Starting as early as this weekend we will start seeing the renewed attacks from the Left in their attempts to regain lost ground on the HealthCare Grab. The attacks seem to be focused evermore toward ridicule and name calling, exactly the tactics that have driven the independent voters out of the Obama camp; when the Left feels threatened it becomes exponentially shrill and irrational. But what remains after already having declared dissent "unAmerican", "fascist", and dissenters "Nazis" and "mobs"?
This week, on September 11 (this Friday) there will be a push to deluge Congress with phone calls demanding a fight against the "Right Wing Terrorists" who oppose the government takeover, the huge deficits, and the general socialist tenor of the dominant Left.
The Teapartiers had already claimed September 12, Saturday, as a demonstration day in Washington DC, and the Left then claimed September 13, as the day to overcome the damage done on the 12th. I'm not sure if those events are still scheduled, but I wouldn't be surprised if some folks showed up.
My own congressman, Ike Skelton, is one of the missing, "milk carton" congressmen. He held no town halls and does not answer his email. No wonder: he has voted 98% with Nancy Pelosi, including thought crime legislation. He in no way represents his district's overall conservatism.
The next weeks and months will be interesting, as the Left retreats ever further into its default mode of spreading hatred and falsehoods via ridicule and the MSM.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
The IRS between you and your doctor
Now that we know that the IRS will be administering the new health care plan, and that they will be free to use the previously private personal financial information to determine whether and how much health care we each will receive... It is not difficult to remember also that an entire enforcement wing of the IRS carries guns.
My New Favorite Food
Deep Fried Butter. Really. From the Texan who brought us deep fried cookie dough, deep fried coke, and deep fried peanut butter / jelly / banana sandwich. Abel Gonzales freezes a small ball of butter, then coats it and deep fries it. Melted butter pours from the finished product.
Not that I've tried it. But I would. I once ate deep fried chicken feet... not bad.
Not that I've tried it. But I would. I once ate deep fried chicken feet... not bad.
Perfect Storm vs. Too Black To Fail
Is Obama “too black to fail”? Or is there a force strong enough to swamp him in his own puddle?
A perfect storm or at least a perfect wave occurs when all the events surrounding it add up in the same direction, and move together to produce a single, huge wave. In the political structure of the current USA, there seems to be such an occasion. A perfect political storm is suggested here.
Elements that stack in the same direction include the loss of the undecided, independent class who populate the middle of the political spectrum: 70% of these have abandoned Obama’s health takeover. The radical Left in Congress will abandon any attempt to cut off the public option of the health plan. The youth vote won’t show up for the next election. And blue dog Democrats just might abandon the attempt to takeover a private function with no way to pay for it short of starving Medicare. And seniors – who do vote – are not taking the reduction of Medicare funding lightly. There is virtually no category of constituency that Obama has not offended.
According to this commentary in the Wall Street Journal by Karl Rove:
But the constituents also now seem to be aware that health care “reform” is in no way the biggest problem facing the USA. The economy is: an economic perfect storm brought to us through the Leftist concept of the American Dream for Everyone Through Cheap Credit Without Credit Checks: the “Barney Frank Housing Bubble”.
Even our porous borders are more pressing than health insurance. The health care crisis is a manufactured one; now anyone who reads can become aware of that fact.
When this issue comes up in Congress, the ad Hominens from the Left will increase in volume, frequency and irascibility. It will be declared "racism" to deny the Most High Black his socialist whim. He is too black to fail.
A perfect storm or at least a perfect wave occurs when all the events surrounding it add up in the same direction, and move together to produce a single, huge wave. In the political structure of the current USA, there seems to be such an occasion. A perfect political storm is suggested here.
