Jan 2, 2016 | Politics
Donald Trump’s Strongest Supporters: A Certain Kind of Democrat - The New York TimesDonald Trump holds a dominant position in national polls in the Republican race in no small part because he is extremely strong among people on the periphery of the G.O.P. coalition.
He is strongest among Republicans who are less affluent, less educated and less likely to turn out to vote. His very best voters are self-identified Republicans who nonetheless are registered as Democrats.[...]In many of these areas, a large number of traditionally Democratic voters have long supported Republicans in presidential elections. Even now, Democrats have more registered voters than Republicans do in states like West Virginia and Kentucky, which have been easily carried by Republicans in every presidential contest of this century. As recently as a few years ago, Democrats still had a big advantage in partisan self-identification in the same states.But during the Obama era, many of these voters have abandoned the Democrats. Many Democrats may now even identify as Republicans, or as independents who lean Republican, when asked by pollsters — a choice that means they’re included in a national Republican primary survey, whether they remain registered as Democrats or not.
Mr. Trump appears to hold his greatest strength among people like these — registered Democrats who identify as Republican leaners — with 43 percent of their support, according to the Civis data. Similarly, many of Mr. Trump’s best states are those with a long tradition of Democrats who vote Republican in presidential elections, like West Virginia.Mr. Trump’s strength among traditionally Democratic voters could pose some problems for his campaign. Many states bar voters registered with the other party from participating in partisan primaries. Other states go further, not allowing unaffiliated voters to vote in a primary; in the G.O.P. race, for example, that would mean restricting the electorate to those registered as Republicans — one of Mr. Trump’s weakest groups. This group of states includes many favorable to Mr. Trump, like Florida, Pennsylvania and New York.
Dec 31, 2015 | Politics
By Dr. Michael HurdMaybe you’re tired of hearing about the Paris attacks, ISIS and all the rest. If so, save this for when – not if, but when – the next Islamic-inspired attack against civilians in Europe or America occurs.I keep hearing that Islam does not hold a monopoly on religious brutality. “Look at the Crusades and the Christians. They’re no better.”OK, then. Let’s say the Crusades were happening today. Let’s say thousands of Christians rose up and declared war on anyone who’s not a Christian, and any government which refuses to enforce Christian rules and beliefs by force.Which of the following approaches would you take, in response?Approach # 1: Do absolutely nothing, while condemning as barbaric, medieval and racist anyone who says a critical thing about Christianity. In the meantime, the barbaric Christian Crusaders gradually overrun the world, terrorizing peaceful people and reducing civilization to a shambles. Elect a moronic president, and send him overseas to tell the world that the real problem is not the killing of innocents in the name of religion, but man’s refusal to stop using fossil fuels.Approach # 2: Blast Christian crusaders, as well as their governments (the equivalent of Iran and ISIS), to Kingdom Come, pulverizing them until there’s nothing left for them to do but start over with their Crusades (at which time we’ll blast them again). Also, along with the entirely justified use of physical force against these barbaric Christian crusaders, challenge their belief system at its core, demanding to know why a religion of brotherly love is engaged in so much brutality against those who do not share the same point-of-view.This is the problem with the argument, “Christians did it in the Crusades.” It puts Christians on the defensive. They get sidetracked about historical details. But the people who should be on the defensive are the ones engaged in the violence and brutality now, not the ones who did it 1,000 or more years ago.The fact of the matter is that Christians, regardless of what you claim is historically the case, eventually submitted to the separation of church and state. The most dramatic example of this was the United States of America. Thousands of Christians came to the U.S., often to escape religious persecution, and willingly agreed to live in a country where no religion (their own, or anyone else’s religion) was the rule of the land. Some submit to separation of church and state more willingly than others, and debates remain about matters such as abortion and gay marriage. But while important, those matters are marginal compared to the lethal and unyielding opposition Islam presently poses to separation of church and state on principle. If you don’t believe me, simply read the headlines about the last Islamic-inspired terrorist bombing – or the