the injustice of the smear campaign. This goes, as far as I can tell, for all the other '20 Democrat candidates. This goes for the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who withheld Ford's accusation for weeks until leaking them to the press at the last minute. My sentiments are with Sen. Graham.
 |
| Well-placed outrage |
Donald Trump hasn't forgotten about any of this, and will do whatever he can in the general election to eat them alive because of it. As far as I'm concerned, these four leading candidates are caught dead to rights in their epistemic criminality, which they conducted for the sake of power and partisanship. I have some choice expletives for these creatures which I'll refrain from stating here.
What these Demon Rats would have you believe is that their media-frenzy-fed-and-feeding smear campaign is normal and acceptable. They might have you believe that this smear campaign was necessary because the man accused wasn't just anybody, but someone who would assume a position of great power and therefore needs extra "scrutiny." And they would gaslight the rest of us when it comes to standards of evidence and credibility. They then turn around and give fellow Demon Rats a pass under similar circumstances. And if they're this bad when it comes to this no-brainer, how bad must they be on matters of ideology and policy, pray tell? This is the best crop of leading candidates this party can come up with?
The only '20 Dem candidate with much of any prominence in the polling or betting markets, who hasn't morally and intellectually stained himself with this ugliness (except perhaps with his silence about this intended injustice), is Mayor Pete.
"But Trump" or "but Kavanaugh's high school yearbook" (whatever that shows) won't save them from the truth of their own sliminess.
What makes them think they can get away with what they did?
Saturday, June 29, 2019
"Trump's racism" vs. his opposition's dishonesty
[Warning for snowflakes: drill instructor mode below.]
Here's a question that would be asked in a polity governed by reason and wisdom:
If Trump's opposition/haters are correct, Trump said that neo-Nazis in Charlottesville in Aug. 2017 were "very fine people" - purportedly an implication of his statement that there were "very fine people on both sides" in Charlottesville in Aug. 2017.
If Trump's opposition/haters are correct, Trump's statement emboldened and gave succour and comfort to white supremacists, neo-Nazis, racists, white nationalists, etc.
If Trump's opposition/haters are correct, there's nothing that Trump said or did since that time to downplay his giving comfort and succour to white supremacists.
So, the question:
Why hasn't there been a repeat of Charlottesville all around the country since then (close to 2 years now), with emboldened white supremacists running amok and terrorizing non-whites?
Isn't that what Trump's haters/opposition would have predicted might ensue? That non-whites would have to live in fear in Trump's America?
The reason there hasn't been a repeat of Charlottesville is because the narrative Trump's haters have promoted since that time is a lie - the product of willful dishonesty or stupidity. In short, his haters are almost unbelievably stupid, or fucking liars, or a combination of the two.
And it really isn't difficult to figure this out, with some intellectual honesty and a bit of persistence.
The facts:
Politifact provides the transcript from Trump's Aug. 15, 2017 press conference in which the "very fine people" phrase is used. (The posting of the transcript at Politifact is dated Apr. 16, 2019. Question: why the fuck would it take Politifact almost 2 years to post the transcript? More on that in a bit.)
Now, Politifact has a rating system for the truthfulness of a statement, ranging from "True" to "Pants on Fire."
Politifact's "rating" or determination at the bottom of the posted transcript is: "full context is needed."
Well, no shit. But what does that imply about Trump's haters (including those in the press - and you can see how even the reporters questioning Trump in his press conference seem to have comprehension issues [where did they receive their "education"?])?
If Politifact were to do what it really ought to do in addition to posting the transcript, and that is to assess the truth or falsity of the Trump haters' claims that he called neo-Nazis "very fine people," what would be the correct rating for Politifact to give those claims?
The claim that Trump said neo-Nazis were "very fine people" is a pants-on-fire lie. It indicates such a degree of disregard for truth and context by his haters that they shouldn't be considered credible sources about what their opposition says or thinks.
And what's more, it definitely damns the "news" sources - Trump is exactly right to call this "fake news" - who emboldened Trump's haters and gave them aid and succour in their lie. The "news" organizations - and this goes definitely for CNN - either knew it was a lie, or failed in their job as news sources to get the full story. Scott Adams has all the archived evidence of CNN's blatant dishonesty. Will CNN ever issue a correction, or will it slink away into silence in hopes that they won't be called to account about this again? Will they admit that they unprofessionally peddled a lie to the American people, or will they unprofessionally avoid all accountability for their peddling the lie?
Either alternative puts CNN (and other similar situated "news" organizations) in a very tough spot. They have been caught dead to rights, promoting a lie. The best option at this point for CNN would be to admit that it's no longer a news organization - certainly not in its politics coverage - but a selective and biased source plus selective and biased commentary.
So fuck CNN, and fuck all the Democrats/left/"progressives" who peddled this lie.
One thing that these Trump haters do a lot of, is to say how scared immigrants are that Trump's goons will come into their cities and homes and destroy their lives.
But the real, main cause of the immigrants' fear on this count is that they listen so much to dishonest and/or monumentally stupid Democrats who have every partisan political motivation to stir up the fear among their constituents.
So fuck the Democrats/left/"progressives" yet again for their epistemologically criminal fear-mongering.
Anyway, why did it take Politifact so long to post that transcript? It's because the dishonest partisan Dem/left/"prog" had stonewalled long enough in the face of Scott Adams calling them to task.
Back to the original question: why didn't Trump's remarks about "very fine people" embolden white supremacists? Because very shortly after that press conference, Trump issued an unequivocal condemnation of white supremacy, calling out such organizations as the KKK by name. He sent the unequivocal message that he does not support or condone their activities in any way.
That, too, is a fact disregarded by the dishonest left/Dem/"prog" crowd. (I almost said "stupid/dishonest" but stupidity doesn't explain blatantly disregarding facts. These are intellectually dishonest pieces of shit.)
