Good golly Miss Molly, how could I not have known this before now?

My wife and I were pruning our bookshelves when I found a forgotten copy of Ayn Rand's THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS, a collection of essays by her and a cohort, that presented her cosmology of Objectivism.

But holy moley, it was word for word today's conservatism as uncritically copied and pasted on a political platform, in the original. How did I not know that conservatism doesn't just pay homage to her, but copies its every word and phrase and illogic?

She posits individual rights without naming where they come from, and hence, if they exist. As an Objectivist, she probably would not say they came from God. But from whence, then? And since every step in every argument in the development of her cosmology depends utterly on the foundation of these failed-to-be-established individual rights, her entire universe collapses.

Even granting for the moment that she does have a foundation, the steps in her arguments based on that foundation become increasingly presumptive and idiosyncratic, so the house of cards still collapses.

MikeG: Exactly. Didn't we try to explain this all to you a long time ago? This is the very foundation upon which NWO, now renamed IWO is based upon. A world controlled by supremists and elitists and everyone else is either cannon fodder or acceptable collateral damage according to "their minds" eye viewpoint.

"But holy moley, it was word for word today's conservatism as uncritically copied and pasted on a political platform, in the original."- The Q

Gosh darn-it, dag nabitt who is this Ayn Rand fellow? Tryin to make the individually, self motivated, conservative principled person look bad. My, my what a distortion of truth.

The progressive mistakenly believes that the purpose of the individual is to provide for the collective. The collective is like the Star Trek Borg, an entity void of soul and feelings, expressing the words, "resistance is futile" as it tries to engulf the human spirit. The truth is, it is the individual that matters, it is the purpose of the collective's existence and NOT the other way around. If you understand that, you understand true humanity, loving, helping and caring about one another as God intended. You don't need to read that from some old book you found. That truth is written in our hearts.

"You don't need to read that from some old book you found. That truth is written in our hearts."-MG

You know that, and I know that, and John knows that. Well, except for the Borg collective part. You just need to tell that to today's Republicans. The commons are not the end, but the means of getting anywhere. It's populist arousal as well as welfare. It's tens of millions of people going to the voting booth as well as public schools and public transportation. Of course the collective consists of separate individuals, but neither does the individual slave away for the collective, nor is the collective a necessary evil for the sake of the individual. Today's political discourse is not allowed to be sensible; it's somehow pushed to one extreme of another. The tentacles of influence enter into even rural discussion by inserting everywhere the terminology and breathtaking extremism of someone like Ayn Rand, on the right, and __________ on the left. (You'll have to fill in the blank, because I have no idea of the left's Pavlovian stimulus.)

Because, you see, when you say "The progressive mistakenly believes that the purpose of the individual is to provide for the collective" you're saying what you heard from somewhere. "Progressives" or whatever believe in mutually beneficial behavior among individuals (well, no, not cynically or financially beneficial, but something more Golden Rule-ish); if some few individuals won't be a part of that, they are the outliers, and not the sole model of a real human. The word from the Ayn Rand right (not actual, everyday people) is that anything less than a conscientious objector to the left-leaning is an unacceptable traitor.

A timely perspective on this was provided by Jonathan Haidt on Bill Moyer's show recently. The political usefulness of extremism.

Sorry, this is the best I can do with the TV running.

"Progressives" or whatever believe in mutually beneficial behavior among individuals (well, no, not cynically or financially beneficial, but something more Golden Rule-ish); if some few individuals won't be a part of that, they are the outliers, and not the sole model of a real human." MQ

The rejection of the progressive ideals is not a rejection of a "love and help thy neighbor", mutually beneficial community but a rejection of an unnatural authority where the ends try to justify the means. Authority is needed to protect the community from those that would do harm but not to force the outliers to conform. Throughout the Bible, God allowed real humans the freedom to choose. And when we choose, like Adam and Eve and the Prodigal son, we often choose wrong and selfishly. Yet, God allows us choice, so that as individuals we can grow. It is the soul of the individual that matters to God, not the soul of the community.

As for a mutually beneficial community or collective, that only exists if everyone that is in the collective wants to be part of the collective and believes in the same ideals. If those ideals are just and good, then sooner or later everyone would want to be part of it. But if so called "outliers" are forced or assimilated into the collective against their will, then it is Borg. A philosophy that forces it's ideals upon others.

Let me re-state something in order to be more accurate. God allows us choice so that only the individuals that are part of the collective want to be there and are of one heart, one mind, one spirit. Often those who choose to be outside of the community suffer the trials and return with a stronger then ever faith. That is of course, if that community is of God and the principles there in. If the community is not principled and fair, then there is no unity and those that leave will do so, not out of a desire for selfishness but a thirst for justice.

"rejection of an unnatural authority where the ends try to justify the means."-MG

What is this unnatural authority? The authority to collect taxes? The healthcare act?

Tax collection can't be left to volunteerism, of course, or there would be as close to nothing as doesn't matter.

Specific arguments against the healthcare act I'd have to hear, but from what I've read the objections are either based on misinformation or are wildly exaggerated. If (accent on IF) the act turns out in time to be as helpful as it appears to be for millions- actually millions- then it is a case of the benefit of the greater number overriding the special interests of the few. And that principle is not something political, or the commands of a dictator, but the common principal of all societies. Community means compromise, and compromise is not the shameful weakness Republicans pretend it is today, but is the strength of societies. And the outliers are perfectly able to do their own thing out in Montana or wherever, unmolested by government, with very few exceptions, such as Ruby Ridge or Waco, which were mistakes of judgment. All the might of the US government could be overwhelming to some militia, for instance, yet it leaves a gazillion groups alone to do their own thing, though the paranoia of these group members, and their need for self-justification, causes them to see monumental governmental tyranny all around them.