next one. (It may have happened by the time you read this.)I’m not aware of any Christian movement dedicated, on a worldwide and ruthlessly, savagely violent scale, to decimating everyone who disagrees with them. If there were such a Christian, or Jewish, or any other sort of movement on the scale of present-day Islam, then believe me, I would oppose it with the same strength and for the same reasons as I oppose Islam’s quest to take over the world.People keep saying, “You can’t criticize someone for their religion.” Why not? At least when the primary (or only) leaders of that religion favor annihilating innocent people who do not agree with them? Nazism was a form of religion, in the sense of being an ideology with a call to action – brutal, rights-violating action. Ditto for Communism. If someone is a Nazi or Communist, it’s reasonable to ask them, “What’s wrong with you for endorsing such a twisted, evil viewpoint?”It really does not matter whether a movement violates the rights of individuals in the name of Allah, God, Jesus, the State, the Public Good or “The Man” (e.g., Hitler, or Mao); the end result is always the same.The moral and physical force with which we should oppose all such movements should be the same. Which kind of force, and when or how to use it, can be a matter of reasonable debate; but the principle that we must fight back with all our ability cannot be in question.There’s no reason Islam should get a free pass for this any more than Communism or Nazism did. Yet Islam does get a free pass from our highest officials, and that’s why terrorists – ISIS, Iran, as well as less organized Muslim fanatics – are presently winning.I’m not aware of a Christian regime talking openly about wiping Israel off the map. I do not know of a Christian or Jewish organization training suicide bombers, strapping bombs to children and indoctrinating those children to hate anyone of a different religion to the point of murdering them. Some level of such irrationality is found in all religions, to be sure; but Islam is the one who is best at it, at least right now.The world has not, quite frankly, seen anything of this magnitude since Hitler’s attempt to impose his ideology on everyone. Incredibly, those who draw the parallel of today’s Islamic militants to Hitler’s Nazis are the ones called hateful, racist Nazis. This takes blaming the victim to almost inconceivable and absurd levels.It’s time to stop putting Christians, or others, on the defensive for what they wrongly did 1,000 or 1,500 years ago. Call evil what it is, whenever it happened. But the Christian Crusades are not what’s threatening rational civilization and political liberty today; the worldwide Islamic jihad is. Face reality, people!Instead of Christians, Jews, atheists and agnostics constantly being on the defensive for “not being nice about Islam,” we have to put Islam’s apologists on the defensive. People like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and others maintain that we are doing enough to fight back against this threat, when we’re doing absolutely nothing worth mentioning militarily. Anyone suggesting otherwise is lectured at like a child.Those of you who scream “racist” and all the other labels when anyone suggests we should take a stronger military and verbal stand against militant Islam … what is it you’re really defending? Who or what are you protecting?It cannot be tolerance and diversity. Islam is the ultimate “religious right wing.” I don’t care if there are moderates; the ones running the show are the militants, and the moderates are silent.Most of you who defend Obama’s refusal to fight (or even name) the Islamic enemy are secular, agnostic progressive leftists. You favor abortion rights, gay marriage, feminism and things that could not be more at odds with the edicts and attitudes of Islam. I know it’s not the religious beliefs of Islam – even the alleged moderates – that you progressive/liberal types are endorsing. It cannot be tolerance or diversity, because Islam is more against tolerance and diversity than any ideological movement ever known to man. So what is it you’re protecting?Instead of bringing up the Christian Crusades, why don’t you explain and defend your hero Obama’s claim that Islam’s brutal (and serious) call for Jihad is not about religion? You are the ones requiring that we say and do nothing in response to events like 9/11, the recent ISIS attacks on Paris, everything in between and everything yet to come. What would YOU do, if not respond militarily with everything we have to respond? I suppose Obama’s policy is your answer. Do nothing, and lecture Americans about being nice to Muslims, and to stop using fossil fuels.If Islam is not the problem, then what is? And if we are not at war with Islam, then how in the world are we supposed to respond to religious warriors who most certainly are at war with us?When Hitler declared war on America and the entire world, the world did not reply, “We’re not at war with