Fact is, the scummy Dem/left/"progs" weave an entire false narrative about Trump's supposed racism by going out of their way to assume the worst when Trump says something that might be tied to some ethnic or racial subject. This race-hustling has become the stock in trade of the entire party, indeed the entire intellectual culture of the Left, including the parasites of subsidized classrooms (who should be swept aside).
By the way, the URL that I just linked contains as its first search result this item from HuffPo. It's the same basic epistemological criminality, this time applied to Ayn Rand. And I dare say that this example is typical of leftist Rand-bashing:
Given such serious comprehension problems, one has to ask: was he "educated" by parasites of subsidized classrooms?
I dare submit that the entire intellectual culture of the Left has become (if it wasn't always) a dishonest cesspool in which opposition ideas are constantly caricatured so as to be made to look weaker by comparison to the "superior" leftist alternative. Whenever an opportunity for a serious debate about their caricatures presents itself, they run away like cowards. I've seen this happen every time when it comes to their caricatures of Rand (their most formidable intellectual adversary). And in this case it's entirely no accident that the parasites of subsidized classrooms aid and abet them in their smears; if Randian ideas take hold in the culture, they (in their present form, that is) are out of a job and stripped of their power to "educate" the youth.
The way the Dems/left/"progs" treat Trump and Rand falls into a pattern of an intellectually-bankrupt non-approach to examining competing socio-political-economic ideas. It's just that this corruption comes out most blatantly and obviously in the case of Trump (because, well, he's president) and Rand (because she's their most formidable intellectual adversary, and she's got them running around like decapitated chickens trying to "refute" her).
(The intellectual criminality in the latter case, though, is greater because it goes all the way to the upper echelons of the academic food chain, whereas in the former it's mostly political hacks (including the political "news" generators at CNN) doing the dirty work. The chief tactic used among the professional rationalizers in order to rationalize not taking Rand seriously is to pay attention only to her real or supposed weaknesses while disregarding her strengths. That's it; that's all it comes to. There's no way that any of them could honestly look at the goings-on at the Ayn Rand Society and conclude that professional philosophers couldn't take Rand seriously. What makes their rationalizations more dangerous and destructive than those of rank-and-file leftists is that they are trained in the art of making their arguments appear the stronger even if their position is the weaker. (IOW, they're a variety of sophist. One can observe the mental gymnastics of such anti-Rand sophists here, for instance. They might try to rationalize how a high-profile Aristotle scholar such as Gotthelf could also be an Objectivist, but they certainly have no answer that fits in with their highly dubious anti-Rand narrative as to why Hospers would take Rand so seriously despite not being an Objectivist himself. They have no consistent-with-narrative answer as to how this president of the American Society for Aesthetics [1983-4] would praise Atlas Shrugged in such glowing terms. What, oh what, is a sophist to do?))
The "very fine people" hoax is just one clear-cut, dead-to-rights example of Dem/left/"prog" dishonesty, but it's far from the only such instance. Just the other day, commenting on the Democrat debate the night before, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough ("Morning Joe") said (paraphrasing) that "Trump called Mexicans rapists." Scarborough doesn't strike me as the dishonest type, so an alternative explanation for this is that he's another victim of the parasites of subsidized classrooms, rendered unfit to think at the higher levels.
If you're not a piece of intellectual shit, on the other hand, you can easily make sense of what Trump was saying, which is that there is too much criminal activity in our country due to way too many people of a criminal bent crossing the southern border illegally (and then coddled by Democrats). (Democrats/leftists/"progs" stupidly/dishonestly conflate illegal immigration and all immigration when they say Trump is anti-immigrant. They then stir up fear among their immigrant constituencies that Trump is hostile to all of them and has an agenda actually in place to deport all people who are here illegally.) Then we have Nancy Peloser lying that "Trump's thing is 'Make America White Again' " and that the border barrier addition Trump wants to build - a barrier that by definition would reduce only illegal immigration - is a symbol of racism.
(And what the fuck is Joe Scarborough doing bringing up something Trump "said" four years ago now, at the very outset of his campaign, when he was a political newcomer with no serious experience in political communication? How the fuck, exactly, was Trump supposed to know about the iron law of politics that if a statement can be construed in its worst possible light it will be and with the aid of complicit "news" outlets no less?)
How can pieces of intellectual shit such as Peloser, CNN, the Democrats, et al, be expected to get it right about anything of fundamental importance in the realm of politics? I mean, they might get it right when they cite this or that fact and figure they have actually studied, or heck, the natural scientists among them might well get it right about the scientific things they study, but as to what constitutes racism, or what constitutes sound government policy, or what constitutes the American ethos, or what constitutes corporations victimizing people . . . how can these people claim so much as a shred of credibility any longer? They habitually lie through their teeth, and/or are hubristic fools.
A few months back I made a post titled "Donald Trump, Ayn Rand, and their haters." In that post I said:
But as to the exceedingly shitty nature of Trump-haters as well as the Rand-haters? Well, since right around the time of the posting excerpted above I have made the following abundantly (if not overwhelmingly) documented posts exposing what these creatures are up to.
Trump's haters:
Rand's haters:
Now, I don't know whether the totality of the evidence presented in these links qualifies as a mountain, but it sure is a heck of a lot of evidence and the essential nature of the phenomena are captured well enough for me to rest my case with utmost certainty that any plausible, not-self-defeating defense of these creatures' MO is nowhere to be found. They are a bunch of unphilosophical, caught-dead-to-rights, conceited scumbags who deserve the lion's share of blame for what a shitshow the American political "conversation" has become. The only question remaining is addressed to the remaining decent Democrats whose voices and input have been (inevitably and irreversibly) drowned out by the ever more strident, ever more statist, ever more anti-Western-civ scumbags (a group now spearheaded by an ignorant, toxic moral exhibitionist) who've taken over the party: And you are still a Democrat?