Elements that stack in the same direction include the loss of the undecided, independent class who populate the middle of the political spectrum: 70% of these have abandoned Obama’s health takeover. The radical Left in Congress will abandon any attempt to cut off the public option of the health plan. The youth vote won’t show up for the next election. And blue dog Democrats just might abandon the attempt to takeover a private function with no way to pay for it short of starving Medicare. And seniors – who do vote – are not taking the reduction of Medicare funding lightly. There is virtually no category of constituency that Obama has not offended.
According to this commentary in the Wall Street Journal by Karl Rove:
“Nearly nine out of 10 Americans say they have coverage—and large majorities of them are happy with it. Of the 46 million uninsured, 9.7 million are not U.S. citizens; 17.6 million have annual incomes of more than $50,000; and 14 million already qualify for Medicaid or other programs. That leaves less than five million people truly uncovered out of a population of 307 million. Americans don't believe this problem—serious but correctable—justifies the radical shift Mr. Obama offers.”Moreover, the Obama lies are coming to light, in fact beacons are shining on them. Corporations will be fined huge amounts for certain “infractions”. The one-way migration to government single-payer will be immutable. The costs cannot be contained, much less reduced, especially without punishing seniors. Rationing WILL happen. And most egregious of all, we will all pay for illegal alien health care, while the government fails to plug holes in our borders and purge illegal trespassers from our country.
But the constituents also now seem to be aware that health care “reform” is in no way the biggest problem facing the USA. The economy is: an economic perfect storm brought to us through the Leftist concept of the American Dream for Everyone Through Cheap Credit Without Credit Checks: the “Barney Frank Housing Bubble”.
Even our porous borders are more pressing than health insurance. The health care crisis is a manufactured one; now anyone who reads can become aware of that fact.
When this issue comes up in Congress, the ad Hominens from the Left will increase in volume, frequency and irascibility. It will be declared "racism" to deny the Most High Black his socialist whim. He is too black to fail.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Stolen Thoughts* Transmogrified
There was before.
Then of course there was after.
After was not like before because after's components did not exist before.
And before, then, was not like after,
either.
But after is all there is you say.
Unless there are lots of other afters.
All different,
infinitely.
Is one of these infinitely unseen afters
Really our before?
Or is there a before for all, yes all,
the afters?
Or maybe there was no before at all,
Just afters, and lots of them.
From Nothing.
Or maybe we have no consciousness
And there also is no after.
Nor thoughts
Like
this
one.
*On the Big Bang... but not really thoughts of course, just memes.
Then of course there was after.
After was not like before because after's components did not exist before.
And before, then, was not like after,
either.
But after is all there is you say.
Unless there are lots of other afters.
All different,
infinitely.
Is one of these infinitely unseen afters
Really our before?
Or is there a before for all, yes all,
the afters?
Or maybe there was no before at all,
Just afters, and lots of them.
From Nothing.
Or maybe we have no consciousness
And there also is no after.
Nor thoughts
Like
this
one.
*On the Big Bang... but not really thoughts of course, just memes.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Truth vs. Eu-logy
Eu-logy: speaking only well or nicely. Usually associated with a dead person.
The concept of eulogy is contradictory with the concept of truth. This site is dedicated to truth and its pursuit, so eulogy is not a part of that. Especially with regard to Edward "Ted" Kennedy.
Like many of my generation, when I think of Ted Kennedy I immediately think of Mary Jo Kopechne. If you are younger, you might not even have heard that Kennedy drove off a bridge, leaving Kopechne in the submerged car to die as he walked away. The raging moral and physical cowardice shown by Ted Kennedy in his lack of concern for the dying Kopechne has always cancelled out his bloated, bleating moral aggrandizement of his political programs.
He is actually not worth my time, except as an example of the moral dry rot of the self-righteous Left which is not just eulogizing Kennedy but attempting to transform him into a man-god. But I will point you to a website that explains more of this, including Kopechne's long death, asphyxiating (not drowning) while Kennedy walked off in search of an excuse.
Addendum:
More here from NRO.