Hitler. We’re not at war with the Germans. We won’t harm a single German person. Targeted bombings at most – if that. Not a single civilian will die. In fact, we will do everything we can to embrace and show love and respect for German culture, even if Hitler’s armies proceed to invade and take over Europe.”This would have been suicidal insanity.And if you’d like to draw the parallel with the Christian Crusades, how would you respond to Christian violence and terrorism today against gays, women or anyone else who was not following the rules they want them to follow? Why would you rightly condemn hatred and violence when proposed by Christian fundamentalists, but not when proposed by Muslims? Christians may have done these things; it’s Muslims who are actually doing it now.I’m still waiting for an answer from these Obama-loving progressives who claim to support separation of church and state. They will have to come up with something better than “racist” and “hater.” These terms are tacit admissions of having no rational answer. You better believe I’m a hater – of anyone who wants to destroy me. How sad that you don’t value your own lives as much. Why should the rest of us – who do want to go on living – have to endure the pathetic, morally anemic response of someone like Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton?I don’t claim to know what the ultimate outcome of all this will be. I honestly have no idea. America has been on the brink before, and has always come around, in the end, to victory over its enemies. On our present course, we will certainly go down. Even if we go down, it will happen with some us still fighting. At least so long as we have free speech.It’s sad that so many Americans remain passive, helpless and clueless about Islam, not to mention all the other reckless and irresponsible things our federal government does every day. As Islam advances its holy war across the world, the President of the United States tells us to use less oil, hunker down, be humble and sacrifice – something he and his most ardent supporters will never do, by the way.In the end, you have to blame the people who tolerate and keep electing such “leadership” in a time of crisis. They must really loathe their country and even themselves, probably more than we realize. But many of us do not loathe America or ourselves.If we do go down – and we do not have to – then let’s at least go down fighting.You can follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1Dec 31, 2015 | Philosophy
May your 2016 be as excellent as your habits!Dec 26, 2015 | Arts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTLAx3VDX7gThe cheerful Jimmy Fallon and The Roots join Star Wars: The Force Awaken stars -- Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac, Adam Driver, Gwendoline Christie, Lupita Nyong'o, Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford -- for a cappella tribute to "Star Wars."
Dec 14, 2015 | Philosophy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MgBikgcWnY"Skill is the result of deliberate, consistent practice. And in early stage practice, quantity and speed trump absolute quality. The faster and more often you practice the more rapidly you'll acquire the skill." -- Josh Kaufman10 principles of learning skills rapidly
- Choose a project you LOVE. “The best thing that can happen to a human being is to find a problem, to fall in love with that problem, and to live trying to solve that problem, unless another problem even more lovable appears.” – Karl Popper
- Focus your energy on one skill at a time. "If you don’t know where you’re trying to go or don’t have a solid strategy to get there, you can waste equal amounts of energy in unproductive wandering."
- Define your target performance level. Visualize where you want to be. Be specific. “A problem well stated is a problem half solved.” –Charles Kettering
- Deconstruct the skill into sub skills. Eliminate the non-essential. Rapid skill acquisition is "a way of breaking down the skill you’re trying to acquire into the smallest possible parts, identifying which of those parts are most important, then deliberately practicing those elements first."
- Obtain critical tools. Want to learn to play a guitar -- first thing is you need a guitar. Review several solid how-to guides.
- Eliminate barriers to practice. Remove any physical (turn off the phone, internet, etc. ), mental, or emotional barriers that get in the way of practice. Arrange your environment to promote skill development.
- Dedicate time for practice. Schedule it on your calendar. Keep a log.
- Create fast feedback loops. A coach, video your practice, etc.
- Practice by the clock in short bursts. You only have so much willpower every day -- use it wisely.
- Emphasize quantity and speed. "Skill is the result of deliberate, consistent practice, and in early-stage practice, quantity and speed trump absolute quality. The faster and more often you practice, the more rapidly you’ll acquire the skill."
