Home
The Lovely Summer
 
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in Kate Herrick's LiveJournal:

    [ << Previous 20 ]
    Thursday, March 19th, 2009
    11:18 am
    Wednesday, March 18th, 2009
    9:21 pm
    Scoff while you can, before we give the world back to the people who wrought it.
    Atlas Shrugged selling better than ever since its year of publication.

    Atlas Shrugged No. 1 seller in Amazon "classics" category.
    Thursday, December 11th, 2008
    10:38 am
    Blagojevich Bliss
    Hopefully you've all heard about and delighted in the arrest of a corrupt politician, the governor of Illinois. I delight in the mild irony that this man's bad luck brings joy to good people.

    The FBI complaint, chock full of the most blatant corruption you may ever see.


    Thanks to [info]john_j_enright for the link to the actual complaint. It's a fun read over breakfast, if you skim fast enough.

    Also, What the Fed Left Out, a parody.
    10:25 am
    Comedian Louis CK on Conan: "Everything's amazing, nobody's happy"
    "Did you partake of the miracle of human flight you non-contributing zero!"



    Hat tip to Stephen Hicks, who links to really neat stuff daily.
    Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008
    10:27 pm
    "Darwinian Conservatism"
    What a great theme for a blog:

    The Left has traditionally assumed that human nature is so malleable, so perfectible, that it can be shaped in almost any direction. Conservatives object, arguing that social order arises not from rational planning but from the spontaneous order of instincts and habits. Darwinian biology sustains conservative social thought by showing how the human capacity for spontaneous order arises from social instincts and a moral sense shaped by natural selection in human evolutionary history.


    Well, it's a false dichotomy, between an infinitely malleable human nature and an arational, instinctual nature, but at least we're moving in the direction of a scientific foundation for considering basic human values. It's been decades since leftists could pretend to any moral authority on scientific grounds, but instincts and tradition aren't what got us out of our caves.
    3:46 pm
    Birth of Venus, Alexandre Cabanel
    Friday, November 28th, 2008
    2:11 pm
    Communism and Starvation: the First American Experiment
    The Real Meaning of Thanksgiving: The Triumph of Capitalism over
    Collectivism

    by Richard M. Ebeling Monday, 24 November 2008

    ...

    The English Puritans, who left Great Britain and sailed across the Atlantic
    on the Mayflower in 1620, were not only escaping from religious persecution
    in their homeland. They also wanted to turn their back on what they viewed
    as the materialistic and greedy corruption of the Old World.

    In the New World, they wanted to erect a New Jerusalem that would not only
    be religiously devout, but be built on a new foundation of communal sharing
    and social altruism. Their goal was the communism of Plato's Republic, in
    which all would work and share in common, knowing neither private property
    nor self-interested acquisitiveness.

    What resulted is recorded in the diary of Governor William Bradford, the
    head of the colony. The colonists collectively cleared and worked land, but
    they brought forth neither the bountiful harvest they hoped for, nor did it
    create a spirit of shared and cheerful brotherhood.

    The less industrious members of the colony came late to their work in the
    fields, and were slow and easy in their labors. Knowing that they and their
    families were to receive an equal share of whatever the group produced, they
    saw little reason to be more diligent their efforts. The harder working
    among the colonists became resentful that their efforts would be
    redistributed to the more malingering members of the colony. Soon they, too,
    were coming late to work and were less energetic in the fields.

    As Governor Bradford explained in his old English (though with the spelling
    modernized):

    "For the young men that were able and fit for labor and service did repine
    that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives
    and children, without recompense. The strong, or men of parts, had no more
    division of food, clothes, etc. then he that was weak and not able to do a
    quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men
    to be ranked and equalized in labor, and food, clothes, etc. with the meaner
    and younger sort, thought it some indignant and disrespect unto them. And
    for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing
    their meat, washing their clothes, etc. they deemed it a kind of slavery,
    neither could man husbands brook it."

    Because of the disincentives and resentments that spread among the
    population, crops were sparse and the rationed equal shares from the
    collective harvest were not enough to ward off starvation and death. Two
    years of communism in practice had left alive only a fraction of the
    original number of the Plymouth colonists.

    Realizing that another season like those that had just passed would mean the
    extinction of the entire community, the elders of the colony decided to try
    something radically different: the introduction of private property rights
    and the right of the individual families to keep the fruits of their own
    labor.

    As Governor Bradford put it:

    "And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the
    proportion of their number for that end. . . .This had a very good success;
    for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted
    then otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could
    use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The
    women now went willingly into the field, and took their little-ones with
    them to set corn, which before would a ledge weakness, and inability; whom
    to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."

    The Plymouth Colony experienced a great bounty of food. Private ownership
    meant that there was now a close link between work and reward. Industry
    became the order of the day as the men and women in each family went to the
    fields on their separate private farms. When the harvest time came, not only
    did many families produce enough for their own needs, but they had surpluses
    that they could freely exchange with their neighbors for mutual benefit and
    improvement.