Read more of your comments.

Anyone can choose anything, and hence has the freedom to choose. That says nothing of the consequences- proper and unjust- of those choices. People are not forced into a collective, or forced out. If someone decides against this colective, and abuses and violates its trust, the collective does and should protect itself.

"It is the soul of the individual that matters to God, not the soul of the community."

I've heard as many interpretations of what God wants or likes or wears on His lapel as there are political or economic or personal ideologies.

Mike you are pointing out specifics about paying taxes, issues and merits of the health care bill, anti government groups, government allowing us certain liberties and so forth. But my comments had nothing to do with that. My comments are an attempt to point out that the average Conservative American does care the same about his or her community as a Progressive. That the difference I believe, is that the Progressive principle is to accomplish the goals even if it means encroaching on others. While the Conservative principle is to accomplish the goal by taking the initiative, as much as it is possible, on their own without insisting on others to join in.

So for example, if a Progressive wanting to help the poor and their community and had the same "principled thinking" as a Conservative, they would rally with other like minded individuals to accomplish their goal and to grow that cause. They would not insist that everyone one is "in" whether they like it or not or be labeled an outlier. IE; everyone must buy healthcare, religious organizations must go against their beliefs, and so forth. We both know we live in a society where voluntary taxes would not work but that is not the point. The point is, I believe with the exception of abortion, that most Progressives rather we had less choice overall for a fairer society, where most Conservatives rather we had more freedoms to choose so that the choice is up to us and not someone else.

"We both know we live in a society where voluntary taxes would not work but that is not the point."-MG

Well, not to belabor it, but it is the point. Laws aren't voluntary, taxes aren't voluntary, a wholesale public healthcare system won't work very well if it were not universal, so the issue of legal conformity is not all that debatable in the moot courts that convene in conservatives' or progressives' backyards.

As for religious organizations having to go against their beliefs, courts are still deciding for the church at least as often as not, which in essence legally labels the church an outlier needing to be excused from conformity.

I mentioned interpretation of religion. My interpretation of Judeo-Christian tradition is that guilt is assigned to those individuals who make choices harmful to the broader community, while assigning his better side to the common good as a matter of course. (And "the common good" doesn't have to only be translated as welfare for losers, but as any of the bigger-than-the-individual projects of civilization,-Apollo, cathedrals, interstate highway systems, National Institutes of Health, the internet, fine cuisine, a totally fossil-fuelless power grid, better-designed cities, a rich heritage of music and literature and movies and humor and crossword puzzles and knock-knock jokes.)

So my view of what our religion says has the individual responsible for his mistakes, and responsible also for the good of the community. These responsibilities may not look like freedom to some, but these ties that bind us to each other feel freeing to me.

"Laws aren't voluntary, taxes aren't voluntary, a wholesale public healthcare system won't work very well if it were not universal, so the issue of legal conformity is not all that debatable in the moot courts that convene in conservatives' or progressives' backyards."-MQ

No, your thinking is wrong. Don't you see that we are being misled? Led into a corner and then told we have no choice or nowhere to go? If wholesale public healthcare won't work well without mandates, then let it fail. We are making our own beds then saying we have to lie in them, or else. We created or allowed "too big to fails" and we decided we had to bail them out. We decided to go into IRAQ and we declared we could not leave because it would destabilize the country. It's like we are putting out the fires, that we start on purpose.

"As for religious organizations having to go against their beliefs, courts are still deciding for the church at least as often as not, which in essence legally labels the church an outlier needing to be excused from conformity" -MQ


MLK and others like him were outliers to conformity. In the name of justice he rebelled peacefully against the laws because the laws were not just. Who determines what laws we can break and what laws we cannot? If the courts decide someday that the church must disobey the laws of God in order to conform with man-made laws, then my allegiance is with the church community and not with the rest of society. What your not able to grasp is that there is more then one community or fellowship with each other. An outlier in one community, is a contributing George Bailey like member in another.

Approve??? Hell no!!!

----------------------------------------

British leader warns of Obama 'Europeanization' of U.S.

February 11, 2012

European Parliament Member Daniel Hannan told a gathering of conservative activists in Washington Saturday that the Obama administration's "Europeanization" agenda has the U.S. "screeching toward the cliff" of socialism.

"I have been a member of the European Parliament for 12 years, I am living in your future — or at least the future toward which your present leaders seem intent on taking it," he said at the Conservative Political Action Conference Saturday in Washington. "Believe me, my friend, you are not going to enjoy it."

Mr. Hannan, a member of Britain's Conservatives Party and an outspoken advocate for the decentralization of national governments, said President Obama's aging of "European health care, European day care, European college eduction, European nuclear disarmament, European carbon taxes" is compromising Americans' personal freedoms.

"We look up and what do we see in our rearview mirror? We see you trying to overtake us, accelerating frantically in a direction we have been going," he said. "My friends, there is still time to turn aside."

Mr. Hannan also warned that the United States — despite its more than two centuries of successes and its well-regarded Constitution — isn't immune to a political breakdown.