If the Dems/left/"progressives," in the name of the best within themselves (it's in there, somewhere), ever manage to get their act together, that means having to confront the Randian "menace," discover that their fears are entirely unfounded, and become Aristotelians - in short, jump on the team and come on in for the big win, for fuck's sake already.
[Addendum: The potential/future leftist "recruits" for philosophy boot camp could sure use a drill instructor highly skilled in the art of integration/dialectic. Where might such possibly be found, I wonder?]
[Addendum #2: In the interests of full dialectical non-one-sided context-keeping, the best piece of evidence that Trump harbors animus toward a minority group is his original proposed ban on Muslims entering the country. The proper term for this proposal would be Islamophobic, not racist, since Islam isn't a race (a point Trump's haters are too stupid or dishonest to grasp). Trump's haters might have gotten more mileage out of his apparently unqualified Islamophobia (as well as his early 1970s housing company policies) if they hadn't already blown their credibility on just about everything else, as already demonstrated.]
[Addendum #3: I've been getting some pushback on this wonderfully aggressive post where I've been posting it online, but the pushback hasn't been very good. One objection I am getting is that I'm really hard on Dems/left/"progs" while not being "fair and balanced" enough to acknowledge all the misdeeds and intellectual bankruptcy among Republicans/right/conservatives (with or without scare-quotes), such that I might appear to come off as some kind of partisan GOP shill. So let me start by saying, the GOP has a shitty track record on LGBT+ rights, and clearly so. So while the left want to force bakers to make cakes for gay weddings (you see, the left got its well-earned victory with gay marriage, but it just couldn't help overstepping into trampling on others' freedoms, now could it), if the GOP had its way there wouldn't even be gay civil unions. So fuck 'em on that score, they have a lot of rehabilitating to do to regain the moral credibility squandered there. One can find a good amount of commentary (including polemics) on the GOP under my 'republicans' tag. One extensive listing of GOP intellectual misdeeds is contained in this post in a long paragraph beginning with "Before continuing...". Another point of pushback on this wonderfully aggressive post has to with data purporting to show a rise in hate crimes, particularly murders by white supremacists, under (and therefore presumably attributable to) Trump. One such releasing of data, by the Anti-Defamation League, is relayed uncritically by WaPo writers while being torched by someone who looked into the ADL report. (Further context.) This, all in connection with my lead question, "Why hasn't there been a repeat of Charlottesville all around the country since then (close to 2 years now), with emboldened white supremacists running amok and terrorizing non-whites?" The Dems/left/"progs" would have the American electorate believe that this sort of thing would be a regular occurrence under Trump because of a culture of hatred he would unleash. As it turns out, the number of what the ADL calls extremism-related murders (using its methods criticized at the "torched" link) in the year 2018 is all of 50 in a nation of 340M+. 39 of those are murders "by white supremacists," whether ideological or non-ideological in nature, and this figure evidently includes the 17 people gunned down in the Parkland, FL school shooting (2/14/2018), which all on its own would nearly account for the increase from 18 "murders by white supremacists" in 2017 to 39 in 2018. Be very wary of statistics cited by known-to-be-partisan "news" outlets. Has the worn-out credibility of the anti-Trump media not been made thoroughly apparent yet? ffs Anyway, there seem to be a number of readers who just don't like to see it being said that vast swaths of today's Dem/left/"prog" crowd have become basically demonically warped morons in their (political) thinking, or that the intellectual culture of the left is essentially a basket case, but that's what the exhaustively-documented facts say, so tough shit. Just follow the gobs of links I provide in this and other posts tagged 'democrats' and 'leftist losers' for incontrovertible proof of this seemingly hard-to-swallow truth. It pains me that it is true. But I offer an undeniably no-brainer solution, goddammit.]
[Addendum #4, in the interests of dialectical completeness: Well, guess what. Here is an alternate, well-supported take on Trump's remarks about Charlottesville. It is decidedly negative. It hits Trump right where he usually or often deserves to be hit, and for which he has been caught out countless times -- his casual relationship to the truth. But what it is NOT is the line of attack that Trump's haters and opposition media have put forward, because that line is absolutely indefensible given the context, which includes multiple statements across a few days in which he condemns in no uncertain terms: hate; bigotry; racism; white supremacy; white nationalism; neo-Nazis; KKK; and "other" hate groups. The only term he apparently left out was: alt-right. (Is Trump ideologically aware enough to know what the "alt-right" is? How many people can pin down the meaning of "alt-right" so that it isn't used as some fast and loose smear, as though that sort of thing would ever happen in politics?) Nowhere in this piece is it asserted that Trump stated, implied, insinuated, or anything else that he considered white supremacists to be "very fine people." That is as much a lie as ever.
And guess what else. This eminently reasonable takedown of Trump on his handling of Charlottesville is performed by an Objectivist (adherent to basically the entirety of Ayn Rand's philosophy, or at the very least all its fundamental principles [and he was one noteworthy player in the "Peikoff-Kelley schism" literature, siding against Kelley on technical grounds within Objectivist epistemology...]). So how is it that an Objectivist can outperform by a mile a whole army of Dem/left/"prog" people, I wonder?]
[Addendum #5: This contains the most brutal anti-Trump comments section I've encountered, with lots of erudition to boot. But it's a bunch of conservatives doing the brutalizing, not the left/Dem scum who've squandered all their credibility. Trump's best critics are not to be found on the intellectually bankrupt/collapsing scum-left.]
Here's a question that would be asked in a polity governed by reason and wisdom:
If Trump's opposition/haters are correct, Trump said that neo-Nazis in Charlottesville in Aug. 2017 were "very fine people" - purportedly an implication of his statement that there were "very fine people on both sides" in Charlottesville in Aug. 2017.