10 principles of effective learning- Research the skill and related topics (but not too much)
- Jump in over your head
- Identify mental models and mental hooks
- Imagine the opposite of what you want
- Talk to practitioners
- Eliminate distractions
- Spaced repetition and reinforcement for memorization
- Scaffolds and checklists
- Make and test predictions
- Honor your biology
Dec 10, 2015 | Politics
Supreme Court Justices’ Comments Don’t Bode Well for Affirmative Action - The New York Times
In a remark that drew muted gasps in the courtroom, Justice Antonin Scalia said that minority students with inferior academic credentials may be better off at “a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well.”
[...]
The case, Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 14-981, was brought by Abigail Fisher, a white student who says the University of Texas denied her admission in 2008 because of her race. She has since graduated from Louisiana State University.[...]Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. questioned the value of diversity in at least some academic settings. “What unique perspective does a minority student bring to a physics class?” he asked.
'Affirmative action' is racism -- and those who advocate it are racists. There I said it. Such collectivist approaches make the problem worse for disadvantaged American black and Hispanic students as they do not change the systemic problems -- ghetto culture, broken homes, lousy public schools, etc.-- which hurt students of all colors. Funny how certain minorities -- Asians, Koreans, Nigerian immigrants etc. -- who are foreigners and can whose parents can barely speak English end up in one generation doing better then whites.The real diversity you need in college is intellectual.
Dec 9, 2015 | Sci-Tech
https://youtu.be/E4katnfHzXAThe amazing Dr. Fuhrman shares some miraculous stories on the body's ability to heal itself from heart disease, arthritis, chronic migraines, skin and immune disorders, etc. through superior nutrition.Dec 8, 2015 | Politics
Ex-Muslim Suraiya Simi Rahman MD on Moderate Muslims Have Hit Their “Wall”:
....when it comes to being able to tell a moderate from a radical in Islam, you can’t.You really can’t tell until the moment before they pull the trigger, who is moderate and who is jihadi. Tashfeen has broken our moderate backbone, by revealing that she lived among us, unnoticed, normal, experiencing motherhood, enveloped in our secure community and yet, had radicalized.And that’s the problem, that there are many others like her with exactly the same beliefs, who may not have been ignited yet by a radical cleric, but if the opportunity presented itself, they would follow. They’re like a dormant stick of dynamite, waiting for the fuse to be lit. The TNT is already in there.What’s it made of? Not the 5 pillars, belief, charity, prayer, fasting and pilgrimage. Not the sayings of the prophet as to how to lead a good and just life. Not the celebration of Eid ul Fitr.[...]
I went deep into the Midwest, wore a hijab for a year and lived there for 8 years. In that time, I attended ISNA gatherings, met with educated, professional people like myself who were also asking the same questions. They were looking to their faith for answers. And sure, there were efforts made to modernize Islam, but they were only superficial. We couldn’t do it. We couldn’t do it because there is a logical dilemma at the core of Islam. And that is, that the Quran is the last word of God, that it is perfect and unchangeable. And to even suggest such a thing is blasphemy and apostasy.And so, to understand the moderate mind, you have to envision it on a continuum from radical to middle, but the closer you get to liberal, there is a wall. It creeps up on you, in the condemnation of homosexuality, in the unequal treatment and subjugation of women, but it’s there. Beyond that wall that they are afraid to look over, for fear of eternal hell fire and damnation, is where the answer lies though. So being a Muslim moderate these days is like running a race with a ball and chain attached to your feet. A handicap. Unless you can imagine what the world beyond that wall looks like, you can’t really navigate it. If you’re so terrified of blasphemy that you refuse to look over, you’re forever stuck. Right here. And behind you is the jihadi horde, laying claim to real Islam, practicing it to perfection, as it is laid out in the Quran. A veritable rock and a hard place. I feel your pain. I’ve been there. And it was untenable.