"There's nothing in the soil, there's nothing in the water, there's no law of nature that makes this country the way it is — it comes from the institutions," he said. "Your founders understood this very clearly."

"If wholesale public healthcare won't work well without mandates, then let it fail."-MG

It's not these mandates that you see that have anything to do with a plan working or failing. Just as product costs go down the larger the scale of mass production, so too do medical insurance costs go down if 300 million people are enrolled rather than a few thousand. If 300 million people enrolled with Aetna, costs would go down, too, but how do you get this to happen when even the insurance companies carve out jealously guarded regions?

We don't want too-big-to-fail banks, but we DO want too-big-to-fail public pensions and public insurances and public institutions of all kinds that millions rely on to a life-or-death degree.

"There is more than one community or fellowship with each other."

We have gone long past the point of sovereign tribes. I most assuredly don't want total Americanization of every person coming to this country. I revel in the rich diversity of cultural communities we have. But we can not have any sense of justice and order if every assemblage of persons claimed sovereignty and immunity therefore from the prevailing laws of the land.

Laws, of course, can be changed when they are shown widely enough to be discriminatory or otherwise unfair or unwise. Laws HAVE to apply uniformly, or all respect for order is lost.

Look at that! The leftie is the law and order guy and the rightie is the hippie-dippy rebel against authority.

It's not the times that have changed so much as the definitions of terms.

Me again.

My wife has had to sit around a lot while recovering from an injury. We started playing cards to help her while away the unproductive hours. Each of us independently discovered what happens to a healthy human brain when non-hierarchical relationships are made hierarchical by game rules into a winner and a loser, especially as the gap grows wider and wider. Actual paranoia develops, and irrational, mystical or magical thinking. Add hostility entirely out of proportion to the instigation.

I suggested that heretofore the winner doesn’t receive points, but has to hug the other player. Well, because of her injury this didn’t work too well, but it made me think of the political talk we keep hearing these days. “It’s unfair to make the successful person pay for being successful!” But the new card game rule makes such notions look fishy. If the winner has to make a gesture of caring, is that a penalty? Hardly! If it’s not a penalty, what is it? Another reward? A reward is an advantage over another; is the hug being given by the arbitrarily assigned “winner” a reward, or is it a penalty, like a tax? Is the hug being received by the arbitrarily assigned “loser” a penalty, a reward, or what? The answer is: neither “winner” nor “loser” is penalized by the hug, and- wonder of wonders- BOTH benefit. That’s the difference between a humanistic, communitarian, cooperatively oriented society and one that’s been corrupted by the poison of individuality worship, in which the only reason for separating oneself from others is so that the individual can hope to rise above the others and dominate them.

OK, last time for tonight.

As I've said before, just check out Wilson and Pickett's THE SPIRIT LEVEL. Those countries with greater inequalities have greater sickness, violence, mental disorder, while those countries with minimal inequalities have very healthy and very happy people. It's known from histories that the arrival of greater equality or greater inequality preceded,-and therefore most likely caused,-the changes in public health. Millions of years of human evolution as a social animal can not be eradicated by the self-serving ideologies of dominance hierarchy freaks.

she dosent want your condescending hugs you stupid moron, she wants to win.

"Look at that! The leftie is the law and order guy and the rightie is the hippie-dippy rebel against authority." - MQ

What do you think I use to root against BillJack and Rambo? Hippie-dippy rebel? I haven't been called that in 35 years. It's interesting that Politics Right or Left would have anything at all to do with defending right from wrong. If I think something is right I defend it and if it is wrong I protest against it. My views are not consistent with either party.

"Actual paranoia develops, and irrational, mystical or magical thinking. Add hostility entirely out of proportion to the instigation.I suggested that heretofore the winner doesn’t receive points, but has to hug the other player." - MQ

So question: Why the paranoia and hostility? I have been on the losing end and I don't like it but it makes me want to try harder. I know I will never be able to run or catch a ball like Victor Cruz but I am not envious of him, I am happy for him. He deserves it, he worked hard for it. I wish him even more success. As for me, I feel blessed enough. I don't look at what I don't have or who has more, I am just thankful for what I do have. The only thing that would make me hostile is if someone were to try and take away the relatively little bit I do have, for an ideal that says everyone must be equal. That being said, I understand the hug, its a nice gesture. I understand how it is a benefit that nobody gets penalized or to even give back some of the winnings. Yet, it is very curious to me why you would not be happy for your wife if she alone won and benefited, even if you did not? Is it "the poison of individuality worship" if your wife simply decided for herself what she wanted to do with her winnings? Perhaps, give some to you and others? Is she trying to "dominate" and "rise above you and others" if she does not want to play by the hug rule? Could it be in reality the paranoia and hostility is simply your unfounded fears? I think so.

This is what I like about our dialogue. It goes much deeper then politics, I like deep.

Youd be better off reading:

How to Behave and Why by Muro Leaf

"she wants to win."-towny

Each of the two of us in our turn were very uncomfortable when "winning" by an extreme degree. Especially when the leader tried hard to shift the advantage and still couldn't stop the rout. The cards seemed to have a devilish mind of their own, which brings us to:

"Why the paranoia and hostility?"-MG

First, because the winning or losing (in turn) was so one-sided that it seemed it couldn't be a matter of the luck of the draw. This played tricks with our heads.