If Trump's opposition/haters are correct, Trump's statement emboldened and gave succour and comfort to white supremacists, neo-Nazis, racists, white nationalists, etc.
If Trump's opposition/haters are correct, there's nothing that Trump said or did since that time to downplay his giving comfort and succour to white supremacists.
So, the question:
Why hasn't there been a repeat of Charlottesville all around the country since then (close to 2 years now), with emboldened white supremacists running amok and terrorizing non-whites?
Isn't that what Trump's haters/opposition would have predicted might ensue? That non-whites would have to live in fear in Trump's America?
The reason there hasn't been a repeat of Charlottesville is because the narrative Trump's haters have promoted since that time is a lie - the product of willful dishonesty or stupidity. In short, his haters are almost unbelievably stupid, or fucking liars, or a combination of the two.
And it really isn't difficult to figure this out, with some intellectual honesty and a bit of persistence.
The facts:
Politifact provides the transcript from Trump's Aug. 15, 2017 press conference in which the "very fine people" phrase is used. (The posting of the transcript at Politifact is dated Apr. 16, 2019. Question: why the fuck would it take Politifact almost 2 years to post the transcript? More on that in a bit.)
Now, Politifact has a rating system for the truthfulness of a statement, ranging from "True" to "Pants on Fire."
Politifact's "rating" or determination at the bottom of the posted transcript is: "full context is needed."
Well, no shit. But what does that imply about Trump's haters (including those in the press - and you can see how even the reporters questioning Trump in his press conference seem to have comprehension issues [where did they receive their "education"?])?
If Politifact were to do what it really ought to do in addition to posting the transcript, and that is to assess the truth or falsity of the Trump haters' claims that he called neo-Nazis "very fine people," what would be the correct rating for Politifact to give those claims?
The claim that Trump said neo-Nazis were "very fine people" is a pants-on-fire lie. It indicates such a degree of disregard for truth and context by his haters that they shouldn't be considered credible sources about what their opposition says or thinks.
And what's more, it definitely damns the "news" sources - Trump is exactly right to call this "fake news" - who emboldened Trump's haters and gave them aid and succour in their lie. The "news" organizations - and this goes definitely for CNN - either knew it was a lie, or failed in their job as news sources to get the full story. Scott Adams has all the archived evidence of CNN's blatant dishonesty. Will CNN ever issue a correction, or will it slink away into silence in hopes that they won't be called to account about this again? Will they admit that they unprofessionally peddled a lie to the American people, or will they unprofessionally avoid all accountability for their peddling the lie?
Either alternative puts CNN (and other similar situated "news" organizations) in a very tough spot. They have been caught dead to rights, promoting a lie. The best option at this point for CNN would be to admit that it's no longer a news organization - certainly not in its politics coverage - but a selective and biased source plus selective and biased commentary.
So fuck CNN, and fuck all the Democrats/left/"progressives" who peddled this lie.
One thing that these Trump haters do a lot of, is to say how scared immigrants are that Trump's goons will come into their cities and homes and destroy their lives.
But the real, main cause of the immigrants' fear on this count is that they listen so much to dishonest and/or monumentally stupid Democrats who have every partisan political motivation to stir up the fear among their constituents.
So fuck the Democrats/left/"progressives" yet again for their epistemologically criminal fear-mongering.
Anyway, why did it take Politifact so long to post that transcript? It's because the dishonest partisan Dem/left/"prog" had stonewalled long enough in the face of Scott Adams calling them to task.
Back to the original question: why didn't Trump's remarks about "very fine people" embolden white supremacists? Because very shortly after that press conference, Trump issued an unequivocal condemnation of white supremacy, calling out such organizations as the KKK by name. He sent the unequivocal message that he does not support or condone their activities in any way.
That, too, is a fact disregarded by the dishonest left/Dem/"prog" crowd. (I almost said "stupid/dishonest" but stupidity doesn't explain blatantly disregarding facts. These are intellectually dishonest pieces of shit.)
Fact is, the scummy Dem/left/"progs" weave an entire false narrative about Trump's supposed racism by going out of their way to assume the worst when Trump says something that might be tied to some ethnic or racial subject. This race-hustling has become the stock in trade of the entire party, indeed the entire intellectual culture of the Left, including the parasites of subsidized classrooms (who should be swept aside).
By the way, the URL that I just linked contains as its first search result this item from HuffPo. It's the same basic epistemological criminality, this time applied to Ayn Rand. And I dare say that this example is typical of leftist Rand-bashing:
Letter from a GaltianThis hubristic piece of shit apparently either didn't read the Galt speech or did read it but has serious comprehension problems. After all, what is John Galt but a scientist? What is Hugh Akston if not an educated member of society?
“I am really curios (sic) to know what motivates the mind of a socialist,” you write. “Why do you think its (sic) fair to penalize those of us who produce while rewarding those who do not?”
(Apparently the email software used by producers doesn’t have a spell-check function. Fitting, I guess, for people whose fictional hero described scientists and other educated members of society as “parasites of subsidized classrooms.”)
Given such serious comprehension problems, one has to ask: was he "educated" by parasites of subsidized classrooms?
I dare submit that the entire intellectual culture of the Left has become (if it wasn't always) a dishonest cesspool in which opposition ideas are constantly caricatured so as to be made to look weaker by comparison to the "superior" leftist alternative. Whenever an opportunity for a serious debate about their caricatures presents itself, they run away like cowards. I've seen this happen every time when it comes to their caricatures of Rand (their most formidable intellectual adversary). And in this case it's entirely no accident that the parasites of subsidized classrooms aid and abet them in their smears; if Randian ideas take hold in the culture, they (in their present form, that is) are out of a job and stripped of their power to "educate" the youth.
