I’ll have to ask him if I get the chance.
Author: Curt Doolittle
-
Republicans attack ObamaContent as “socialized meaning” « fauxphilnews
In a rare break from party infighting, Monday’s Republican primary debate saw the candidates unite in their derision of “ObamaContent,” the president’s newly unveiled theory of linguistic meaning. The theory, which relies upon the practice of a speaker’s linguistic community to fix the semantic content of many words, was attacked as “socialized meaning” by the debate participants.
via Republicans attack ObamaContent as “socialized meaning” « fauxphilnews.
This is just the right making use of the left’s strategy (from Chomsky etc.). Just as they have adopted every other strategy after some frustrating internal hand wringing about their feelings about the ethics of it. And so we continue the cycle of degenerative discourse. The underlying issue remains the same. We either use the caretaker strategy, which is a synonym for subsidizing the birth rates of the lower classes, or we use the aristocratic strategy which is a synonym for constraining the birth rates of the lower classes. The ‘framing’ in political discourse consists of using every possible distraction to avoid the underlying issue: that norms are dependent upon the behavioral ability of the majority and therefore the right’s concept of freedom requires individual accountability and the suppression of the birth rates of the lower classes in order to achieve improvements in the body politic. The left’s concept of freedom requires redistribution, tolerance for impulsivity over discipline, and an authoritarian government to perform administration of it. It is possible to create a compromise between these two worlds, but not while the ‘framing’ is conducted by either the right or the left as a means of avoiding the underlying problem.
-
Republicans attack ObamaContent as “socialized meaning” « fauxphilnews
In a rare break from party infighting, Monday’s Republican primary debate saw the candidates unite in their derision of “ObamaContent,” the president’s newly unveiled theory of linguistic meaning. The theory, which relies upon the practice of a speaker’s linguistic community to fix the semantic content of many words, was attacked as “socialized meaning” by the debate participants.
via Republicans attack ObamaContent as “socialized meaning” « fauxphilnews.
This is just the right making use of the left’s strategy (from Chomsky etc.). Just as they have adopted every other strategy after some frustrating internal hand wringing about their feelings about the ethics of it. And so we continue the cycle of degenerative discourse. The underlying issue remains the same. We either use the caretaker strategy, which is a synonym for subsidizing the birth rates of the lower classes, or we use the aristocratic strategy which is a synonym for constraining the birth rates of the lower classes. The ‘framing’ in political discourse consists of using every possible distraction to avoid the underlying issue: that norms are dependent upon the behavioral ability of the majority and therefore the right’s concept of freedom requires individual accountability and the suppression of the birth rates of the lower classes in order to achieve improvements in the body politic. The left’s concept of freedom requires redistribution, tolerance for impulsivity over discipline, and an authoritarian government to perform administration of it. It is possible to create a compromise between these two worlds, but not while the ‘framing’ is conducted by either the right or the left as a means of avoiding the underlying problem.
-
The Financial Sector And Related White Collar Jobs Will Never Recover
That’s for sure. Never. Because it was a boom. We will finally get back to making things. 🙂
-
The Financial Sector And Related White Collar Jobs Will Never Recover
That’s for sure. Never. Because it was a boom. We will finally get back to making things. 🙂
-
FIRE IN THE HOLE I can’t even begin to imagine how many times I’ve lit nice fat
FIRE IN THE HOLE
I can’t even begin to imagine how many times I’ve lit nice fat aromatic candles for an evening, and sometime later fallen asleep, only to wake up in the wee hours, when they’ve sputtered and melted, put them out and gone to bed.
I’ve laughed at people who, with concerned paranoia, cautioned me that candles are a hazard. Especially at my log house, where there wasn’t much available to burn.
I’ve literally had fifty candles burning at whole-house parties without incident.
I’m not sure exactly how it started from the candle on the nightstand, but tonight the mattress, bedspring, and bedding caught fire. And we had a hard time putting it out. It spread so fast I didn’t think we could.
I’ve had a few small obligatory kitchen fires. I’ve had the usual napkin catch on fire at the dinner table. And helped others put out tablecloths, hair, dresses and shirtsleeves. I did light an enormous rural brush fire as a kid while playing with firecrackers. But never anything really serious before — at least that I remember.
I’ll remember this one. That gaping hole in the bedspring will remind me. And I’m not going to replace it — just so that I’m sure it does.