And second, the vast inequality was so offensive, mirroring the vast inequality in socioeconomic status in America today, that it seemed especially that it had to be the product of evil intent. And the seeming unfairness of it produced the hostility.

Yeah, crazy. But after five hours or so of cards a day, with such one-sided routs taking turns, it starts getting to you.

Since we both were not very experienced with games, it was the first time I realized how any game I could think of forced an antagonistic hierarchy onto people who don't live their lives that way. Are there games in which no player is called a loser? Because calling someone a loser is a hostile act, and making hostility the purpose of the game seems warped. Separating players into hierarchies has no productive function. How about a game that is creative in some way, in which creation is the goal, and there is no concept of losing?

Anyway. Mike, you chafe at being told what to do by government, even though society as a whole grants that authority. I could argue that personal proof of the inequality between you and authority figures offends in you the same dislike of inequality as I feel regarding other hierarchies that don't exist in the natural state. Who isn't offended by the sight of a privileged person being treated like royalty, above the law, forgiven for churlishness, regarded as intrinsically better or more deserving of life, intrinsically more deserving of lavish reward having nothing to do with real accomplishment,-privileged by virtue of having money and therefore political connections?

Division of labor exists in non-human species,-worker bees, soldier bees, and so on,-with little likelihood that different rolls in bee societies are thought by bees to deserve different valuations. While humans were still in caves we had full-time spearhead makers, full-time hide scrapers, with- so far as I've been able to tell- no class hierarchies based on occupation.

One of the ways of dealing with the odd incidence of antisocial (read: attempting to force hierarchies)behavior was to articulate the Golden Rule. Shunning was effective, too. Outliers threatening the well-being of members of the group, and the social health of the group, were, if necessary, cast out. Later came jails.

But when harmful behavior, socially deranged behavior, manages to become immune to society's efforts to protect itself, it's profoundly offensive to our genetically imprinted sense of justice, and disorder and misery and suspicion and distrust and hostility and ill health set in. (Need I say it: THE SPIRIT LEVEL, by Wilson and Pickett). OWS tries to bring back some wholesome good health, and it gets sneered at.

"How about a game that is creative in some way, in which creation is the goal, and there is no concept of losing?" MQ

Then what fun would that be? I suppose you never have gone to a casino. You think people are there to win? Then how come if people win to quickly they wind up giving it all back? Is it greed or something else? It is about risk and reward and playing the game. Those that fall, fall hard and those that win fly high but it usually even's out in the end.

"Who isn't offended by the sight of a privileged person being treated like royalty, above the law, forgiven for churlishness, regarded as intrinsically better or more deserving of life, intrinsically more deserving of lavish reward having nothing to do with real accomplishment,-privileged by virtue of having money and therefore political connections?" MQ

That's the point man. I am not offended. Who cares how someone else is treated by the world? We just heard about another rich Superstar dieing. Do you wish you were in her shoes? Why not be thankful for who you are and what you have. Why compare yourself to the relatively few that have it all and often are not that happy. It sounds like you have a nice loving family. Would you trade that to be treated like royalty? I wouldn't. I feel sorry for those that "gain the world and lose their soul". And just like gambling, sooner or later it even's out. That is the natural order of things. Nobody gets over forever because nobody can beat death. In the mean time, you want justice? Yes, I am for justice. You want equality? All you need for that is to realize we are already equal, nobody is better then anyone else. They only are better if you believe they are.

-Ever heard of the Queen Bee? Wiki the term.

-Hunter-warriors are the head of the traditional tribal hierarchy. And every tribe has a chief or leader. Almost always a hunter warrior.

-Mention genetic imprint but cant fanthom competition?

-I find it astonishing that the writer Q dosent perceive himself to be ideologicaly competitive.

My wife taught fourth grade for many years. She brought cooperative learning to her district. Principals at first feared it meant Soviet-style communism, or at best something airy-fairy that would be a waste of precious school time. But they came around when they saw the results (To their credit they gave her a chance to show what this concept could do.)

Here's Tara, hiding behind her hair, never speaking or showing her eyes. There's messy Kevin, smelling of urine, reading at a second-grade level. Jake is suspicious and hostile, as is Jason, and watch out for Tammy.

By spring Tara is vibrant and outgoing, Kevin is clean and spiffy and reads at sixth grade level. The group antagonists are helpful and pleasant. And this "bottom-loaded" class does better on the standardized tests than do the "top-loaded" classes.

It's what these former dregs of society do when no one is coaching them that most convincingly demonstrates that these changes are real and lasting. They spontaneously include unpopular kids in their play, and restructure their activities to adjust for the kid with the gimpy leg. They go on to become teachers and nurses and social workers and fine citizens. And while a lot of people raised in competitive classrooms manage to retain some kindliness, they could learn a thing or two from these kids.

One feature of cooperative learning is that those students who have learned the subject lesson for the day work with those who haven't grasped it yet. (Sounds like the rich helping the poor.) The "smart" kids, far from being held back by staying with the stragglers, develop a greater mastery of the topic by teaching it, discovering what points they actually didn't quite get, and repeating the lesson in the languages of various learning styles (sequential, random, and so on).

The stragglers were not left behind, they saw that the smart kids were not going to laugh at them or call them stupid, and everyone involved saw how much everyone benefits from helping one another. In cooperative learning the success of the group depends on everyone mastering the lesson. No prima donnas here.