The way the Dems/left/"progs" treat Trump and Rand falls into a pattern of an intellectually-bankrupt non-approach to examining competing socio-political-economic ideas. It's just that this corruption comes out most blatantly and obviously in the case of Trump (because, well, he's president) and Rand (because she's their most formidable intellectual adversary, and she's got them running around like decapitated chickens trying to "refute" her).
(The intellectual criminality in the latter case, though, is greater because it goes all the way to the upper echelons of the academic food chain, whereas in the former it's mostly political hacks (including the political "news" generators at CNN) doing the dirty work. The chief tactic used among the professional rationalizers in order to rationalize not taking Rand seriously is to pay attention only to her real or supposed weaknesses while disregarding her strengths. That's it; that's all it comes to. There's no way that any of them could honestly look at the goings-on at the Ayn Rand Society and conclude that professional philosophers couldn't take Rand seriously. What makes their rationalizations more dangerous and destructive than those of rank-and-file leftists is that they are trained in the art of making their arguments appear the stronger even if their position is the weaker. (IOW, they're a variety of sophist. One can observe the mental gymnastics of such anti-Rand sophists here, for instance. They might try to rationalize how a high-profile Aristotle scholar such as Gotthelf could also be an Objectivist, but they certainly have no answer that fits in with their highly dubious anti-Rand narrative as to why Hospers would take Rand so seriously despite not being an Objectivist himself. They have no consistent-with-narrative answer as to how this president of the American Society for Aesthetics [1983-4] would praise Atlas Shrugged in such glowing terms. What, oh what, is a sophist to do?))
The "very fine people" hoax is just one clear-cut, dead-to-rights example of Dem/left/"prog" dishonesty, but it's far from the only such instance. Just the other day, commenting on the Democrat debate the night before, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough ("Morning Joe") said (paraphrasing) that "Trump called Mexicans rapists." Scarborough doesn't strike me as the dishonest type, so an alternative explanation for this is that he's another victim of the parasites of subsidized classrooms, rendered unfit to think at the higher levels.
If you're not a piece of intellectual shit, on the other hand, you can easily make sense of what Trump was saying, which is that there is too much criminal activity in our country due to way too many people of a criminal bent crossing the southern border illegally (and then coddled by Democrats). (Democrats/leftists/"progs" stupidly/dishonestly conflate illegal immigration and all immigration when they say Trump is anti-immigrant. They then stir up fear among their immigrant constituencies that Trump is hostile to all of them and has an agenda actually in place to deport all people who are here illegally.) Then we have Nancy Peloser lying that "Trump's thing is 'Make America White Again' " and that the border barrier addition Trump wants to build - a barrier that by definition would reduce only illegal immigration - is a symbol of racism.
(And what the fuck is Joe Scarborough doing bringing up something Trump "said" four years ago now, at the very outset of his campaign, when he was a political newcomer with no serious experience in political communication? How the fuck, exactly, was Trump supposed to know about the iron law of politics that if a statement can be construed in its worst possible light it will be and with the aid of complicit "news" outlets no less?)
How can pieces of intellectual shit such as Peloser, CNN, the Democrats, et al, be expected to get it right about anything of fundamental importance in the realm of politics? I mean, they might get it right when they cite this or that fact and figure they have actually studied, or heck, the natural scientists among them might well get it right about the scientific things they study, but as to what constitutes racism, or what constitutes sound government policy, or what constitutes the American ethos, or what constitutes corporations victimizing people . . . how can these people claim so much as a shred of credibility any longer? They habitually lie through their teeth, and/or are hubristic fools.
A few months back I made a post titled "Donald Trump, Ayn Rand, and their haters." In that post I said:
Sure Trump says a lot of dumb things, can be quite the dick sometimes. But have you seen his haters? They often behave like absolute pieces of shit.
Sure Rand's polemics leave a lot to be desired, but have you seen how her haters polemicize against her? They often behave like absolute pieces of intellectual shit.
And I can, if and when I have the time and interest to do so, marshal a mountain of evidence to prove all of this....Now, I haven't yet marshaled a mountain of evidence that Trump says a lot of dumb things and can be quite the dick sometimes (do I really need to go through the motions there? Don't his own fans admit this while still preferring him to the even-more-toxic alternative?), and I haven't yet marshaled a mountain of evidence that Rand's polemics leave a lot to be desired (which would establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that Rand isn't the expert on everything philosophy-related as quite a number of her devoted followers believe). (I mean her polemics directed at philosophers, that is; I think at the very least the vast majority of her political polemics are so on-target as to be beyond serious criticism, and her diagnosis for why the political creatures whom she demolishes are the way they are is based on a general fact about our political culture: intellectual bankruptcy.)
But as to the exceedingly shitty nature of Trump-haters as well as the Rand-haters? Well, since right around the time of the posting excerpted above I have made the following abundantly (if not overwhelmingly) documented posts exposing what these creatures are up to.
Trump's haters:
- Philosophy professor on whether Trump is racist (How would responsible philosophers assess putative evidence of Trump racism presented by his haters?)
- Prediction: Trump (or a Republican) will win in 2020 (how today's Dems/leftists/"progs" generally speaking are shitheads, with dozens of documenting links in just one paragraph; the anti-Kavanaugh smears in particular reveal the nature of the present-day Dem/left/"prog" cesspool, and that includes the current top 3, and top 4 out of 5, front-runners for '20, and that goes especially for current front-runner, Scumbag Kamala Harris)
Rand's haters:
Now, I don't know whether the totality of the evidence presented in these links qualifies as a mountain, but it sure is a heck of a lot of evidence and the essential nature of the phenomena are captured well enough for me to rest my case with utmost certainty that any plausible, not-self-defeating defense of these creatures' MO is nowhere to be found. They are a bunch of unphilosophical, caught-dead-to-rights, conceited scumbags who deserve the lion's share of blame for what a shitshow the American political "conversation" has become. The only question remaining is addressed to the remaining decent Democrats whose voices and input have been (inevitably and irreversibly) drowned out by the ever more strident, ever more statist, ever more anti-Western-civ scumbags (a group now spearheaded by an ignorant, toxic moral exhibitionist) who've taken over the party: And you are still a Democrat?