The concept of eulogy is contradictory with the concept of truth. This site is dedicated to truth and its pursuit, so eulogy is not a part of that. Especially with regard to Edward "Ted" Kennedy.
Like many of my generation, when I think of Ted Kennedy I immediately think of Mary Jo Kopechne. If you are younger, you might not even have heard that Kennedy drove off a bridge, leaving Kopechne in the submerged car to die as he walked away. The raging moral and physical cowardice shown by Ted Kennedy in his lack of concern for the dying Kopechne has always cancelled out his bloated, bleating moral aggrandizement of his political programs.
He is actually not worth my time, except as an example of the moral dry rot of the self-righteous Left which is not just eulogizing Kennedy but attempting to transform him into a man-god. But I will point you to a website that explains more of this, including Kopechne's long death, asphyxiating (not drowning) while Kennedy walked off in search of an excuse.
Addendum:
More here from NRO.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Intelligent Design Takes a Hit
This article in Wired demonstrates the precise reason that I don’t endorse Intelligent Design. Apparently Michael Behe has used the protein transport mechanism as an example of “irreducible complexity” and from there proposed that an intelligent designer was involved. It really should be obvious, one would think, that proposing an inference based on a lack of data is actually a worse gamble, probabilistically, than making the original radical inferences for evolution.
The problem comes when the artifacts of the components of the machinery are found in unassembled form in earlier creatures. Finding the components of the “irreducible complex” machinery always emboldens the evolutionists to claim that all that was needed for the machine to exist was time… deep time, the magic elixer of evolution.
This is the point where I.D. proponents must rely on probability to determine that the likelihood of self-assembly of loose components running around accidentally forming into a new, valuable function such as protein transfer is smaller than miniscule. But that argument never gains traction with the deep time crowd. (Not that any I.D. argument ever would).
The point is that I.D. arguments are both inferential AND falsifiable, in a very loose use of that term.
I.D. is doomed, for the reason that it can never be proven, and it frequently can be disputed if not disproved outright. I.D. just doesn’t know how it will be disproved in any given case. But of course that is true of evolution, too, with its mountain of inferences and not one single experimental verification. Both are completely speculatory.
So I don’t support either one.
The problem comes when the artifacts of the components of the machinery are found in unassembled form in earlier creatures. Finding the components of the “irreducible complex” machinery always emboldens the evolutionists to claim that all that was needed for the machine to exist was time… deep time, the magic elixer of evolution.
This is the point where I.D. proponents must rely on probability to determine that the likelihood of self-assembly of loose components running around accidentally forming into a new, valuable function such as protein transfer is smaller than miniscule. But that argument never gains traction with the deep time crowd. (Not that any I.D. argument ever would).
The point is that I.D. arguments are both inferential AND falsifiable, in a very loose use of that term.
I.D. is doomed, for the reason that it can never be proven, and it frequently can be disputed if not disproved outright. I.D. just doesn’t know how it will be disproved in any given case. But of course that is true of evolution, too, with its mountain of inferences and not one single experimental verification. Both are completely speculatory.
So I don’t support either one.
Richard Dawkins’ War On the “40Percenters”
“Historydeniers!”; “40percenters!” [1]; those are the Ad Hominem Abusives of the new Dawkins battlefront: history as Richard Dawkins decrees it is not to be denied. To deny evolution is unconscionable: evolution is fact and is the backbone of biology which is the foundation of science and all truth in the universe. Maybe all the universes. Maybe it’s even more true than that. It certainly is in Dawkins’ universe.
Comparing the “fact” of evolution to the fact of the size of the moon being smaller than the earth, Dawkins clearly goes out of his way to obscure the difference between measurable facts vs. non-measured inferences, experimental data vs. conjecture. Or perhaps he truly doesn’t know the difference, being a life-long evolutionary proponent who has never been forced to be subject to actual experimental proofs of his proclaimed scientific “facts”. He does admit that all the evidence for evolution is inferential, and he makes the standard claim that mountains of such conjecture make it fact.