    In Governor Bradford's words:

    "By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them
    plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts
    of many, for which they blessed God. And the effect of their planting was
    well seen, for all had, one way or other, pretty well to bring the year
    about, and some of the abler sort and more industrious had to spare, and
    sell to others, so as any general want or famine hath not been amongst them
    since to this day."

    Hard experience had taught the Plymouth colonists the fallacy and error in
    the ideas that since the time of the ancient Greeks had promised paradise
    through collectivism rather than individualism. As Governor Bradford
    expressed it:

    "The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried
    sundry years, and that amongst the Godly and sober men, may well convince of
    the vanity and conceit of Plato's and other ancients; -- that the taking
    away of property, and bringing into a common wealth, would make them happy
    and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far
    as it was) was found to breed confusion and discontent, and retard much
    employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort."

    Was this realization that communism was incompatible with human nature and
    the prosperity of humanity to be despaired or be a cause for guilt? Not in
    Governor Bradford's eyes. It was simply a matter of accepting that altruism
    and collectivism were inconsistent with the nature of man, and that human
    institutions should reflect the reality of man's nature if he is to prosper.
    Said Governor Bradford:

    "Let none object this is man's corruption, and nothing to the curse itself.
    I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in his wisdom saw
    another course fitter for them."

    The desire to "spreading the wealth" and for government to plan and regulate
    people's lives is as old as the utopian fantasy in Plato's Republic. The
    Pilgrim Fathers tried and soon realized its bankruptcy and failure as a way
    for men to live together in society.

    They, instead, accepted man as he is: hardworking, productive, and
    innovative when allowed the liberty to follow his own interests in improving
    his own circumstances and that of his family. And even more, out of his
    industry result the quantities of useful goods that enable men to trade to
    their mutual benefit.

    In the wilderness of the New World, the Plymouth Pilgrims had progressed
    from the false dream of communism to the sound realism of capitalism. At a
    time of economic uncertainty, it is worthwhile recalling this beginning of
    the American experiment and experience with freedom.

    ...
    Tuesday, November 25th, 2008
    12:14 pm
    Government Failure and Mary Ruwart's PWNing of Pharmaceutical Regulations
    My, this is a skimpy Wiki article on government failure - each of these types of failures is so massively widespread and such an oppressive burden on the economy that without it, life would be so much better, under laissez faire political economy, that people wouldn't recognize it as their own world, would in fact be as stunned by the reality as if they were visiting a more technologically advanced alien culture.

    My favorite example of this is Mary Ruwart's work on regulations' effects in the pharmaceutical industry, and how many hundreds of thousands of deaths in the American health care system are irrefutably caused by the precautionary principle (net difference in death rates from those that would happen under an unregulated, more risk-taking medical market). Thre are so many unintended consequences of the invisible foot of government on the market for health that it's shocking even to us in the choir leading the alto section.

    For now I can only point you to her book, Healing Our World, Chapters 5 and 6. It'd be nice to think I'd find time to synopsize that here at some point, but for now, let us absorb the broad categories of destruction visited on us by political power taken too far.
    11:27 am
    Lord Leighton Parade
    Flaming June

    Study

    The Fisherman and the Siren - HOT

    The Music Lesson

    Continue on Google Image Search without me, I've gotta split.
    Monday, November 24th, 2008
    3:23 pm
    Fruits of the Profit Motive
    Imagine all your favorite products. They are made in profit-based organizations such as this one. Love it, or oppose it at your own risk and with no misunderstandings about your program of destruction by selflessness.

    Sunday, November 9th, 2008
    6:32 pm
    Regulate and Bail Out Approach Going Bankrupt
    Fantastic entry on the the UAW's great contributions to humanity by [info]kraorh.

    I showed Jack. Jack responds:

    Uncle Sam Goes Car Crazy
    Your government gets into the auto business.

    "Any business would be hard-pressed to survive if obliged to make consistently maladaptive choices. Any rescue mounted today in Washington won't be so much a "rescue" as a final admission that the industry can no longer bear its regulatory burdens without direct subsidies. Any life supports GM, Ford and Chrysler are hooked up to now, for that reason, will have to be permanent."


    Fred also replies. )
    Wednesday, November 5th, 2008
    10:43 pm
    Post-Election Bonding Meme
    I'm mostly paying dues here, but if you want to, go for it.

    Leave me a comment and I will reply with why I like you. If I don't know you, I'll either make something up or tell you why I like your LiveJournal. You must pay for the privilege by posting a message like this one on your LiveJournal.
    8:24 pm
    The Obvious
    Okay, now that I've done my dour duty in opposing our new socialist leader throughout the campaign, I can take a moment to rejoice: We elected a black person for President!
    Monday, October 6th, 2008
    11:12 pm
    What part of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac don't you understand?
    Some people are pretty incredulous at the causality cited in this chart. This I find very amusing. What part of it do you deny? That these things happened, or that they had any effect on the market?