If the Dems/left/"progressives," in the name of the best within themselves (it's in there, somewhere), ever manage to get their act together, that means having to confront the Randian "menace," discover that their fears are entirely unfounded, and become Aristotelians - in short, jump on the team and come on in for the big win, for fuck's sake already.
[Addendum: The potential/future leftist "recruits" for philosophy boot camp could sure use a drill instructor highly skilled in the art of integration/dialectic. Where might such possibly be found, I wonder?]
[Addendum #2: In the interests of full dialectical non-one-sided context-keeping, the best piece of evidence that Trump harbors animus toward a minority group is his original proposed ban on Muslims entering the country. The proper term for this proposal would be Islamophobic, not racist, since Islam isn't a race (a point Trump's haters are too stupid or dishonest to grasp). Trump's haters might have gotten more mileage out of his apparently unqualified Islamophobia (as well as his early 1970s housing company policies) if they hadn't already blown their credibility on just about everything else, as already demonstrated.]
[Addendum #3: I've been getting some pushback on this wonderfully aggressive post where I've been posting it online, but the pushback hasn't been very good. One objection I am getting is that I'm really hard on Dems/left/"progs" while not being "fair and balanced" enough to acknowledge all the misdeeds and intellectual bankruptcy among Republicans/right/conservatives (with or without scare-quotes), such that I might appear to come off as some kind of partisan GOP shill. So let me start by saying, the GOP has a shitty track record on LGBT+ rights, and clearly so. So while the left want to force bakers to make cakes for gay weddings (you see, the left got its well-earned victory with gay marriage, but it just couldn't help overstepping into trampling on others' freedoms, now could it), if the GOP had its way there wouldn't even be gay civil unions. So fuck 'em on that score, they have a lot of rehabilitating to do to regain the moral credibility squandered there. One can find a good amount of commentary (including polemics) on the GOP under my 'republicans' tag. One extensive listing of GOP intellectual misdeeds is contained in this post in a long paragraph beginning with "Before continuing...". Another point of pushback on this wonderfully aggressive post has to with data purporting to show a rise in hate crimes, particularly murders by white supremacists, under (and therefore presumably attributable to) Trump. One such releasing of data, by the Anti-Defamation League, is relayed uncritically by WaPo writers while being torched by someone who looked into the ADL report. (Further context.) This, all in connection with my lead question, "Why hasn't there been a repeat of Charlottesville all around the country since then (close to 2 years now), with emboldened white supremacists running amok and terrorizing non-whites?" The Dems/left/"progs" would have the American electorate believe that this sort of thing would be a regular occurrence under Trump because of a culture of hatred he would unleash. As it turns out, the number of what the ADL calls extremism-related murders (using its methods criticized at the "torched" link) in the year 2018 is all of 50 in a nation of 340M+. 39 of those are murders "by white supremacists," whether ideological or non-ideological in nature, and this figure evidently includes the 17 people gunned down in the Parkland, FL school shooting (2/14/2018), which all on its own would nearly account for the increase from 18 "murders by white supremacists" in 2017 to 39 in 2018. Be very wary of statistics cited by known-to-be-partisan "news" outlets. Has the worn-out credibility of the anti-Trump media not been made thoroughly apparent yet? ffs Anyway, there seem to be a number of readers who just don't like to see it being said that vast swaths of today's Dem/left/"prog" crowd have become basically demonically warped morons in their (political) thinking, or that the intellectual culture of the left is essentially a basket case, but that's what the exhaustively-documented facts say, so tough shit. Just follow the gobs of links I provide in this and other posts tagged 'democrats' and 'leftist losers' for incontrovertible proof of this seemingly hard-to-swallow truth. It pains me that it is true. But I offer an undeniably no-brainer solution, goddammit.]
[Addendum #4, in the interests of dialectical completeness: Well, guess what. Here is an alternate, well-supported take on Trump's remarks about Charlottesville. It is decidedly negative. It hits Trump right where he usually or often deserves to be hit, and for which he has been caught out countless times -- his casual relationship to the truth. But what it is NOT is the line of attack that Trump's haters and opposition media have put forward, because that line is absolutely indefensible given the context, which includes multiple statements across a few days in which he condemns in no uncertain terms: hate; bigotry; racism; white supremacy; white nationalism; neo-Nazis; KKK; and "other" hate groups. The only term he apparently left out was: alt-right. (Is Trump ideologically aware enough to know what the "alt-right" is? How many people can pin down the meaning of "alt-right" so that it isn't used as some fast and loose smear, as though that sort of thing would ever happen in politics?) Nowhere in this piece is it asserted that Trump stated, implied, insinuated, or anything else that he considered white supremacists to be "very fine people." That is as much a lie as ever.
And guess what else. This eminently reasonable takedown of Trump on his handling of Charlottesville is performed by an Objectivist (adherent to basically the entirety of Ayn Rand's philosophy, or at the very least all its fundamental principles [and he was one noteworthy player in the "Peikoff-Kelley schism" literature, siding against Kelley on technical grounds within Objectivist epistemology...]). So how is it that an Objectivist can outperform by a mile a whole army of Dem/left/"prog" people, I wonder?]
[Addendum #5: This contains the most brutal anti-Trump comments section I've encountered, with lots of erudition to boot. But it's a bunch of conservatives doing the brutalizing, not the left/Dem scum who've squandered all their credibility. Trump's best critics are not to be found on the intellectually bankrupt/collapsing scum-left.]
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
How intellectually bankrupt is the global warming debate?
