MISSION?
1) Give conservatives a language for rational articulation of their ideas, culture, and values.
2) Strive to speak in a manner comprehensible to the common people.
Freaking hard. Really. I think the second is harder than the first. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2013-05-01 11:09:00 UTC
http://childrensmd.org/uncategorized/why-doctors-and-lawyers-homeschool-their-children-18-reasons-why-we-have-joined-americas-fastest-growing-educational-trend/EIGHTEEN GOOD REASONS WHY HOMESCHOOLING IS AWESOME
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-22 07:18:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/What-advantages-or-disadvantages-do-social-media-contribute-to-the-educational-development-or-problems-among-our-youth-today
CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS : LANGUAGE HUMOR
You know, I massacre the Russian language daily. It’s a source of laughter for everyone in the company. And of course, the retail staff we’re friendly with in the neighborhood. The people at the bakery just laugh no matter what I say.
Reminds me of all the silly things small children pronounce as they learn to speak. Christian had a number of them. Avocado as ‘ah-do-DAH-do’ was priceless every time. Partly because he was pretty articulate and these things were rarities. I kept wanting to use his pronunciation myself. It seemed so appropriate for some reason.
Russian language is still full of animal metaphor. My favorite is the nonsense about crazy squirrels distracting the inebriated, which I’ve written about here on FB before. (and I am accused of all the time, because I’m so silly.)
And, to make matters worse, whenever Veronika says “squirrel”, or phonetically, “SKWER-el” she pronounces it “SKREW-el”.
Which, reminds me of ‘screws-loose’, which in turn forces me to recall the crazy squirrel story, besides the obvious sexual references at the same time – a jumble of humorously related symbolism in a martini shaker that I suggests a pattern but I can’t sort it out.
Makes me laugh every time. Every single time. And it doesn’t get old.
It’s the little things that make life joyous. That’s the heart of conservatism: joy in present goods over future perfections. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-03-13 15:11:00 UTC
I’M SURE PROFESSIONAL ACADEMICS KNOW THIS BUT…
Does anyone actually READ the papers and books that they cite?
(Exasperated.)
Source date (UTC): 2013-02-22 10:25:00 UTC
IGNORANCE AND REPRODUCTION IN POLITICAL AGREEMENTS
ON IGNORANCE
The problems with erasing ignorance are, in stages, a) Having knowledge of your own ignorance on a topic b) Having sufficient knowledge to discount what passes for popular knowledge of the topic. c) Having sufficient knowledge of a topic that you do not rely upon the opinions of others for your own. d) Sufficient knowledge of a topic to know the current limit of understanding in the topic. e) sufficient knowledge of a topic to extend the limit of understanding
In other words, ignorance is a spectrum, and at each point in that spectrum listed above,
The only reason to claim knowledge is to act or to coerce. To act risks only your time, effort and money. To coerce by argument is to take from others time, effort and money from that which they plan to achieve to something you prefer to achieve.
We can never say we have certain knowledge. Only that we have erased all possible ignorance, and have embarked upon the process of invention.
We can only say we have the knowledge required to take action, and the self awareness of our ignorance to know the current stage of the uselessness of our opinons.
Since politics is not a process of debate for agreement on true statements but at best, agreement on consensual statements, or at worst, under majority rule, agreement by one group to oppress another — and since political debates must be made in a state of necessary ignorance about the nature and future of man, if not the resources available at the moment, they are, in fact, arguments made in ignorance.
And since political decisions are made in ignorance, they must be made according to some method or other.
Demonstrably, human beings make political decisions on moral instinct. And the interesting thing, is that by and large, moral instinct reflects their reproductive strategy.
And with this understanding we see how simple all of this nonsense we call politics really is. A complex device for conducting evolution of ourselves and our allies by the proxy violence of government rather than the direct violence of the human body.
Source date (UTC): 2013-01-21 10:13:00 UTC
WE LEARN FROM WHO WE CAN UNDERSTAND
If you can access Sowell, Hoppe, Hayek, Haidt, and Mises then you will make better arguments. If you can access Bastiat, Rothbard and Friedman you will make adequate arguments. But if pop-libertarians activate your sentiments, and with activated sentiments you promote libertarian ideas, then I’m perfectly happy that you do a good yeoman’s labor, even if your arguments aren’t as strong as they could be or your solutions as complete and possible as they seem to be.
Liberty need not be for philosophers alone. If you have libertarian sentiments, you need not have libertarian economics, history and analytical philosophy. All you need is a handful of moral parables to promote libertarianism.
You will reach a lot more people more effectively than those of us who write convoluted philosophical proofs referring to empirical evidence in an effort to combat the propaganda, proofs and evidence of the opposition.
At about every fifteen points of IQ we think very differently. Some of us in layers of abstractions, others in empirical analysis, others of us historical references, others in moral analogy and still others in moral sentiments. We think differently even if we all value liberty similarly, regardless of our method and mode of thinking.
The desire for Liberty at its core is a sentiment: a desire, an instinct, an emotional affiliation, a preference. No matter how we express it, and which level of experience or abstraction we use to argue in favor of it – we all express our preference for liberty to those with whom we share a common language.
Liberty doesn’t need to be precise. It needs to be popular.
Source date (UTC): 2013-01-20 10:18:00 UTC
TEACHERS AREN”T SKILLED THEY ARE TALENTED
There is no functional difference between a teacher with three months of training and one with twenty years of experience. In fact, it appears that we are better off with teachers who have three months of training, because they bring more passion to an industry that like entertainment, is dependent more on emotional devotion than wisdom.
We would be far better off Rotating retirees through the educational system than continuing the masquerade that teaching gradeschool students is a profession.
Whether you like this or not is not something that I can compensate for. It is simply a fact of life. Making a protected career for the bottom 16% of high school graduates out of what should be a social service conducted by those people who have demonstrated success in other careers, is simply nonsensical.
Source date (UTC): 2012-11-06 06:33:00 UTC
THE RATIONALITY OF THE CONSERVATIVE POSITION ON EDUCATION
The conservative argument is a) that our children spend more time being indoctrinated into socialism than they are educated. (true after 5th grade) b) that the teachers union blocks reforms to the process, putting teachers above students. (demonstrably true in all cases) c) that we spend more than anyone else and get poorer academic results (the data shows this to be true) d) that we have lost competitiveness in the working and lower classes because of all of these factors, and this has endangered the privileged position of the american economy. (demonstrably true) e) that it is not possible for people with traditional values to avoid oppression of their values by the socialist state. (certainly true)
ALL of these are legitimate concerns supported by the data. They are not wrong to hold these values. It might be argued that the political necessity of overcoming the difficulty of mixing races, cultures and values is so costly and difficult that we must bear these costs at the expense of our economic privilege. But that is a preference, not a truth.
The conservatives hold a different preference: the competitiveness of the tribe. They have a broader moral code (see Haidt) that takes into consideration more variables. They value normative capital more highly. And they hold these values at the expense of the individual, and tolerate the consequences of proportionality (meritocracy) in favor of its benefits. They are not irrational, emotional, or cruel. They simply have additional considerations beyond simple maternal caretaking.
Source date (UTC): 2012-11-06 02:19:00 UTC
http://econjwatch.org/articles/why-the-denial-low-cost-private-schools-in-developing-countries-and-their-contributions-to-educationWATCH : PRIVATE SCHOOLS SUCCEED
Source date (UTC): 2012-09-24 21:23:00 UTC