But that is not true. It fails the basic tests of logic. Let’s run some tests:
First, Dawkins seems to think that declaring a tautology based on conjecture creates a truth, or at least a fact. First Principle #1 (identity or tautology) states that “If it is true, then it is true” . This is not the same as “If I declare it true, then it is true” . False tautology: Logic failure #1.
Next let’s try First Principle #2, which states that “a proposition cannot be both true and false”. Now, without experimental verification can we know if a principle is true or false, fact or fallacy? The Atheist / Materialist / Empiricist viewpoint is that evidence of a material nature is required in order to believe a thing. The evidence offered for evolution is inference: conjecture. This is not physical, material evidence, it is non-physical, non-material; moreover it smacks of being religious, a belief without empirical, experimental, substantive, material evidence. Dinosaurs? DNA? Do inferred relationships prove descent? Or are they conjecture? Clearly the latter.
The inference / speculation issue is one that Dawkins cannot dodge and cannot win, straight on. It violates the concept that science is the search for “what is” by inserting extrapolative speculation as a substitute for experimental data. It contradicts the concept of science itself. It fails the Non-Contradiction Principle hands down. Logic failure #2.
The third First Principle states that a “thing cannot be partly true and partly false”. Dawkins violates this by stating that evolution is true, when evolution is hardly even defined properly at this late date. We don’t need to understand mechanisms to know that it happened – is his response (elsewhere). Thus evolution is commonly compared to gravity, which we know exists without knowing the mechanism. But this is a false comparison; we can experimentally measure gravity but we cannot produce any experiments that even produce evolution much less measure it. So evolution falls back again onto “mountains of inference”, ie. conjecture, as its source of truth. Is evolution completely true? No one really knows other than accepting the religious stance that sufficient conjecture proves the case. So the third First Principle is an unknown and possibly unknowable source of validation or invalidation for evolution.
The only case made by Dawkins is the assertion of the sufficiency of inference and conjecture. He ignores the probabilistic issues surrounding evolution, especially the issues of first life: an existence philosophy limited to material causes requires a material cause for first life, an occurrence attributed to magical, fortuitous, undefined replicators in Dawkins’ earlier works. Also ignored is the problem of too-rapid evolution in the Cambrian period, a problem requiring special convolutions in speculatory inferences.
Dawkins’ real case is contained in his adjectives. He claims straight out that evolution is believed by “reputable” scientists, and “unbiased” readers of his book. If you disagree, you are designated a dreaded “historydenier” status, or the new pejorative, “40Percenter”. These Ad Hominem Abusives, hurled from an agenda-driven position of logical weakness, are a specialty of the Atheist Left, of which Dawkins is a prime example. If you cannot convince with logic, then first ridicule and second go for legal restrictions on non-congruent thought, such as removing children from homes of “historydeniers”, who Dawkins has previously declared are child abusers.
Dawkins does not use logic to seal his argument. He uses the religious credentials of "sufficient inference" coupled with ridicule and defamation of dissent and dissentors. He is a religious zealot selling a religious program which claims exclusive, absolute truth.
Dawkins has not yet slipped the reigns of rationality to the point of professing eugenic solutions for “historydeniers”. However, we should watch for that in the future, because his grip on logic and rational thought is virtually non-extant. Or maybe that idea is toward the back of his new book.
Richard Writes A Book:
Logic, principles of rational thought, discernment, critical thinking, the First Principles – all these are not taught or mentioned on Dawkins’ website, at least the last time I searched his “oasis of clear thinking”. They are presumed present due to the Materialism espoused there. But a perusal of Dawkins’ writings reveals not a familiarity with logic, but a rabid defense of a cherished agenda along with associated rationalizations in support of it.