If my favorite blogger has the gist of it right - and I can't really fathom how it's not basically correct - then the answer would be: pretty damn bankrupt. Fuck!
This is a very important issue not to be intellectually bankrupt about.
This is a very important issue not to be intellectually bankrupt about.
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Politics and/or religion without philosophy...
...are really bad/dangerous activities, as both logic and history confirm.
No-brainer, this.
[Edit 6/19: And why stop there? Extend the point about unexamined politics/religion to the unexamined life.]
No-brainer, this.
[Edit 6/19: And why stop there? Extend the point about unexamined politics/religion to the unexamined life.]
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
Spreading philosophy for children ASAFP
As I keep pointing out (and for abundantly good reason), philosophy for children is far and away the biggest no-brainer of all time. Right now people are fighting over crumbs compared to what's at stake here. Given the nature of philosophical activity, properly conceived - as love of wisdom and therefore organized (and therefore better) living - there is perhaps no human problem that can't be solved by more philosophy. (It gets even better with Aristotelian philosophy, which may be the best kind of philosophical activity around. If you haven't yet thought in terms of 'Ultimate living through ultimate philosophy,' then you have some catching up to do.)
The thoroughly-researched Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) entry on Philosophy for Children has an almost fresh copyright date (2018), so it's not like this article has been sitting around for a long time not being noticed on its merits. What the 2018 copyright date does say is that it took about that amount of time for a philosopher to do the necessary integration of research materials out there and consolidate the essential findings all in one place, with a compelling narrative tying it all together.
(I've had the time/resources only to go through McCarty's Little Big Minds, within the past several months or so. Just on its own it makes a compelling case for philosophy for kids, but it has a 2006 copyright date. What has happened in the intervening 13 years? Someone with the time, interest and expertise had to come along and organize all the available research. YouTube will provide leads to Jana Mohr Lone and others (edit: see also Lone's blog), but won't provide you the comprehensive set of leads available at the SEP entry.)
So we're into the second year after the SEP entry's publication, and at least one philosopher has taken up the task of blogging about it vigorously. I have just taken the next step of contacting the author of the SEP entry by email to inquire about how best this no-brainer idea can be spread ASAFP. The author probably has a good network of contacts in this area, and if a network of contacts includes philosophers, a potential intellectual juggernaut is in the making. By its very nature any opposition to philosophy for children is intellectually impotent, easily overwhelmed given enough time and dedication among the philosophers, the most advanced-level integrators in the humanities.
The question: why didn't I think of contacting the author before today? Well, this is the nature of incomplete and imperfect knowledge, and limitations on time and mental resources. Were I smarter than I am (I am merely a fanatical lover/pursuer of wisdom), this may well have happened sooner. The better (Aristotelian) policy of mental integration being applied, the sooner such discoveries can be made and exploited for maximum benefit.
And, so, if you're reading this, what measures might you take to help spread the message of philosophy for children? Perhaps contact the author of the SEP entry as I have and express your support. Provide the SEP link with a good money-quote (this linked one quoting the author that most anyone with philosophical curiosity themselves can teach this subject; and most anyone can have philosophical curiosity) on social media when good opportunities arise, making sure to mention how authoritative the SEP is. Those are a couple ideas that occur to me so far. (Do I have to do all this myself? Or will the end of history simply have to be a collaborative effort? But of course it will....)
When a philosopher-friend on facebook linked to this article (by Rod Dreher at The American Conservative almost despairing over the seductive appeal of "alt-right" views to alienated young white men seeking meaning (and we're not talking the benign and philosophical Jordan Peterson-type guidance, but, well, identity-politics for white males), the thought occurred to me: "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if this or the next generation of young males are taught to think philosophically before this all becomes a problem...." Seeing as I can't fathom a remotely plausible comeback to this, there probably isn't one.
Is there any social problem that wouldn't be optimally addressed by philosophy for kids? Just now I see on the news the latest story about cop-killing dirtbags. Put the kids on philosophy and they won't end up being cop-killing dirtbags.
Given that this topic is of the highest priority for a wisdom-lover, I will continue to pursue this vigorously however I can. Providing top-notch blog postings as evidence for the benefits philosophy can bring will continue to be a part of this process. But others with sincere concern about the future of humanity will have to do their part, as well.
I am currently discussing a bet on facebook with Bryan Caplan (Econ, GMU), winner of 14 bets in a row and counting, as to how soon philosophy for children can/will be part of the regular education curriculum nationwide (if not worldwide...). If you follow the logic of this through, at some point there will be a checkmate situation against any opposition to philosophy for children. (Just the very publicizing of the bet/idea can only affect the very circumstances being betted on, in the direction of philosophy-for-children sooner than later. Think this through, and the only end-result is checkmate, pretty soon. Just what the endgame will look like, I do not know yet, but it should be pretty awesome.) I am willing to bet with long odds. Given my own context of knowledge, it's a no-brainer.
Like Sciabarra did his homework in his own area of expertise, I did my homework well enough to notice the McCarty book in a library (who uses those anymore?) and to notice and promote the SEP entry so relatively soon after its publication, as no other philosophy blog or social-media platform is doing (yet). (I found the SEP entry by googling "philosophy for children" after finding only so much material on youtube and not being satisfied with that.)
The rest of this blog's entries, and my book, should be a good indicator of how well and thoroughly I do my homework. Philosophy for children will get them doing their homework really darn well, also.
Why delay?
[Addendum: Why does American politics kinda suck right now? Well, a huge part of it has to do with our elected 'leaders' being so philosophically illiterate when contrasted with all of the key Framers. Think of whatever social problem we have and it probably, likely, or definitely has to do with not enough philosophy going around.]
[Addendum #2: Imagine a scenario: the teachers get a 5% bump in pay/funding if they teach philosophy for kids according to the best available researched protocols, and additional bumps as results come in. Why wouldn't they go for it?]