Dec 8, 2015 | Politics
Writes Maajid Nawaz on Why ISIS Just Loves Profiling - The Daily Beast:
If early indications are correct, the mass shooting in San Bernardino would be the deadliest ISIS-inspired attack on US soil to date. Yet the chief suspects, Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook, were “clean skins” completely unknown to the authorities, and assumed not to be a risk to US homeland security.The most disconcerting part of this, therefore, is the knowledge that it almost certainly could happen again, and not knowing how to stop it. Neighbors have reported that their suspicions were aroused, but that they did not want to report anything out of fear of appearing racist.[...]So what should Tashfeen Malik’s neighbors have reported?She and her husband Rizwan Farook were indeed arousing suspicion. They should have been reported, but not for their ethnicity, or overt displays of piety—his beard and her face veil—or lack thereof. They should have been reported simply because, according to those same neighbors, they were behaving suspiciously. Psychological and behavioral patterns are always a more reliable indicator that something is afoot, over religious or ethnic markers. And to report strange behavior, is not racist or anti-Muslim. Overt signs of nervousness, regular deliveries of obscure items at strange hours, or adopting an extremely dogmatic mindset, are more suspicious than mere appearance.Islamist radicalization is a process. It begins when a person, whether originally of Muslim origin or not, starts to become convinced that a certain version of Islam must be enforced over society, and that it is incumbent on them to work to resurrect a theocratic “Islamic Caliphate” in order to achieve this. Usually, this is accompanied by the false notion that the entire West is at war with all of Islam.This process of radicalization is complete when jihadist violence is prescribed to “resist” the West.If the above was more widely understood, people would feel less reluctant to report suspicious behavior for the right reasons. Likewise, the wider public—and my fellow Muslims—will better understand that what is being reported is suspicious behavior, and not a racial or religious stereotype. This combination of sharpening what we are looking for, while reducing the potential stigma about looking for it, could literally save lives and bring our communities closer, which is everything the terrorists hate.
Dec 7, 2015 | Politics
Imagine each state in America was a country like Europe. Here are the two extremes in America. Wyoming is the state with the most guns per capita. District of Columbia is the least -- yet Washington D.C. has the most gun murders. Simply banning potential victims from having guns will not stop criminals from using them. It will only leave the victims disarmed. Further Reading:
Great Quote:
"Like most gun owners, I understand the ethical importance of guns and cannot honestly wish for a world without them. I suspect that sentiment will shock many readers. Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn’t understand violence could wish for such a world. A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene. There have been cases of prison guards (who generally do not carry guns) helplessly standing by as one of their own was stabbed to death by a lone prisoner armed with an improvised blade." -- Sam Harris: The Ethical Importance of Guns
Dec 5, 2015 | Politics
From the egalitarian ("social justice"), partisan, left-wing Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law:
Today, the national crime rate is about half of what it was at its height in 1991. Violent crime has fallen by 51 percent since 1991, and property crime by 43 percent. In 2013 the violent crime rate was the lowest since 1970. And this holds true for unreported crimes as well. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, since 1993 the rate of violent crime has declined from 79.8 to 23.2 victimizations per 1,000 people. Americans who lived through the 1960s and 1970s remember the fear associated with a real surge in violent crime. In fact, the violent crime rate increased by 126 percent between 1960 and 1970, and by 64 percent between 1970 and 1980.
[...]
Government statistics show that, except for some small blips, serious crime has decreased almost every year from 1994 through 2013. For over a decade Gallup has found that the majority of Americans polled believe crime is up, contrary to the fact that crime rates have plummeted in almost every small and large city since the 1990s. This is not to say that all cities and areas are experiencing decreases in violent crime year after year, but the overall rate of violent crime is significantly lower than historic levels.
[...]