Outside of these few pockets of living and prospering non-competitively, we are led to believe that much of life is inherently mutually exclusive goal attainment,-that my success requires your failure. If I must snatch this goal from you if I'm to have it, then what I want must be scarce. This reinforces the circular proof for the need for failures. We are rewarded when we make others fail, and not until then.

"Every tribe has a chief."-SPECTRUM

I'm the one defending the authority of government most days on this site, the benignness of societally-approved authority. This is not despotism imposed from the outside, but our choice. It's not the product of- or proof of the necessity of- competition. The existance of a chain of command in the military, or in a business, is not a matter of competition, but of efficiency. Hierarchies become problematic when they are the product of racial/ethnic/religious/etc bias, or other hateful, dominance-oriented, competitive impulses.

This is getting too long. More another time.

"We are rewarded when we make others fail, and not until then." MQ

No, we are rewarded when we accomplish a goal but not everyone can accomplish the same goal because everyone has different talents.

I'm not a teacher so I have no opinion on this cooperative method of teaching. It sounds like it works great for the less assertive, less social students to develop them into productive human beings. And society works best when we help each other, no doubt. But to indicate that there is no difference in each others talents and the rewards that they are entitled to based on their efforts and accomplishments, is not based on facts. It is only an ideal of yours that you want a world where no one shines above another. But that is not the true nature of who we are.

Take for example a professional football team. There are certain goals that need to be accomplished. These goals are accomplished by the whole team working together. The experienced players mentoring and helping the less experienced. The most talented players in key positions getting the most reward because they are the most valuable to the team. No matter how much coaching and training the less talented players may never be the top players and they know that and accept their place. So it is a lie to believe they are all equal and should be rewarded equal. The team falls apart if we reward them all the same for unequal effort and achievements. It's an unnatural artificial system that is contrary to who we are as human beings. And just to clarify something. Unequal in talents, achievements and rewards does not mean unequal in human worth. So if for example, the most valuable and least valuable player both got hurt, help needs to go to the one that requires it the most, not the one most valuable to the team. That is justice.

David and Roger Johnson did a meta analysis of 122 studies of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning structures. Students in a competitive structure pretty much invariably use rote learning, which is shallow and incomplete and usually short-term. Individualized learners could devise strategies better than rote, but were limited by their having only their own inventiveness to rely on. Cooperative students had not only the benefit of many minds, but also the magnifying effects of the synergy of these mutiple minds. Despite the time spent by advanced students to bring lagging students up to speed, cooperative students learned more material than the no-wasted-time competitive students, and the quality of their learning was far superior to that of competitive or individual learners.

You say that students shouldn't be falsely declared equal. No one says otherwise. Cooperative learning acknowledges differences, and those differences make it work. Cooperative groups are not randomly picked, but are arranged to put disparate people together. And, BTW, it's not just the less assertive or less socially adept child who benefits; top competitive students often become poorly socialized prima donnas, secretly insecure and fragile, and benefit greatly from the good fortune of experience in a cooperative classroom.

In CULTURE AGAINST MAN, Jules Henry shows what happens in the typical competitive calssroom. "Boris' failure (to correctly answer teacher's question) has made it possible for Peggy to succeed (by answering correctly); his depression is the price for her exhileration; his misery the occasion for her rejoicing....To a Zuni, Hopi, or Dakota Indian, Peggy's performance would seem cruel beyond belief." It's this pointless, totally unnecessary and non-productive cruelty that I object to. If cooperation produces better results, and is not arbitrarily cruel, one has to wonder why it's so vital to keep trying to convince everyone that competition is natural and necessary.

Helmreich and Spence saw the same superiority of cooperative synergy in the business world (Yes, there are some cooperatively organized businesses).

In team sports, the structural competition of the game is not the intentional competition of interpersonal conflict. The team is cooperative.

"You want a world where no one shines above another."

That would be ridiculous. Joe is stronger than Pete, who is smarter than Joe. They each have their roles. How could- and why would- anyone make everyone the same? No, it's that competition is wasteful, inefficient, and most of all, needlessly inflicts pain.

Again, I'm yapping too much.

Yes. They each have their roles. A few are CEO's and some are stoop workers.

Thus you agree that a few shine over others and it is just.

"You say that students shouldn't be falsely declared equal." MQ

I don't think I stated that or meant that? I don't have a problem with that method of teaching. In my profession I mentor all the time. It not only helps enforce my knowledge but the knowledge I share often comes back directly from that person in the future, which helps me so much more then if I kept it all to myself.

I thought that cooperative teaching was your metaphor for a Marxist society were everybody is equal regardless of whether they achieve more. But since you meant it literally as proven way to teach, then I don't see anything wrong with it.

"Thus you agree that a few shine over others."-SPECTRUM

I never said otherwise.

In a crisis, such as an earthquake, humans shed their socioeconomic/racial/political/etc ranking and dig into the rubble side by side with people who in the competitive world could be captains of industry or sanitation workers or visiting heads of state. Some people are strong, and can move a lot of rubble; some people are slim and flexible and can squeeze through narrow gaps in the rubble to locate victims. Whatever the function, it's useful and not comparable, and needed and precious. It's like the beehive's breeder bee (aka queen bee); despite the royal name, her function is no more nor less essential than that of other bees. If all the worker bees left the hive, the hive would die just as dead as if the breeder bee left the hive.

Humans slip into cooperative mode in crises because it's THE way to handle big jobs. It's only when things settle down and bellies are full that we can afford to indulge in wasteful competition. If we want spectacular football games we know that the structural competition of the game will drive players to extremes for our entertainment. But if we want quality work we have to keep the job non-competitive, or we'll have rushed, sloppy, imitative work. (With repetitive tasks, competition can yield slightly higher piecework numbers, but with poorer quality. In design and engineering work, cooperation wins hands down.)

The schoolkids I mentioned, miserable and maladjusted, reacted to being made to feel like failures by either shutting down or by becoming bullies to humiliate the smart kids. When the unnecessary ranking of kids as objects is just left out of the educational process, and the kids as humans can feel OK again, they rejoin society, clean themselves up, and develop their unique abilities. The sheer waste of human potential, and the unnecessariness of so much misery, that occurs when people shut down and become self-destructive, or turn criminal, seems hard to justify for the sake of a behavior that yields less than stellar results. Oh, but competition sounds so, so...American, so manly and tough. My, my.

There may be places and uses for competition, but, while cooperative people see both cooperative and competitive people about them, competitive people generally don't believe there really are- or even should be- cooperative people, and this creates a need to deny the existance or possibility of cooperation as a viable real world practice. Competitive excesses are "just human nature," while a cooperative effort is never ascribed to "human nature." The language is always loaded to portray those who don't want the foul feelings of competitiveness as being "afraid" of competition.

I just want to see some perspective and honesty when the hot button issue of competition comes up. (I unofficially blogged for three years on another site, and the one topic that always drew testy comments was competition.)

"I just want to see some perspective and honesty."

Oh my gosh! Thats rich!

You are the queen of mis categorization and of gross generalization. Dis honest to a t.

Your last post, not to mention much of your other post's are utter nonsense.

Time and time again you pen missives that hinge on statements like the following; "competitive people generally don't believe there really are- or even should be- cooperative people, and this creates a need to deny the existance or possibility of cooperation as a viable real world practice."

Golly! Youve got to be given a prize in your steadfastness, as you are the least cooperative and overly competitive -in your need to be heard.

"I just want to see some perspective and honesty when the hot button issue of competition comes up. (I unofficially blogged for three years on another site, and the one topic that always drew testy comments was competition.)" MQ

Well that should not happen if a person is an "individual honest thinker" instead of those that follow a mob like mentality, trusting the view of the group and what they were taught, instead of using their own mind to ascertain the truth.

As an individual thinker I am of the belief that certain people in certain circumstances excel in competitive environments so competition is not "wasteful" as you put it but overall cooperation is the best way to accomplish a task. In a crisis, it is individuals using their God given talents working together, cooperating with other individuals using their best talents that gets the job done.

So if you are a race car driver for example, then competition is probably good for you. If you are a Policeman then you should learn to be cooperative. It is only when others in a group try to decide for the individual what is best for him, do people begin to get testy.

Q's prose invoke the use of syllogism as a framework argumentitive reasoning.

"syllogism"

Unusual, difficult word, I had to look it up. I think it is a form of deductive reasoning that does not always produce an accurate conclusion. Even the definition was hard to understand. But thanks for the cooperative learning opportunity, you inspired me to research the meaning on my own. Some of us learn best when we take the initiate ourselves, while others need to be spoon fed I guess, whatever works.

"Time and time again you pen missives that hinge on statements like the following; 'competitive people generally don't believe there really are- or even should be- cooperative people, and this creates a need to deny the existance or possibility of cooperation as a viable real world practice.'"

Dawes, et al, BEHAVIOR, COMMUNICATION, AND ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S BEHAVIOR IN A COMMONS DILEMNA SITUATION; Messe and Sivacek, PREDICTIONS OF OTHER'S RESPONSES IN A MIXED-MOTIVE GAME.

If I have something valid and verifiable to say to counter notions that are not, then how remiss would I be to not say these things?

Have a nice day.

'competitive people generally don't believe there really are- or even should be cooperative people"

TOTAL HOGWASH.
Only an anti social pyschopath fits the personality type you describe above.

I've studied game theory for two generations and I can assure the rest of the bloggers here that you are a fake, as you want to twist years of research to fit some narrow marxist ideology you yearn for.

Have a pleasant day.

See Mike, maybe "the competition hot button issue that drew testy comments" was really just getting under competitive peoples skin, by telling them what they themselves believe, based on some study. Certainly, a person knows more about their own beliefs then anyone else. Stating it as, "Some competitive people may not believe there really are..." instead of as a fact in general, allows those who know first hand it is not true for them, to not have to be lumped together with some anti-social people who may feel otherwise.

Spectrum and Mike G:

First let me please replace the phrase "valid and verifiable" in an earlier comment with the word "supportable", with my apologies.

"You want to twist years of research to fit some narrow Marxist ideology."-Spectrum

My providing sources means anyone can fact check my comments. Please feel free to source your comments.

"Only an anti social pyschopath fits the personality type you describe above."

Maybe, I'm not sure. It's tempting to think that only psychosis could get people to think that way. But if the percentages are what studies suggest, it's more than the generally accepted numbers for personality disorders. There's enough Manichean tautology out there pushing the absolute good of competition and the dubiousness, suspiciousness, or out-and-out evil of cooperation, that it should be expected that people can be influenced via self-help programs or a pervasive cutthroat environment in highly competitive occupations.

"'Some competitive people may not believe...'"-MG

Oops, I thought my saying "competitive people generally..." made it clear I wasn't saying "all competitive people." Lumping is enough of a problem to call for more than semantic correctness, but also sensitivity.

As to the frequently testy comments I've seen in the past, there are likely a number of factors. If I understand the thrust of your sentence, it sounds like having some aspect of one's orientation dealt with like fruit flies in a genetics study might be offputting. I didn't think of that.


I'm coming off like Bones in the TV show, with the stalwart conservative Booth telling her that being factually corect doesn't mean that much to many people, and Bones can't get that.

"Oops, I thought my saying "competitive people generally..." made it clear I wasn't saying "all competitive people." Lumping is enough of a problem to call for more than semantic correctness, but also sensitivity." MQ

Well it goes beyond semantics and nothing to do with sensitivity. It really is a completely different meaning to say, "competitive people generally..." compared to "Some competitive people may." "Generally" means as a whole or as a norm which is what you may believe or some study may indicate but "some", "may" is an exception to the norm.

Trying to honestly debate isues with a dishonest Q is a waste of time. Maybe Q should return to Democratic Underground or where ever Q used to post, and and baffle them with his/her bullshit.

Q would be welcomed by the us them crowd.

Why “Progressives” and not “Liberals”?

Feb 19, 2012

I’ve been contacted by many readers asking why I use the word “progressive” instead of “liberal.” I figured I’d write a little bit about why this week…

The Change

Remember when Democrats used to call themselves liberals? Then conservatives showed the world what liberals really were, and no one wanted to call themselves that anymore.

Now, they call themselves progressives again – as they did in the early 20th century until their racist/fascist agenda was rejected and they went into hiding under the word liberal. (To you progressives outraged by this truth, read Jonah Goldberg’s masterful book Liberal Fascism and open your eyes to your eugenics-loving, racist roots.)

Their name has changed, but their objectives have not. They want an all-powerful federal government with the individual subjected to its will and whims.

Naturally, they support such a thing only when there is a progressive in charge and will scream bloody murder when a non-progressive dare exercise power of any sort. For an example of this, see the Bush years.

Remember the Bush years … when the president went to Congress and got approval for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq? Ever wonder, then, where the anti-war movement went, and why, after Obama’s surge in Afghanistan and bombing of Libya, there wasn’t a massive rally on the National Mall?

Did those fervent anti-war protesters suddenly decided to “give war a chance”? And where is former MSNBC staple Cindy Sheehan now? Or Code Pink? When was the last time you saw them on TV? We’re still at war; only nobody is protesting it anymore.

That’s because it never was about war. It was about damaging a political opponent. Their guy is running things now. And he’s in trouble.

After failing miserably to have any positive impact on the economy – and spending trillions to do it – the 2010 election happened and Republicans swept the House. The Tea Party exists, and it is spreading the word about the virtues of smaller government and warning about overspending. The only things that terrify progressives more than those ideas are black conservatives and women carrying babies until they’re born.

How Far Will They Go?

One thing progressives won’t do is allow anything, and I mean ANYTHING, to stand in the way of their agenda.

Be it the grandmother who loved and raised President Barack Obama after his degenerate mother abandoned him only to be reduced to a racist, a “typical white person” when it became politically advantageous to distract from Jeremiah Wright … or the entire feminist movement when Bill Clinton was charged with sexual harassment (and assault … and rape), nothing is sacred beyond the agenda.

Add to that list the Occupy Wall Street rape victims.

On Monday’s Countdown on Current TV, former MSNBC talking head Keith Olbermann and Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas joked about the numerous, documented charges of sexual assault and rape at various “Occupy Wall Street” encampments around the country, denying they’d happened. Twitter exploded with outrage.

There was a time when “the seriousness of the charge” was all that mattered when it came to sexual assault/harassment, but that was when conservatives (Clarence Thomas) were the ones being charged. Since progressives make their living through hypocrisy, that standard went out the window under President Clinton and was changed to “drag a $100 bill through a trailer park” and see what you get.

Soon after dismissing rape of “Occupiers” by other “Occupiers,” Olbermann replied to a tweet from Washington Times columnist Henry D’Andrea’s tweet demanding a retraction and apology with, “No Occupy rapes, no cover-up, no apology, no retraction, and credibility for your Moonie-owned “newspaper.”

Setting aside the unprovoked religious bigotry from the “tolerant” Olbermann, that’s a flat-out denial that there were any rapes of Occupy women. That’s Keith saying the many, many women who filed rape and/or sexual assault charges with the police are lying. Here’s the bus, Occupy ladies, get ready to slide under it.

Probably realizing he’d stepped in it, Olbermann, who holds the Orwellian title of “Chief News Officer” at Current, then went on to accuse Andrew Breitbart of concocting the charges. When presented with a detailed list of criminal activity at “Occupy” camps, Olbermann changed his tune again to, “Looking at the (Breitbart) ‘Occupy Assault List’ I notice VICTIMS were in Occupy, not the assailants. Why are you blaming the victims?”

This, of course, is a flat-out lie. Olbermann knows it, but he doesn’t care. Those women and men who were raped and/or sexually assaulted at “Occupy” camps, those victimized by “Occupiers” and those now, stand in the way of the progressive agenda. As such, they were told by Keith to shut up and “take one for the team.”

Olbermann than went on several Twitter tirades against Breitbart in the hope of distracting from his own stupidity. He knows the rules. He knows there’s a bus out there with his name on it should enough progressives decide he hurts the cause more than he helps it.

Breitbart has the truth on his side, but truth is of little use to Olbermann and his fellow progressives. And neither are rape victims.

Keith continues to obsess over Andrew Breitbart like he was Rebecca Lobo, desperate to avoid that bus. He’s willing to do whatever he must to avoid the fate he willfully imposed on those women who did nothing beyond showing up to a protest progressives told them was good and pure. This is how progressives work.

You Are Being Lied To

I’d call progressives’ history of lies and distortions fascist tactics and remind everyone of how progressives in this country loved and were fascists in the 1930s. But there’s no need (again, see Jonah’s book). Not because they’re not, but because we all know the sun rises in the east.

That paragraph would not have been necessary at all if we had an honest media and education system. We don’t because that famous “liberal bias” everyone knows and loves is, at its core, a progressive bias. (For the most complete takedown of how the Progressive Industrial Complex works, please watch this video. Then share it on Facebook, Twitter and everywhere you can. People need to be shown how lies are spread so they can learn to spot them.)

Progressives in education, the media, unions and politics always will walk in lockstep with each other, destroying any and all who stand in their way (even their own), until they reach their desired goal. It’s not that they’re incapable of learning the mistakes of history, they’re counting on them. What else explains the president’s rush to spend this country into Greece? A desire to save the people who’ve always wanted to see Greece but couldn’t afford the trip?

The political Left destroyed the greatness of Europe and it wants to take down the United States next.

If liberals are allowed to rebrand themselves as progressives, shedding the baggage and animosity “liberal” has so rightly earned, liberty is more threatened. I still use the word liberal every now and then. I use them interchangeably. They are, after all, the same thing. But people need to be aware of that. Polls have shown “liberal” is unpopular, but people don’t feel the same way toward “progressive.” That has to be changed.

Every time leftists, regardless of what they call themselves, are exposed for what they really are, Americans reject them. Sometimes slower than others, but always. That’s why Barack Obama ran on “Hope and Change,” not “I’ll waste trillions and break us while slipping payoffs to my donors, raping your liberty…” etc., etc.

People are busy. They don’t have time to follow politics the way those of us who make our living doing it can. Nor should they. If we had an honest media, no one would have to. If we had an honest education system, no one would have to. If we had an honest government that adhered to the Constitution… You get the idea.

So that’s just a small snippet of why I use the word “progressive” instead of “liberal.” And why I think it’s important that you start too.

Also, don’t forget progressives are not just of one political party. You can’t pick them out by the stench of Zuccotti Park emanating off them like stink-lines in a comic strip. In 2008, John McCain couldn’t tell the world enough that he was a progressive. His idiot daughter likes to do the same thing. It’s a philosophy, not a party.

"Trying to honestly debate isues with a dishonest Q is a waste of time."- Spectrum

Mike G and I have been debating issues for over a year, without problems, because he explains a world view to me that will probably never resonate with me, but which I understand better now, thanks to his patience,-and I keep trying, too. If we had just called each other names, we wouldn't have gone beyond the first day, and a lot of interesting (to me) discussions would never have come to pass.

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”-Heinlein



"Heinlein’s quote is apt. Poverty is normal. Human economic desires are infinite, as any economic textbook indicates. Liberals attempt to use government to combat poverty. Since the desires are infinite, the liberals will grow government infinitely, which is certain to lead to societal failure.

Has anyone read Suicide of the West, by James Burnham, which is a startlng work of genius? Burnham proves that liberalism’s historic function is to provide for its believers a theory to justify the suicide of the capitalist west. Although Burnham wrote in 1964, he anticipated Obama, for whom liberalism provides the theory under which America’s leadership abroad and prosperity at home deserve to be relinquished."-Balzac

"If we had just called each other names, we wouldn't have gone beyond the first day, and a lot of interesting (to me) discussions would never have come to pass." MQ

Yes I agree! I don't think any of us will ever change our philosophy or point of view. For me, it is not about winning the argument but contributing my insight and gaining insight from others. As long as all points of view can be heard, then we all benefit, even if we never agree.

"Liberals attempt to use government to combat poverty. Since the desires are infinite, the liberals will grow government infinitely, which is certain to lead to societal failure." Spectrum

That is how I feel. There will never be enough government to eliminate poverty. If that is the goal then society as a whole would collapse trying. However, I think both government and individuals have a responsibility to combat poverty within reason and within limitations. Personally, I think our society can do a much better job then we are doing now to help the poor improve their lives. It does not necessarily mean much more resources but improved programs and management of those programs with the overall goal of helping the poor be more self sufficient and less dependent.

"If we had just called each other names, we wouldn't have gone beyond the first day,"........

Not really. Remember your pal Michael Turner? It was a pleasure to assist in his getting canned.

I wish to express my passion for your kindness in support of folks that absolutely need guidance on this important issue. Your personal commitment to passing the message across became surprisingly insightful and have really made others just like me to attain their dreams. Your new useful facts indicates a whole lot to me and substantially more to my office workers. Many thanks; from each one of us.

Wow! Thank you! I always needed to write on my blog something like that. Can I take a portion of your post to my website?