The thoroughly-researched Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) entry on Philosophy for Children has an almost fresh copyright date (2018), so it's not like this article has been sitting around for a long time not being noticed on its merits. What the 2018 copyright date does say is that it took about that amount of time for a philosopher to do the necessary integration of research materials out there and consolidate the essential findings all in one place, with a compelling narrative tying it all together.
(I've had the time/resources only to go through McCarty's Little Big Minds, within the past several months or so. Just on its own it makes a compelling case for philosophy for kids, but it has a 2006 copyright date. What has happened in the intervening 13 years? Someone with the time, interest and expertise had to come along and organize all the available research. YouTube will provide leads to Jana Mohr Lone and others (edit: see also Lone's blog), but won't provide you the comprehensive set of leads available at the SEP entry.)
So we're into the second year after the SEP entry's publication, and at least one philosopher has taken up the task of blogging about it vigorously. I have just taken the next step of contacting the author of the SEP entry by email to inquire about how best this no-brainer idea can be spread ASAFP. The author probably has a good network of contacts in this area, and if a network of contacts includes philosophers, a potential intellectual juggernaut is in the making. By its very nature any opposition to philosophy for children is intellectually impotent, easily overwhelmed given enough time and dedication among the philosophers, the most advanced-level integrators in the humanities.
The question: why didn't I think of contacting the author before today? Well, this is the nature of incomplete and imperfect knowledge, and limitations on time and mental resources. Were I smarter than I am (I am merely a fanatical lover/pursuer of wisdom), this may well have happened sooner. The better (Aristotelian) policy of mental integration being applied, the sooner such discoveries can be made and exploited for maximum benefit.
And, so, if you're reading this, what measures might you take to help spread the message of philosophy for children? Perhaps contact the author of the SEP entry as I have and express your support. Provide the SEP link with a good money-quote (this linked one quoting the author that most anyone with philosophical curiosity themselves can teach this subject; and most anyone can have philosophical curiosity) on social media when good opportunities arise, making sure to mention how authoritative the SEP is. Those are a couple ideas that occur to me so far. (Do I have to do all this myself? Or will the end of history simply have to be a collaborative effort? But of course it will....)
When a philosopher-friend on facebook linked to this article (by Rod Dreher at The American Conservative almost despairing over the seductive appeal of "alt-right" views to alienated young white men seeking meaning (and we're not talking the benign and philosophical Jordan Peterson-type guidance, but, well, identity-politics for white males), the thought occurred to me: "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if this or the next generation of young males are taught to think philosophically before this all becomes a problem...." Seeing as I can't fathom a remotely plausible comeback to this, there probably isn't one.
Is there any social problem that wouldn't be optimally addressed by philosophy for kids? Just now I see on the news the latest story about cop-killing dirtbags. Put the kids on philosophy and they won't end up being cop-killing dirtbags.
Given that this topic is of the highest priority for a wisdom-lover, I will continue to pursue this vigorously however I can. Providing top-notch blog postings as evidence for the benefits philosophy can bring will continue to be a part of this process. But others with sincere concern about the future of humanity will have to do their part, as well.
I am currently discussing a bet on facebook with Bryan Caplan (Econ, GMU), winner of 14 bets in a row and counting, as to how soon philosophy for children can/will be part of the regular education curriculum nationwide (if not worldwide...). If you follow the logic of this through, at some point there will be a checkmate situation against any opposition to philosophy for children. (Just the very publicizing of the bet/idea can only affect the very circumstances being betted on, in the direction of philosophy-for-children sooner than later. Think this through, and the only end-result is checkmate, pretty soon. Just what the endgame will look like, I do not know yet, but it should be pretty awesome.) I am willing to bet with long odds. Given my own context of knowledge, it's a no-brainer.
Like Sciabarra did his homework in his own area of expertise, I did my homework well enough to notice the McCarty book in a library (who uses those anymore?) and to notice and promote the SEP entry so relatively soon after its publication, as no other philosophy blog or social-media platform is doing (yet). (I found the SEP entry by googling "philosophy for children" after finding only so much material on youtube and not being satisfied with that.)
The rest of this blog's entries, and my book, should be a good indicator of how well and thoroughly I do my homework. Philosophy for children will get them doing their homework really darn well, also.
Why delay?
[Addendum: Why does American politics kinda suck right now? Well, a huge part of it has to do with our elected 'leaders' being so philosophically illiterate when contrasted with all of the key Framers. Think of whatever social problem we have and it probably, likely, or definitely has to do with not enough philosophy going around.]
[Addendum #2: Imagine a scenario: the teachers get a 5% bump in pay/funding if they teach philosophy for kids according to the best available researched protocols, and additional bumps as results come in. Why wouldn't they go for it?]
Friday, January 25, 2013
Chomsky, Dershowitz, and Taba
In 2005, notable adversaries on the Israel-Palestinian situation, Noam Chomsky and Alan Dershowitz, debated the subject at Harvard. (TRANSCRIPT) These are perhaps the most formidable opponents from each side on the issue, and once you cut through Dershowitz's abusive "Planet Chomsky" B.S. in the debate, they end up essentially in agreement on one thing: The Taba Summit was a laudable basis for a two-state mideast peace solution.
So . . . if these two adversaries can agree on that, then what the fuck is the holdup? Huh? I don't know what's more ridiculous, the stalling here or the stalling on the legalization of bud. They're both obviously no-brainers. If you will it, it is no dream; am I wrong?
So . . . if these two adversaries can agree on that, then what the fuck is the holdup? Huh? I don't know what's more ridiculous, the stalling here or the stalling on the legalization of bud. They're both obviously no-brainers. If you will it, it is no dream; am I wrong?
 |
| "Checkmate, asshole." |
 |
| "Checkmate, Israeli right wing; you're even more of an asshole than me." |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)