As with the Gallup polls data, the narrative of violent crime -- at least in the popular press -- doesn't have much to do with the crime reality. Crime across the nation is at an all-time low. We need to recognize that and embrace effective policies to keep it even lower. Just as with the case of airplane crashes, the public may see the extraordinary event as representative of the norm when it is not. [America's Faulty Perception of Crime Rates]
Hat Tip: Violent Crime Rates -- US Statistics | National Review Online
Dec 5, 2015 | Politics
From The Riddle of the Gun: Sam Harris
Most of my friends do not own guns and never will. When asked to consider the possibility of keeping firearms for protection, they worry that the mere presence of them in their homes would put themselves and their families in danger. Can’t a gun go off by accident? Wouldn’t it be more likely to be used against them in an altercation with a criminal? I am surrounded by otherwise intelligent people who imagine that the ability to dial 911 is all the protection against violence a sane person ever needs.But, unlike my friends, I own several guns and train with them regularly. Every month or two, I spend a full day shooting with a highly qualified instructor. This is an expensive and time-consuming habit, but I view it as part of my responsibility as a gun owner. It is true that my work as a writer has added to my security concerns somewhat, but my involvement with guns goes back decades. I have always wanted to be able to protect myself and my family, and I have never had any illusions about how quickly the police can respond when called. I have expressed my views on self-defense elsewhere. Suffice it to say, if a person enters your home for the purpose of harming you, you cannot reasonably expect the police to arrive in time to stop him. This is not the fault of the police—it is a problem of physics.Like most gun owners, I understand the ethical importance of guns and cannot honestly wish for a world without them. I suspect that sentiment will shock many readers. Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn’t understand violence could wish for such a world. A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene. There have been cases of prison guards (who generally do not carry guns) helplessly standing by as one of their own was stabbed to death by a lone prisoner armed with an improvised blade. The hesitation of bystanders in these situations makes perfect sense—and “diffusion of responsibility” has little to do with it. The fantasies of many martial artists aside, to go unarmed against a person with a knife is to put oneself in very real peril, regardless of one’s training. The same can be said of attacks involving multiple assailants. A world without guns is a world in which no man, not even a member of Seal Team Six, can reasonably expect to prevail over more than one determined attacker at a time. A world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?
Until a better form of self-defense like a blaster that can be set to stun comes around, a gun is the ethical weapon of self-defense when the police are not there to protect you.Thoughts?
Dec 4, 2015 | Culture
On November 30, 2015, the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property released a new issue paper, The Gene Revolution, by Amanda Maxham, a research associate and writer at the Ayn Rand Institute.Dr. Maxham explores how innovations in biotechnology, enabled by the intellectual property rights that protect them, have led to the “Gene Revolution,” where scientists use genetic engineering to dramatically improve human life. In order to combat widespread misinformation about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), she traces mankind’s long history of improving plants, animals, and microorganisms to better serve our needs.In particular, Dr. Maxham looks at twenty-nine different GMOs, including insulin, flu vaccines, cheese-making enzymes, apples, cotton seeds, and pet fish, as examples of the endless possibilities the “Gene Revolution” holds for the betterment of humanity–if we can overcome the groundless mistrust and strive to protect the future of scientific innovation.
Dec 4, 2015 | Philosophy, Politics
On December 2, 2015, the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property released a new white paper, Copyright Principles and Priorities to Foster a Creative Digital Marketplace, by Sandra Aistars, Devlin Hartline, and Mark Schultz.As Congress continues its comprehensive review of the Copyright Act, the authors suggest how the law and the institution responsible for its administration–the U.S. Copyright Office–might be updated and restructured to better support a thriving, creative digital marketplace. They offer several organizing principles, as well as several areas to prioritize for action, for Congress to consider as it revises the copyright law.The authors also give a brief overview of the constitutional origins of copyright protection, explaining how the premise of our copyright system–that authors’ rights and the public good are complementary–comports with the dominant natural rights philosophy in the early American Republic. They then examine several ways in which the copyright system fulfills its purpose, as envisioned by the Founders, by driving innovation in the creative industries.To download the full white paper, please click here.
Dec 3, 2015 | Business, Politics, Sci-Tech
A half century ago the famous philosopher Ayn Rand identified the principle that motivates the haters of success. In her essay “The Age of Envy" she called it the "Hatred of the good for being the good":Today, we live in the Age of Envy.