    Heavy lobbying by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac congress critters and power-lusting bureaucrats:

    (Video link.)

    More on what's happening to our beloved, usually-more-responsible, always-a-net-blessing, at-least-partially-free capitalist system. And a note on media coverage by the same author as the previous link, [info]boffo. Thanks, [info]boffo.

    You can't blame the free market system (I don't mean the particular bankers, but free market principles) when the free market system was being raped at the time.
    Sunday, October 5th, 2008
    9:42 am
    First-time Freedom via Web Ads for Foreign Hiring
    Jobs uae
    Top Recruiters In Dubai Will Send You Jobs That You Are Suitable For.
    www.TeleportMyJob.com/Dubai._Jobs

    I really enjoy the thought of high-skilled Americans working in wealthy but unfree countries, and the liberalizing effect that may have over the long term of a country's cultural life. There is always much hope for the next generation, if there is any seed of liberalism in a dominant or prominent culture within a repressive nation. People have overcome tyranny before, and they can do it even, someday, in areas where liberalism has never yet once been given a try by the people in power.
    Tuesday, September 30th, 2008
    12:22 pm
    Bailout
    I would never have guessed at the united support for corporate welfare from everyone left of far right - on behalf of the stock market. Do we believe in trickle-down now?

    Update: So, we get the same deal, only with a whole bunch of political favors for unions and other special interests. Thanks for nothing, congressional Republicans.

    Current Mood: thanks, Republicans
    10:10 am
    The Subprime Mortgage Crisis, by Stephen Hicks
    Initial situation (until 1980s):					
    
    Lenders have profit motive 
    |                       |
    |                       |
    |                       V
    |       Lenders establish credit ratings
    |               |                      \
    |               |                       \
    |               V                        V
    |       Good-credit people      Poor-credit people
    |       can get loans           can't get loans	          [Capitalism ends here. -K]
    |					|
    |					|
    |	Meanwhile (1990s): 		|
    |					|
    |					V
    |				Some politicians push		Poorer people are
    |				for home ownership		disproportionately
    |				and "affordable housing"	racial minorities
    |					|				|
    |					|				|
    |					V				|
    |				Gov't changes incentives		V
    |				for Fannie Mae and 		Claims that lending
    |				Freddie Mac via 		standards are racist
    |				bailout insurance		      /	
    |				/   	|	\		     /
    |			       /     	|	 \		    /
    |			      /		|	  V		   V
    |			     V		|	Pressure on lenders to 	
    |		Lenders can make	|	lower standards for
    |		higher-interest loans	 \	poorer-credit people: 
    |		to poor-credit people	  \	"Home Mortgage Disclosure Act"
    |		and then sell those 	   \	& "Community Reinvestment Act"
    \		loans to Fannie Mae	    \				|
      \		and Freddie Mac		     \				|
        \			|		      >	Fannie Mae and		|
          \			V			Freddie Mac officials	|
    	\	Higher-interest loans		lobby hard to		|
    	  \	to poor-credit people		prevent oversight	|
    	    \	become profitable					V
    	      \		  |					Higher-interest loans
       		\	  |					to poor-credit people
        		  \	  |				      /	become politically
        		    \     |				     /	necessary
          		      \   |				    /
    			\ |				   /
    			 V V				  /
    Then (mid 2000s):	Lenders make	 <----------------
    			many more loans
    			to poor-credit people
    				|
    				|
    				V
    			Poor-credit people
    			begin defaulting on
    			loans in large numbers
    				|
    				V
    			Ripple effect: Fannie Mae,
    			Freddie Mac, and private lenders
    			start losing big money	
    					|
    	Now (late 2000s):		|
    					V
    				Some politicians and pundits
    				blame "greedy lenders"
    				for making bad loans:
    				"The free market has failed."
    					/
    				       /
    	The government takes over     /
    	Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac   < 


    Version 1
    Stephen Hicks, 2008
    http://www.stephenhicks.org/
    Thursday, September 25th, 2008
    1:32 am
    Tuesday, September 9th, 2008
    3:13 pm
    South Side Veterans for Truth
    By JAMES TARANTO
    September 8, 2008

    Last week we wrote that " 'community organizer' is to Barack Obama what 'war hero' was to John Kerry." We didn't know the half of it.

    Kerry staked his claim to the presidency on the pretense that he was a war hero, notwithstanding his showy repudiation decades earlier of the war and his fellow veterans. According to a new exposé in the liberal New Republic, Obama, before embarking on a career in politics, similarly, albeit quietly, repudiated "community organizing," only to re-embrace it decades later, apparently out of political expediency.