The excerpt from Dawkins’ new book, "The Greatest Show On Earth" seems to indicate yet another step in the same direction. After inflating his own intellectual image with references to ancient Greeks, Romans and the Latin language, Dawkins gets to the meat of his pique: there are deniers out there: that’s just wrong! And the flow continues in that direction. Dawkins doesn’t pretend to use logic; he uses pejoratives, and that reveals the incredible rational weakness of his position. Despite this flaw he undoubtedly will sell a boatload of books, and the ridicule contained within will no doubt be satisfactory to convince a few others of his keen grip on ontology.
What is truly a shame about modern schools is not whether they do or do not teach that evolution is truth. What is a shame is that they do not teach the principles of rational discernment. And you can’t get that from Dawkins, either.
[1] Dawkins cites 40% of the U.S. population as being “creationist”. These he calls "40percenters" and labels them "historydeniers".
Comparing the “fact” of evolution to the fact of the size of the moon being smaller than the earth, Dawkins clearly goes out of his way to obscure the difference between measurable facts vs. non-measured inferences, experimental data vs. conjecture. Or perhaps he truly doesn’t know the difference, being a life-long evolutionary proponent who has never been forced to be subject to actual experimental proofs of his proclaimed scientific “facts”. He does admit that all the evidence for evolution is inferential, and he makes the standard claim that mountains of such conjecture make it fact.
But that is not true. It fails the basic tests of logic. Let’s run some tests:
First, Dawkins seems to think that declaring a tautology based on conjecture creates a truth, or at least a fact. First Principle #1 (identity or tautology) states that “If it is true, then it is true” . This is not the same as “If I declare it true, then it is true” . False tautology: Logic failure #1.
Next let’s try First Principle #2, which states that “a proposition cannot be both true and false”. Now, without experimental verification can we know if a principle is true or false, fact or fallacy? The Atheist / Materialist / Empiricist viewpoint is that evidence of a material nature is required in order to believe a thing. The evidence offered for evolution is inference: conjecture. This is not physical, material evidence, it is non-physical, non-material; moreover it smacks of being religious, a belief without empirical, experimental, substantive, material evidence. Dinosaurs? DNA? Do inferred relationships prove descent? Or are they conjecture? Clearly the latter.
The inference / speculation issue is one that Dawkins cannot dodge and cannot win, straight on. It violates the concept that science is the search for “what is” by inserting extrapolative speculation as a substitute for experimental data. It contradicts the concept of science itself. It fails the Non-Contradiction Principle hands down. Logic failure #2.
The third First Principle states that a “thing cannot be partly true and partly false”. Dawkins violates this by stating that evolution is true, when evolution is hardly even defined properly at this late date. We don’t need to understand mechanisms to know that it happened – is his response (elsewhere). Thus evolution is commonly compared to gravity, which we know exists without knowing the mechanism. But this is a false comparison; we can experimentally measure gravity but we cannot produce any experiments that even produce evolution much less measure it. So evolution falls back again onto “mountains of inference”, ie. conjecture, as its source of truth. Is evolution completely true? No one really knows other than accepting the religious stance that sufficient conjecture proves the case. So the third First Principle is an unknown and possibly unknowable source of validation or invalidation for evolution.
The only case made by Dawkins is the assertion of the sufficiency of inference and conjecture. He ignores the probabilistic issues surrounding evolution, especially the issues of first life: an existence philosophy limited to material causes requires a material cause for first life, an occurrence attributed to magical, fortuitous, undefined replicators in Dawkins’ earlier works. Also ignored is the problem of too-rapid evolution in the Cambrian period, a problem requiring special convolutions in speculatory inferences.
Dawkins’ real case is contained in his adjectives. He claims straight out that evolution is believed by “reputable” scientists, and “unbiased” readers of his book. If you disagree, you are designated a dreaded “historydenier” status, or the new pejorative, “40Percenter”. These Ad Hominem Abusives, hurled from an agenda-driven position of logical weakness, are a specialty of the Atheist Left, of which Dawkins is a prime example. If you cannot convince with logic, then first ridicule and second go for legal restrictions on non-congruent thought, such as removing children from homes of “historydeniers”, who Dawkins has previously declared are child abusers.
Dawkins does not use logic to seal his argument. He uses the religious credentials of "sufficient inference" coupled with ridicule and defamation of dissent and dissentors. He is a religious zealot selling a religious program which claims exclusive, absolute truth.
Dawkins has not yet slipped the reigns of rationality to the point of professing eugenic solutions for “historydeniers”. However, we should watch for that in the future, because his grip on logic and rational thought is virtually non-extant. Or maybe that idea is toward the back of his new book.
Richard Writes A Book:
Logic, principles of rational thought, discernment, critical thinking, the First Principles – all these are not taught or mentioned on Dawkins’ website, at least the last time I searched his “oasis of clear thinking”. They are presumed present due to the Materialism espoused there. But a perusal of Dawkins’ writings reveals not a familiarity with logic, but a rabid defense of a cherished agenda along with associated rationalizations in support of it.
The excerpt from Dawkins’ new book, "The Greatest Show On Earth" seems to indicate yet another step in the same direction. After inflating his own intellectual image with references to ancient Greeks, Romans and the Latin language, Dawkins gets to the meat of his pique: there are deniers out there: that’s just wrong! And the flow continues in that direction. Dawkins doesn’t pretend to use logic; he uses pejoratives, and that reveals the incredible rational weakness of his position. Despite this flaw he undoubtedly will sell a boatload of books, and the ridicule contained within will no doubt be satisfactory to convince a few others of his keen grip on ontology.
What is truly a shame about modern schools is not whether they do or do not teach that evolution is truth. What is a shame is that they do not teach the principles of rational discernment. And you can’t get that from Dawkins, either.
[1] Dawkins cites 40% of the U.S. population as being “creationist”. These he calls "40percenters" and labels them "historydeniers".
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Stopping ObamaCare For $10
Hugh Hewitt over at Townhall.com::Blog has one of the best ideas for a positive grassroots response that I have seen to date. His idea is based on the race for Harry Reid's Senate seat in Nevada, a race that Harry Reid is LOSING! Reid is 11 points behind his opponent, Danny Tarkanian.
Here's Hewitt's idea: Send Tarkanian $10. Then email Reid and tell him that if ObamaCare passes, you will support Tarkanian with even more donations. If this goes viral, the effect could be electric!
Here's Hewitt's page, here's Tarkanian's campaign website, and here's Reid's email.
If you send this on, think of the grassroots effect on both Reid and the Tarkanian campaign to remove Reid!
My donation and email to Reid are done.
Help this go viral: send it on!
Here's Hewitt's idea: Send Tarkanian $10. Then email Reid and tell him that if ObamaCare passes, you will support Tarkanian with even more donations. If this goes viral, the effect could be electric!
Here's Hewitt's page, here's Tarkanian's campaign website, and here's Reid's email.
If you send this on, think of the grassroots effect on both Reid and the Tarkanian campaign to remove Reid!
My donation and email to Reid are done.
Help this go viral: send it on!
Monday, August 24, 2009
Quote of the Day
In The Road to Serfdom, economist and political philosopher F.A. Hayek chastised the "socialists of all parties" for their belief that "it is not the system we need fear, but the danger it might be run by bad men." Today's "presidentialists of all parties" — a phrase that describes the overwhelming majority of American voters — suffer from a similar delusion. Our system, with its unhealthy, unconstitutional concentration of power, feeds on the atavistic tendency to see the chief magistrate as our national father or mother, responsible for our economic well-being, our physical safety, and even our sense of belonging. Relimiting the presidency depends on freeing ourselves from a mind-set one century in the making. One hopes that it won't take another Watergate and Vietnam for us to break loose from the spellbinding cult of the presidency.
Gene Healy, CATO Institute, "The Cult Of The Presidency" , June '08, Reason Magazine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)