“Envy” is not the emotion I have in mind, but it is the clearest manifestation of an emotion that has remained nameless; it is the only element of a complex emotional sum that men have permitted themselves to identify.
Envy is regarded by most people as a petty, superficial emotion and, therefore, it serves as a semihuman cover for so inhuman an emotion that those who feel it seldom dare admit it even to themselves. ...That emotion is: hatred of the good for being the good.
This hatred is not resentment against some prescribed view of the good with which one does not agree.... Hatred of the good for being the good means hatred of that which one regards as good by one’s own (conscious or subconscious) judgment. It means hatred of a person for possessing a value or virtue one regards as desirable.
As a concrete illustration of this principle, ponder the envy-filled "progressive" "social justice" warrior Devon Maloney's response to Zuckerberg's donation of 45 billion dollars to charity:Studies have shown that billionaire altruists like Zuckerberg are increasingly directing the course of American science, for example, and can supercharge research that has otherwise been bogged down in public sector and governmental bureaucracy – thus saving thousands if not millions of lives. But it also means that the rich are still effectively buying the future they’d like to see, no matter how selfless their intentions may be.
Apparently they should build a future that Maloney wants to see.International philanthropy and the western world’s desire to eradicate poverty and disease can’t ever truly rid themselves of their imperialist roots; as many critics have pointed out, the white savior industrial complex has never been more pervasive in global culture. When you have an extra $45bn lying around, nothing you do with that money will come without strings, whether you craft those strings or not. Simply by creating and overseeing the world’s largest social network and one of the most influential corporations on Earth .... Mark Zuckerberg himself continues to reproduce the inequality he and his wife are taking aim at with their pledge. [...] if it took Max Chan Zuckerberg’s birth to give her parents the courage and determination to destroy their own ivory tower for the needs of the many, we should all be praying that she’ll get a few more siblings in the coming years.
One wonders what kind of Ivory Tower of envy and hatred Maloney lives in.Zuckerberg and other entrepreneurial businessmen have the ability to create values (like Facebook) and make money at the same time -- Maloney has little or none. Ergo the "white industrial complex/ivory tower" (capitalism) is wrong and must be destroyed.Quoting from Galt's Speech in Atlas Shrugged:They do not want to own your fortune, they want you to lose it; they do not want to succeed, they want you to fail; they do not want to live, they want you to die; they desire nothing, they hate existence, and they keep running, each trying not to learn that the object of his hatred is himself . . . . They are the essence of evil, they, those anti-living objects who seek, by devouring the world, to fill the selfless zero of their soul. It is not your wealth that they’re after. Theirs is a conspiracy against the mind, which means: against life and man.
Dec 3, 2015 | Business, Politics
Two views on the Zuckerberg donation.Complains Jesse Eisinger on How Mark Zuckerberg’s Altruism Helps Himself at the NY Times, "superwealthy plutocrat" Zuckerberg's charity LLC will allow him to donate money to charity and avoid paying taxes on the money donated to charity.Society, through its elected members, taxes its members. Then the elected officials decide what to do with sums of money. In this case, it is different. One person will be making these decisions.
... I think I might do a good job allocating $45 billion. Maybe even better than Mr. Zuckerberg. I am self-aware enough to I realize many people would disagree with my choices.
... Mega-donations, assuming Mr. Zuckerberg makes good on his pledge, are explicit acknowledgments that the money should be plowed back into society. They are tacit acknowledgments that no one could ever possibly spend $45 billion on himself or his family, and that the money isn’t really “his,” in a fundamental sense. Because [if] that is the case, society can’t rely on the beneficence and enlightenment of the superwealthy to realize this individually. We need to take a portion uniformly — some kind of tax on wealth.
Compare this to the eloquent Ross Kaminsky on Not Giving Back, Just Giving | The American Spectator:Still, when the uber-wealthy promise to give away their fortunes, there’s a part of me that can’t help but anticipate with some annoyance the inevitable fawning reactions of the commentariat that the particular billionaire is “giving back” — as if he or she had taken something, as if depleting a fortune is more newsworthy or praiseworthy than earning it (even though earning it seems more difficult and a precondition for giving it away).
