tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post9016071669482944275..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: Automaton NationGus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-86198745791530910462010-01-27T18:29:54.002-06:002010-01-27T18:29:54.002-06:00It's too bad they see education as the passive...It's too bad they see education as the passive absorption of content, rather than the nurturing of rational minds.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-55517261857658176852010-01-27T09:15:49.498-06:002010-01-27T09:15:49.498-06:00"He doesn't see a kids' classroom as ..."He doesn't see a kids' classroom as a different situation than, say, his upcoming State of the Union Address."<br /><br />I couldn't agree more! All of the leftists in government think this way as do most of the leftist press.Michael Neibelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15321103608597264855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-70164265213347395322010-01-26T19:01:11.678-06:002010-01-26T19:01:11.678-06:00"It says something about how difficult it is ..."<i>It says something about how difficult it is to change a culture and a country’s sense of life.</i>"<br /><br />Does it? That's what I'm wondering.<br /><br />On the one hand, what saved Americans here was their honesty: Once Obama's cards were on the table, the people left him. <br /><br />On the other, Americans are naturally suspicious of people wanting to change how they live. This unfortunately can translate to suspicion of a named "ism" -- as I think we see generally in Thomas Sowell. (Not that many "isms" don't deserve to be avoided!) To the extent that suspicion of ideology is a reaction to the many lousy ones out there, the problem will, in time, be solved (at least in part) by objectively presenting rational ideas. Therein lies a major challenge of intellectual activism.<br /><br />Overall, I suspect that improving the American culture may be easier in some respects than degrading it has been for the left. We have reality on our side and they don't: They have been working on this for DECADES. Granted, we're not out of the woods yet, but look what just happened to Obama.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-41429839923684657922010-01-26T18:29:11.730-06:002010-01-26T18:29:11.730-06:00So Obama and Sowell don’t ‘get’ each other’s ideol...So Obama and Sowell don’t ‘get’ each other’s ideologies and neither one is able to defend his own ideology in any sort of rational way.<br /><br />I wonder though that since Sowell’s ideology could be defended and Obama’s can not be that Sowell might just be open to reason if pushed hard enough to justify his ideas. After all, he would have no reason to invoke a psychological defense mechanism. For the most part the correct philosophy would actually justify his ideas, not threaten them. <br /><br />It is interesting that the American people elected Barack Obama and are now turning against him. What did they expect him to do once he was elected if not to do his best to institute socialism? His election has been somewhat puzzling to me since Obama’s agenda and ideology have always been completely obvious. <br /><br />Similar to other dictators (or would be dictators), Obama made the mistake of too much too soon. It may or may not turn out to be a fatal mistake but still the correct strategy would be slow and steady and under no circumstances show your true colors. <br /><br />So now the US has survived two attempts to socialize medicine. This is actually one of the very few recent promising occurrences since I don’t think that could happen in any other country in the world. It says something about how difficult it is to change a culture and a country’s sense of life.Steve Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-17025455908267834092010-01-26T17:22:35.538-06:002010-01-26T17:22:35.538-06:00Golf,
When I give homework, you learn from it, un...Golf,<br /><br />When I give homework, you learn from it, unlike in our state-run "education" system!<br /><br />Grant,<br /><br />Our state-level socialized medicine is the worrisome thing about the Brown victory. Many of his voters (and he) support Massachusetts's program. <br /><br />So at least ObamaCare got stopped in the short run, but Brown is an unreliable ally against some "Lite" form of it and that fact will make it easy for Democrats (and many big government Republicans) to argue that the American people are not really against big government.<br /><br />GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-53930977501995057822010-01-26T09:37:12.628-06:002010-01-26T09:37:12.628-06:00(Comment 2 of 2)
Once Ted Kennedy was gone, neith...(Comment 2 of 2)<br /><br />Once Ted Kennedy was gone, neither of those excuses were available to the average Massachusetts voter. Martha Coakley didn't have the accomplished political career that Kennedy (or at least his family) had, so if they wanted to avoid having to actually, independently define liberalism - instead of passing it off to their elected official to pretend like he had - voting for her was out. They only had one other option. They weren't going to be able to avoid having to define liberalism in some way, so they picked the first thing available to them: voting for Scott Brown. By voting for him they were able to pat themselves on the back and say, no matter what amount of secret self-doubt I have in my political convictions, and no matter how much I think I dislike Republicans, at least I'm true to the conviction that a democracy is best served by including as many viewpoints as possible. It's an extremely superficial approach to politics - the United States is not a democracy and truth is not arrived at by consensus - but it's something; which is better than the nothing of explicit nihilism. So they voted Scott Brown into office.<br /><br />It's tempting, I know, to think that even average people in Massachusetts realized just how bad Obamacare really would be, but the fact of the matter is that if there's any group of voters who should realize it but don't, it's Massachusetts'. After all, it was Scott Brown and the Republicans who made their state level version of Obamacare into law in the first place - and Brown certainly hasn't denounced that. If they were capable of even a viceral rejection of Obamacare, they certainly would have been able to realize that Brown had to be rejected as well. They voted for him only because he was "opposition" - a "loyal opposition", something liberals love to describe as essential - and the will of the people in today's culture is all about creating the illusion of self-esteem and values, instead of actually achieving those things. Obama did it for them directly in 2008; Scott Brown's mere presence helped them sustain it in 2010.GDWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09996586199024780592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-62374660073378823542010-01-26T09:36:42.539-06:002010-01-26T09:36:42.539-06:00(Comment 1 of 2)
Gus,
The irony, in my opinion, ...(Comment 1 of 2)<br /><br />Gus,<br /><br />The irony, in my opinion, is that the will of the people that saved us this time was exactly the same will that brought about the danger in the first place. My explanation for Brown's victory is the self-defeating nature of the liberal world view. What I mean by that is that because, ultimately, it doesn't correspond to reality, the only way to to continue to believe in it is to perpetually redefine it by means of non-essential characteristics. <br /><br />In the case of mainstream Massachusetts voters - which, regardless of party affiliation, are on the whole liberal - what sustained their support of Ted Kennedy for so long was that he provided them with the excuse they needed to not have to face the basic emptiness of liberalism. Whenever it threatened to expose itself, they could look to Kennedy for two things: one, the excuse that even if they didn't know exactly what liberalism stood for, he must. Why else would he be able to have such a successful career? And two, which is more relevant to this discussion, is that he provided a superficial impression of a committment to authentic political values people could fool themselves into thinking they had. Whenever the fact that liberals have no authentic political values to fight for - and that that's the reason why they're opposed to tradition (and not because they consciously regard certain conservative traditions and values as bad) - they could look at Ted Kennedy and take solace in the fact that he'd been in the same place for so long. It allowed them to believe that their world view was, at root, just as tried and true as the conservative (which does a better job of giving that impression). In other words: Ted Kennedy being in the Senate for 50 years "proved" that they aren't just a bunch of wishy-washy cry babies who are pathologically addicted to change, but that they're committed to stable government and law and order as well.GDWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09996586199024780592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-69014073353683601972010-01-26T07:59:56.842-06:002010-01-26T07:59:56.842-06:00Just what I needed. More homework. :)Just what I needed. More homework. :)Roy B. Santonilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14131736327790908822noreply@blogger.com