Source date (UTC): 2012-03-08 22:42:00 UTC
-
The Conservative Strategy
“The conservative strategy is to starve the beast as the only hope of preserving their freedom and their culture. In that context, their approach is entirely rational: in the battle between the public intellectual who would undermine their culture, and the entrepreneur who would preserve it, they are funding the entrepreneur. It is an entirely rational strategy. It is absolutely straightforward. Just as it is rational that Schumpeterian public intellectuals seek to fund the state.” VERSUS 1) Bankrupt the state before it can bankrupt us, versus bankrupt the entrepreneurs so that we have all political power. 2) Society as a collection of competing groups with different interests where the government is a referee and property rights the rules, versus society as an extension of the family wherein interests are assumed to be homogenous. 3) The constrained vision of human ability where society is fragile, everything is scarce, and change should be organic because of inescapable human hubris, versus the unconstrained vision of human ability where society i stable, everything is plentiful, and change should be directed and consensual, and problems are always solvable. 4) The feminine social order where the purpose of society is to produce as many children as possible, consume as much as possible, and provide the safest most nurturing world for all, versus the masculine social order where the purpose of society is to constrain the worst, concentrate resources in the best, and produce individual excellences. These are simply facts. Sowell was correct in stating the difference between the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision. He was insufficient in that the purpose of the social orders is secured by masculine and feminine biological preferences writ large. Nor was he, or anyone else, clear that the source of western innovation was the manorial system’s evolutionary ability to suppress the birth rates of the lower classes and in doing so create a more intelligent society capable of greater progress.
-
The Conservative Strategy
“The conservative strategy is to starve the beast as the only hope of preserving their freedom and their culture. In that context, their approach is entirely rational: in the battle between the public intellectual who would undermine their culture, and the entrepreneur who would preserve it, they are funding the entrepreneur. It is an entirely rational strategy. It is absolutely straightforward. Just as it is rational that Schumpeterian public intellectuals seek to fund the state.” VERSUS 1) Bankrupt the state before it can bankrupt us, versus bankrupt the entrepreneurs so that we have all political power. 2) Society as a collection of competing groups with different interests where the government is a referee and property rights the rules, versus society as an extension of the family wherein interests are assumed to be homogenous. 3) The constrained vision of human ability where society is fragile, everything is scarce, and change should be organic because of inescapable human hubris, versus the unconstrained vision of human ability where society i stable, everything is plentiful, and change should be directed and consensual, and problems are always solvable. 4) The feminine social order where the purpose of society is to produce as many children as possible, consume as much as possible, and provide the safest most nurturing world for all, versus the masculine social order where the purpose of society is to constrain the worst, concentrate resources in the best, and produce individual excellences. These are simply facts. Sowell was correct in stating the difference between the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision. He was insufficient in that the purpose of the social orders is secured by masculine and feminine biological preferences writ large. Nor was he, or anyone else, clear that the source of western innovation was the manorial system’s evolutionary ability to suppress the birth rates of the lower classes and in doing so create a more intelligent society capable of greater progress.
-
HUMANITIES AND NORMS “The norms promoted by prestigious humanities departments a
HUMANITIES AND NORMS
“The norms promoted by prestigious humanities departments are unpalatable when not couched in euphemism, and shielded by status-affirming organizational structures.” – Anon.
Source date (UTC): 2012-03-08 08:28:00 UTC
-
THE CONSERVATIVE STRATEGY “The conservative strategy is to starve the beast as t
THE CONSERVATIVE STRATEGY
“The conservative strategy is to starve the beast as the only hope of preserving their freedom and their culture. In that context, their approach is entirely rational: in the battle between the public intellectual who would undermine their culture, and the entrepreneur who would preserve it, they are funding the entrepreneur. It is an entirely rational strategy. It is absolutely straightforward. Just as it is rational that Schumpeterian public intellectuals seek to fund the state.”
Bankrupt the state before it can bankrupt us, versus bankrupt the entrepreneurs so that we have all political power.
Society as a collection of competing groups with different interests where the government is a referee and property rights the rules, versus society as an extension of the family wherein interests are assumed to be homogenous.
The constrained vision of human ability where society is fragile, everything is scarce, and change should be organic because of inescapable human hubris, versus the unconstrained vision of human ability where society i stable, everything is plentiful, and change should be directed and consensual, and problems are always solvable.
The feminine social order where the purpose of society is to produce as many children as possible, consume as much as possible, and provide the safest most nurturing world for all, versus the masculine social order where the purpose of society is to constrain the worst, concentrate resources in the best, and produce individual excellences.
These are simply facts. Sowell was correct in stating the difference between the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision. He was insufficient in that the purpose of the social orders is secured by masculine and feminine biological preferences writ large. Nor was he, or anyone else, clear that the source of western innovation was the manorial system’s evolutionary ability to suppress the birth rates of the lower classes and in doing so create a more intelligent society capable of greater progress.
Source date (UTC): 2012-03-08 04:30:00 UTC