    TNR's John Judis tracked down Jerry Kellman, who in 1985 "hired Obama to organize residents of Chicago's South Side." Kellman describes a conversation the two "community organizers" had at a conference on "social justice" in October 1987:

    "[Obama] wanted to marry and have children, and to have a stable income," Kellman recalls.

    But Obama was also worried about something else. He told Kellman that he feared community organizing would never allow him "to make major changes in poverty or discrimination." To do that, he said, "you either had to be an elected official or be influential with elected officials." In other words, Obama believed that his chosen profession was getting him nowhere, or at least not far enough. . . .

    And so, Obama told Kellman, he had decided to leave community organizing and go to law school. Another way of putting this might be that Obama left community organizing because he wanted a job in which he had actual responsibilities (and, of course, earned more money).

    But Obama did not decide only that "community organizing" was not for him. Judis reports the future senator took part in a September 1989 symposium in which he "rejected the guiding principles of community organizing: the elevation of self-interest over moral vision; the disdain for charismatic leaders and their movements; and the suspicion of politics itself." Later, Obama "would begin to construct a political identity for himself that was not simply different from his identity as a community organizer--but was, in fact, its very opposite."

    Judis offers the closest thing we've heard to a job description for "community organizers." What they do, he writes, is "unite people of different backgrounds around common goals and use their collective strength to wring concessions from the powers that be." To help illuminate this rather vague description, Judis also enumerates some of the tasks Obama and his colleagues undertook.

    Before Obama's arrival in Chicago, Kellman and his "partner," Mike Kruglik, set out "to revive the region's manufacturing base--and preserve what remained of its steel industry--by working with unions and church groups to pressure companies and the city; but those hopes were quickly dashed." Apparently the presence of "community organizers" is not a strong selling point for companies making location decisions. Go figure.

    Obama set his sights lower, but still missed the mark. He "got community members to demand a job center that would provide job referrals, but there were few jobs to distribute." Then "he tried to create what he called a 'second-level consumer economy' . . . consisting of shops, restaurants, and theaters. This, too, went nowhere."

    These efforts at economic development having failed, Obama "began to focus on providing social services for Altgeld Gardens," a government-owned and -operated apartment complex:

    "We didn't yet have the power to change state welfare policy, or create local jobs, or bring substantially more money into the schools," [Obama] wrote. "But what we could do was begin to improve basic services at Altgeld--get the toilets fixed, the heaters working, the windows repaired." Obama helped the residents wage a successful campaign to get the Chicago Housing Authority to promise to remove asbestos from the units; but, after an initial burst of activity, the city failed to keep its promise. (As of last year, some residences still had not been cleared of asbestos.)
    It is both funny and scary that one of America's major political parties would offer this record of sheer futility as its nominee's chief qualification to be president of the United States. Even more striking, though, is how alien the world in which Obama operated was by comparison with the world in which normal Americans live.

    Reader, when your toilet breaks, do you wait around for some Ivy League hotshot to show up and organize a meeting so that you can use your collective strength to wring concessions from the powers that be?

    Or do you call a plumber?

    As a "community organizer," Obama toiled within a subculture of such abject dependency that even home repairs were "social services," provided by government (or, in Obama's Chicago, not provided). It was an utterly bizarre intersection between the cultural elite and the underclass. By Judis's account, Obama's Columbia degree was useless. He would have been more helpful if he'd gone to vocational school instead.

    Judis quotes an Altgeld resident as telling Obama, "Ain't nothing gonna change. . . . We just gonna concentrate on saving our money so we can move outta here as fast as we can." Certainly no one can fault Obama for doing the same thing. But what did Obama move outta there to do? To become a politician--specifically, an "idealistic" politician who wants "to make major changes in poverty." Guys like that created this mess in the first place.

    In his political career, has Obama done or even said anything to suggest that he has a different approach to "poverty," one that would reduce dependency rather than promote it? His recent rediscovery of the glories of "community organizing" certainly isn't an encouraging sign.
    Friday, August 29th, 2008
    4:20 pm
    Must Reading on Gender Differences
    Is There Anything Good About Men?, presented at an American Psychological Association conference by the preeminent social psychologist, Roy Baumeister, is packed with objective psychological research and theoretical synthesis on gender differences. (Don't be put off by the title; it seems to have been set by those inviting the presentation.)

    The thesis is that, due to the difference in reproductive reward of risk-taking behavior between men and women, women find more pleasure in intimate relationships, while men find more pleasure in a wider but interpersonally shallower network - and that the latter is more conducive to creativity and achievement.

    (Particularly felicitious is that this understanding nullifies the conspiracy theory perspective on patriarchy.)

    Highly educational. Via philosopher Stephen Hicks.


    Summary Conclusion )
[ << Previous 20 ]
Mid Michigan Objectivists   About LiveJournal.com

Advertisement