... the Chan-Zuckerberg letter betrays an unfortunately collectivist mentality, discussing their “moral responsibility” and urging people to “collectively direct our resources,” as if resources are “ours” instead of “theirs” or “yours” or “mine.” Unless a person inherited or stole his riches — and I don’t believe that anyone mentioned above falls into that category — both in moral and economic terms the wealthy have by definition already given back.
....After years of hearing the twisted jealousy of the left, too many Americans believe that billionaires are “takers” and therefore have a duty to “give back.” That turns reality — and morality — on its head. These people have been wildly successful because they have made the lives of millions of human beings wildly more productive, secure, healthy and even fun.
.... Their affluence is a measure of their contributions to society, not their impoverishing of it. As laudable as it is that Mark Zuckerberg and other participants in the Giving Pledge direct their wealth toward charitable enterprises that reflect their goals and values, what should truly be celebrated is that they were able to earn those fortunes to begin with. No matter how well the billionaires target their altruistic impulses, they have improved our lives more by making their fortunes than by disposing of them.
Dec 3, 2015 | Politics
Climate Change Will Not Be Dangerous for a Long Time - Scientific AmericanThe climate change debate has been polarized into a simple dichotomy. Either global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous,” as Pres. Barack Obama thinks, or it’s a “hoax,” as Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe thinks. But there is a third possibility: that it is real, man-made and not dangerous, at least not for a long time.This “lukewarm” option has been boosted by recent climate research...[...]
Dec 3, 2015 | Education
Robert Tracinski identifies the the real purpose behind the student protests over at the The Federalist.He notes that much of the student demands "read less like a manifesto of student revolutionaries, and more like a particularly aggressive salary negotiation...There is a lot going on in these demands, including an attempt to turn universities into organs of leftist indoctrination, with all opposing viewpoints rigorously purged....But underneath the creepy totalitarianism, there is a more mundane and practical purpose." Writes Tracinski:[...] who do you suppose is supporting and encouraging the campus protests? Who taught them the ideas they are using, and who is egging them on? The very same faculty and administrators for whom the protesters are demanding more money and power.Everyone who has ever spent time around a university or with academics knows that beneath all the high-flown ivory tower stuff, there is a constant scramble for money and authority. Every department’s job is to expand itself, to hire more faculty and administrators, to expand its budget, to get bigger offices in a nicer building. Now the “social justice” faction among the faculty has found a way to club everyone else into submission and win departmental office politics once and for all. Accuse the university of systemic racism, force its nominal leaders into groveling apologies, and then dictate terms to the rest of the system. Emboldened and seeing that no one wants to stand up to them, they’re even attempting to take over every other department of the university by foisting mandatory courses in “social justice” on the math department.
So
what looks from the outside like a student protest movement looks on the inside like an administrative coup by a small faction of the faculty, using naive and ill-informed students as their shock troops. No wonder marginal faculty members are climbing on the bandwagon and signing up to
muscle out reporters and guide the young protesters. They hope to ride this to higher-paid, more secure, more powerful positions.
And what about the majority of students who are not protesters and just want an education?
As for all of the other students .... it doesn’t benefit them at all. They are the ones whose education will be watered down with tedious mandatory indoctrination sessions and who will have to spend four years of their lives living in fear of making the wrong move and offending the wrong people.
They might want to consider the way in which they are being exploited for the institutional interests of a very few people, who feed them a lot of high-minded guff about 'systemic racism' while angling for bigger offices and cushier salaries." [
Student Protesters, You Just Got Used]
It is these students who need to speak up and be heard.
May your 2016 be as excellent as your habits!
Imagine each state in America was a country like Europe. Here are the two extremes in America. Wyoming is the state with the most guns per capita. District of Columbia is the least -- yet Washington D.C. has the most gun murders. Simply banning potential victims from having guns will not stop criminals from using them. It will only leave the victims disarmed. Further Reading:
