Good evening ladies and gentlemen, welcome to SDA Late Nite Radio. Tonight, for your delectation and pursuant to our Thursday night wild-card show, here is the famous story of Lake Peigneur (9:53): a good reminder to everyone to always be careful where you dig, obviously in the concrete, but also, I would postulate, in the abstract.
Your Reader Tips are, as always, welcome in the comments.
Unlike some diehard Harper supporters who are cherry-picking Harper’s speech to paint a very rosy picture of the man, I’m done with the CPC. I gave those guys the benefit of the doubt for too long. Here’s another quote from Harper’s speech that many seem to prefer to ignore:
“Regulators may have failed to prevent it [the financial crisis] but, in the end, it was a failure of the private sector to live according to the values we as conservatives know to be true.”
Sure, Stephen. Central banks turn the economy into a casino by pushing interest rates to absurdly low levels in the wake of the tech boom bust, forcing the private sector to gamble to make any money at all on housing and hedge funds, and now Harper is mad at people for gambling. He’s blaming the victim.
It was essentially the public sector, specifically government-run central banks, that were not living by “the values we as conservatives know to be true”. I find it bizarre and disturbing that Harper would not pick up on this.
Atlantic Jim:
Stephen Harper has forgotten more about conservatism than you will ever know – as your comment demonstrates.
The man who was one of the architects of the Reform parties constitution, was head of the NCC for several years and then took the decayed vestiges of the Reform Party, wedded it to the ashes of the PCP and managed to get this new conservative party to win two elections in a political climate that once had less than 25% of CDNS saying they were conservatives.
Once he became PM, in a very few weeks he changed how we pick our SC judges, reversed our foreign policy, began a tax-cutting programme that continues still, froze the operational size of the federal government and has begun returning power to the provinces in areas that are their juristiction. And he has begun to strengthen our crime and punishment and immigration laws and reform the senate.
During that same period the percentage of CDNS who consider themselves conservatives has risen as high as 45% and the percentage of CDNs who agree with general conservative principles: Low taxes, smaller govt, assertive international presenc, tough on crime to an even higher percentage – usually well over 50.
In November at the party convention He gave a speech that argued that the CP is “canada’s party”. And no one in the media snickered at the idea.
Yesterday he concisely (and brilliantly) outlined what it is that constitutes the conservative belief system in Canada. It is, I daresay, the first speech on conservatism ever given by a prime Minister. That is how far he has taken the conservative cause in the past few years.
If you and others want to nitpick about how he got there and say that he has watered down his conservative wine too much, please explain how praytell would you have done it differently and remained in power?
Behold the Appearance of the Invisibility Cloak
These experimental cloaking substances are the Cheshire Cats of materials science. The objects they enclose vanish at a selected mircowave frequency or light wavelength, leaving smiles among scientists who are developing this emerging technology…
Gordon 10:58
Very nice summation. PMSH is doing his best within the realm of the possible – without loosing power to the left. Its a real balancing act. In many respects it’s probably more important to keep the left out of power than it is for the conservatives to be in power. PMSH is stymieing the socialists and gradually moving things in the right direction.
Measure twice, drill once.
Glen Beck “Inconvenient debt”
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/20816/
Gord tulk – thanks, very nice summary.
Re: Hurricanes etc by Nemo2.
Ferget it dude, doesn’t match with the eco-green-kowasaki-goracle-msm modelling profile of the sky is falling. Don’t expect any real news coverage unless the MSM wonks can tie it to Sarah Palin’s daughter or Britany Spiers.
Iggy: the gift that keeps on giving to conservatives.
He said that?
“I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but I turned it down because I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up.”
The Separatist Coaltion is not a fable/story concocted by “right whingers”.
Liberal Ignatieff’s own words confirmn that the Separatist Coaltion was a reality.
Ignatieff was a co-conspirator in the left Troika of the Separatist Coalition.
Ignatieff wears his Albatross, the Separatist Coalition, forever, as his epitaph.
Send Iggy to the PET Cemetery.
…-
Ignatieff:
““I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but I turned it down because I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up,” Mr. Ignatieff explained Monday.
It’s actually an argument against the coalition made by Mr. Harper during the parliamentary crisis last fall.”
“Former Harvard Academic Moves Canada’s Liberals to the Centre”
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/13408/
STOPIGGY.
“Unintelligent Design: Scientists Ridicule UN, EU Climate Pseudoscience
More than six hundred scientists, economists, legislators, and journalists from around the world met in New York on March 8-10 for the second International Conference on Climate Change. Presentation after presentation documented the pseudoscience and dictatorial intentions behind the climate alarmism of the UN, EU, and Obama administration.
Rent Seekers at Davos
Conference keynote speaker Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic and the European Union, described environmentalism as a new collectivist religion that doesn’t want to change the climate but rather us. He lamented that the debate between climate warming alarmists and critics such as himself hadn’t advanced since he keynoted the first Climate Change Conference a year ago. He described his futile attempt to bring sense to a closed session of the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland attended by world business and political leaders. “No one shared my views,” President Klaus said. Instead, all were focused on preparing for the December 2009 Copenhagen meeting to supersede the Kyoto agreements. The climate ‘experts’ in attendance — such as Tony Blair and Kofi Annan — all took human-caused global warming for granted and potentially catastrophic. The debate at Davos was whether Europe and the world should submit to an 80% emissions cut, a 20% cut, or something in between.
President Klaus said he chided Davos attendees for talking up radical proposals when they hadn’t even been able to fulfill their modest Kyoto commitments. But trying to reason with the Davos people was like trying to reason with Communist officials before 1989 — they just regarded you as hopelessly ignorant or naive.”
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3822
Gord Tulk: Splendid post March 13, 2009 10:58 AM.
While, like nv53, I have issues with some of the language (limitations on freedom, which properly understood, should brook none; the notion that outcomes from government can EVER be superior to the free market), when we consider that politics is the “art of the possible”, it’s fair to say that PMSH has achieved the impossible.
We need to always remember that the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Finally, you confirm something I’ve always suspected: that Canadians, deep down, when they can get out from under that suffocating blanket of PC/multi-culti, are much more conservative than the long tryanny of Librano “Canadian values” suggested.
“Conservatives don’t believe big government is the solution to all problems….. But neither can conservatives believe today that the marketplace is the solution to all problems.”
That’s supposed to be a bedrock declaration of conservatism? One would be hard put to find anyone of any political stripe who believes any one thing is the solution to all problems. (except religious nutcases who believe Jeeezzus is the answer to all problems.)
“Faith in all its forms teaches . . . that there is a right and wrong beyond mere opinion or desire. Most importantly, it teaches us that freedom is not an end in itself, that how freedom is exercised matters as much as freedom itself.”
The Taliban have plenty of faith, family values and commitment to freedom, as long as the activity engaged in conforms to the dictates of their Morality and conception of Right and Wrong, as informed by their Faith.
There may be good reasons why some feel lucky to have Harper as PM, but they are not to be found in the utterly vacuous statements ET posted.
AJ thinks highly of Danny Williams,says it all right there.
I tried draining sloughs on a Sask. farm using that principle. Everything went well until Sask Water got a hold of my plans.
As a former supporter and ex-activist of CPC, I can only say to Mr. Harper that the game is on. I wonder only how long it will take for him to attack bloggers. Internet by its nature is libertarian – decentralized and voluntary. The power got over Harper’s head while CPC is fed by “wisdom” of small inner circle. As not long ago as the last fall they had no bloody idea where the economy is heading, neither they have now, just playing a tune that seems right at the moment. Oh well, perhaps it doesn’t matter what political color is the government, they just play historical role in the theater of falling confidence in political structures created by and for Industrial Age.
Can someone provide me a link to PMSH’s speech to the Manning Centre discussed above?
Thanks in advance.
Way to go Gord!
I wouldn’t trade PMSH for any conservative anywhere. He has set the bar for conservative leaders everywhere while working with a MINORITY government.
Chickens are racists?
…-
“German Company Launches Chicken ‘Obama Fingers’ Oblivious to Racist Overtones”
“Spiegel: “It was supposed to be a homage to the American lifestyle and the new US president.””
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=296623
philboy – your definition of the Taliban is incorrect; they do not promote freedom. Freedom is an attribute of the individual, and individuals have no rights in the Taliban world.
Instead, they believe – and I’ll refer to your comment, but change one term – You wrote:
“who believes any one thing is the solution to all problems. (except religious nutcases who believe Jeeezzus is the answer to all problems”.)
The Taliban believe that one thing, Islam and Unreasoned acceptance of its Sharia Rules, is ‘the answer to all problems”.
BCer- the link was provided above, but here it is
Harper
xiat – ‘ages’, such as the industrial age, don’t create political structures. People do that. Since Harper promotes decentralization and individual freedom, then why would he attack bloggers?
I suggest that you and philboy, check up on the difference between ‘tempered freedom’ and ‘personal will/desire’.
The first is individual behaviour tempered or constrained by reason (a capacity of the individual) and faith (an acknowledgment of the community).
The second is confined to the individual’s emotions and is untempered by anything. Not by reason and not by faith.
With regard to the Taliban, since the individual doesn’t exist, then, neither does Reason. Or freedom. Or faith, because only the individual can choose to have faith. If you accept something under authoritarianism then you don’t exist as a separate being.
“Wolfe in sheep’s clothing?
by William D Gairdner
On The Future of Liberalism by Alan Wolfe.
A political ideology may usefully be defined as a structure of interdependent ideas. It is like a building: if you can falsify the foundational notions in critiquing it, the whole structure will collapse. Readers already comfortable with the political leanings and beliefs of Alan Wolfe, a political scientist at Boston College, will enjoy The Future of Liberalism because it will make them feel—especially since the election of Barack Obama—that they are safely ensconced on the cozy side of history.[1] His critics—I am one—will appreciate the book because it is rare to find quite so much earnest and contestable special-pleading for modern “liberalism” between two covers. It is a book that calls to mind the droll complaint that to do things like physics, or mathematics, or chemistry, you need a pencil, some paper, and a wastebasket. But to do political science, you don’t need the wastebasket.”
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Wolfe-in-sheep-s-clothing–4027
Update from Angry: RRuby RedHot Liberal MP., from Iggy’s herd.
Wherein Our Lady of the Cliches suffers a “memory lapse”.
Copps hauls out/spouts the ex-Liberal PM PMartin, Jr. defence: I know nuttink.
(P.S. Forget the movie; wait for the book to come out.)
…-
“Update: Sheila Copps pops up in the story, and Chico Sihra said she attended the opening:
Sihra said the two-hour, 10-minute movie “was financed by me,” for about $200,000.
Not recalling the amount of government money provided, he said federal funds were granted for the premiere at a theatre which Sheila Copps, then heritage minister, attended.
Sheila Copps tells me that she has never heard of the Albion Cinema (I had wondered if the opening was at that theatre), and that she doesn’t recall “attending any opening for the film”.”
http://stevejanke.com/archives/284239.php
ET ..re: bloggers – I think Harper with his faith in tempering freedom and the poor understanding of need to communicate (two-way) is on collision course with Internet technology. Beside, HRCs are in the business of tempering freedom and they have their own reasons, right?
People create structures that are functional in certain conditions, but then again human consciousness is limited by the set of paradigms ….or as one can label it “faith”.
The recent Harper speech is just a self-satisfactory bubbling. The actions of this government speak for themselves: protecting bureaucracy as it is , hold to power with “balanced” if not muddled rhetoric, pamper Canadians with mushy patriotism and scare the voter with the other option. Status Quo, not more nor less.
The legacy* of the Narcissist O.
A found comment at Wretchards blog.
Leftists are suffering Buyer’s Remorse.
>>> “*Organizations are going to be killed under Obama’s plan. I may have voted myself out of a job, and voted a whole community of kids out of art-making opportunities. Frankly, this sucks.””
…-
Commenter twobyfour posts:
“I’m going to cry
Take out you hanky, MC, there may be some really sob stories coming like this one:
“I work for a small, 5-year old non-profit arts organization in Illinois. A couple of our usual big donors have indicated we should be prepared for smaller donations this year, and possibly none in the next couple of years. The[y] are mentioning Obama’s tax plans and their need to save money now in anticipation of that. A lot of my colleagues in the not-for-profit world are really scared right now, and we are not happy with Obama. We hear the rhetoric that the government is going to have a reserve to give to non-profits that will make up for some of the lost donations, but the fact is, we have never received federal aid, and likely never would (assuming the organization could even make it that far). Organizations are going to be killed under Obama’s plan. I may have voted myself out of a job, and voted a whole community of kids out of art-making opportunities. Frankly, this sucks.”
–Andrew Sullivan reader, Mar 1 2009
Hopechange ™!”
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/03/13/fear-and-gloating/#comments
…-
*”The “small people”, the “rank and file”, the “loyal soldiers” of the narcissist – his flock, his nation, his employees – they pay the price. The disillusionment and disenchantment are agonizing. The process of reconstruction, of rising from the ashes, of overcoming the trauma of having been deceived, exploited and manipulated – is drawn-out. It is difficult to trust again, to have faith, to love, to be led, to collaborate. Feelings of shame and guilt engulf the erstwhile followers of the narcissist. This is his sole legacy: a massive post-traumatic stress disorder.”
http://www.globalpolitician.com/25109-barack-obama-elections
Freedom is an attribute of the individual, and individuals have no rights in the Taliban world.
My, ET, what totalitarian proclivities you display, the slavish devotion to the perfection of the Dear Leader, the inability to countenance anything but absolute reprobation in the Other. You view a technicolor world in blinkered black and white.
Of course individuals operate as individuals in Taliban society. Their freedom to do so is circumscribed by their faith.
The Taliban would not have a problem with Dear Leader Steve’s statement:
“Faith in all its forms teaches . . . that there is a right and wrong beyond mere opinion or desire. Most importantly, it teaches us that freedom is not an end in itself, that how freedom is exercised matters as much as freedom itself.”
Faith is “an acknowledgment of the community”?
What the heck does that mean? What area of where the sun don’t shine did you pull that out of? It could mean anything…or nothing.
Your definitions are as vacuous as Dear Leader Steve’s asinine pronouncements, deliberately meaningless, all the more easily digested by the simple minded faithful, according to their preconceived notions.
xiat – your post is filled with contradictions.
For example, you state: “I think Harper with his faith in tempering freedom and the poor understanding of need to communicate (two-way) is on collision course with Internet technology.”
‘Faith in tempering freedom’ doesn’t make sense, and your conclusion that he’s on a collision course with Internet technology is unsubstantiated.
The HRCs are not, and were not, created by Harper. Each province has one, and you are ignoring that the CPC wants to remove Section 13.1 of the HRAct. You are also ignoring that Harper has a minority government and a Liberal dominated Senate. He can’t do what he wants in this situation and therefore, the movement against the HRCs has to be ‘from the ground’ rather than from ‘the top’. I’m sure you are aware that there is a great deal of focus on the ground against the HRAct.
You state: “People create structures that are functional in certain conditions, but then again human consciousness is limited by the set of paradigms ….or as one can label it “faith”.”
Sorry, but I don’t buy into the Kuhn theory of consciousness limited by paradigms. If that were the case, no dissent and no science could exist.
As for your other comments, they are your personal opinion and therefore, I won’t comment.
I obviously don’t agree.
Again, I think that you don’t understand the difference between ‘tempered freedom’ which is freedom tempered by reason and faith, and personal Will/Desire untempered by anything.
In addition, faith isn’t an irrational acceptance of dogma. After all, to accept dogma is an act of weakness. Faith is an acknowledgement of the ‘wisdom’ of the collective, i.e., that the community has developed rules and ethics that have some value for the community. It is an act of humility, of acceptance of the inadequacy of the human to ‘conquer all’. This collective wisdom is countered by the reason, the freedom to dissent, of the individual.
That’s why one puts Reason and Faith in the same sentence but not the way you did – ‘faith in tempering freedom’- which privileges faith (the collective) over freedom (the individual). The real interaction is dialogic not hierarchical.
Cui Weiping: I Am A Grass-Mud Horse
The “grass-mud horse” has now become the icon of online resistance to censorship. It seems that everywhere the “river crabs” go, the “grass-mud horses” grow in numbers.
Professor Cui Weiping teaches at the Beijing Film Academy. A literary and film critic and scholar, she is also known in Chinese intellectual circles for translating Václav Havel’s works into Chinese. She writes about the “Grass-Mud Horse” phenomenon…
ET, one man’s tempered freedom is another man’s Will/Desire. Who is going to say which is which? Dear Leader Steve? You? Mullah Omar?
Cui Weiping: I Am A Grass-Mud Horse
The “grass-mud horse” has now become the icon of on[snip] resistance to censorship. It seems that everywhere the “river crabs” go, the “grass-mud horses” grow in numbers.
Professor Cui Weiping teaches at the Beijing Film Academy. A literary and film critic and scholar, she is also known in Chinese intellectual circles for translating Václav Havel’s works into Chinese. She writes about the “Grass-Mud Horse” phenomenon…
“More at stake: How sexual politics in the Episcopal Church affects churches in Africa
A Sudanese priest recently had an eye-opening introduction to the U.S. Episcopal Church. John, a clergyman from the Episcopal Church of Sudan, sent an inquiry to the “justice missioner” on the website of the Diocese of Newark. The justice missioner responded to John’s email and informed him that her focus was advocacy for people with disabilities, people of color, and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex community.
Although fluent in English, John found this language incomprehensible. He knew Americans talked openly about homosexuality, but he was bewildered by the terms “transgender” and “intersex.” John asked the justice missioner if she prayed for healing of individuals with these disorders. She informed him that they didn’t need healing, only “full inclusion” in the church. John told her he was sorry that the diocese was leaving people in sexual brokenness. He urged her to bring them to transformation in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. With that, he never heard from the justice missioner again.
John is a former “Lost Boy,” one of some 33,000 southern Sudanese children who fled attacks by government-sponsored militias during Sudan’s more than two decades of civil war. He survived a three-year trek from Sudan to Ethiopia to Kakuma Refugee Camp in Kenya. Now he is the pastor of over 1,000 refugees at Kakuma.
John assumed that a church justice office would focus on human-rights issues like genocide in Sudan, religious persecution, poverty, hunger, and human trafficking. What he did not know was that in the U.S. Episcopal Church, affirming one’s sexual orientation is as much a justice and human-rights issue as genocide.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2206016/posts
Summers said: “fear begets fear.”
Au contraire, Fear is the puny, scurvy sister of Hope. The two emotions are forever yoked together in the human breast.
Where there is Hope; there is Fear.
…-
“Obama adviser says ‘excess of fear’ must be broken
President Barack Obama’s top economic adviser said Friday the nation’s economic crisis has led to an “excess of fear” among Americans that must be broken to reverse the downturn.
National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers said consumer spending seems to have stabilized in an encouraging sign, but he also suggested it was still too early to predict the timing of an economic turnaround.
In the meantime, he told a forum, a problem has been that “fear begets fear.””
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2205966/posts
philboy – no, one individual’s ‘tempered freedom’ can’t be equivalent to individual ‘will/desire’.
The latter is unaccountable to any standards. It is answerable only to its own emotions. The former can articulate the standards that constrain/temper the individual.
The latter is unaccountable to any standards.
Not true. They may be standards that you or Dear Leader Steve or Mullah Omar deem illegitimate, but that is only your, and Steve’s and Omar’s opinion.
If you and the Dear Leader can articulate those standards that you consider legitimate, then do so.
If you are going to call Harper’s vague position of being somewhere between absolute big government and absolute market freedom a brilliant exposition of conservatism, I think a bit of specificity is required.
So too with The former (tempered freedom) can articulate the standards that constrain/temper the individual.
Then articulate them.
ET and Gord , you have both done an excellent job at pointing out the weak arguments in the analysis WRT Prime Minister Harper’s speech.
I would add that there are many misrepresentations in these comments, such as this from Dennis:
“Regulators may have failed to prevent it [the financial crisis] but, in the end, it was a failure of the private sector to live according to the values we as conservatives know to be true.”
I believe Prime Minister Harper was referring to what he has concluded to be the greatest factor in the demise of the US economy. It was part of his explanation of why our economy did not tank so severely and will recover quickly.
xiat…I have no idea how you could stretch his statement into an attack on the internet.
nv53 “REASON teaches us right and wrong.” I totally disagree with this. Reason involves putting together logical arguments based on selected facts . . . it is possible to logically argue any side of any question, by simply selecting the facts that back up you position. I suspect that even Hitler felt he was using reason as he pursued mass murder. For sure all those eugenics experimenters did. What does “reason” tell us about the morality of abortion or mercy killing, capital punishment or even gay marriage?
Faith (or morality) as Harper refers to it draws upon a “higher” truth . . . and while this is hard to define in a precise way, there are very similar truths reflected in the teachings of most religions. One can similarly ignore religion and derive a notion of these truths by seeking out moral teachings that transcend the prejudices of the times. Likely such an exercise would lead to those teachings very similar to the universal truths taught by most religions.
Quite frankly — agree with him or not, I find it refreshing to have a leader even talking about morality and personal responsibility — doesn’t happen much these days.
“The Sound Of Settled Science”
…-
“Who makes up the IPCC?
13 03 2009
Guest post by Steven Goddard
Suzanne Goldenberg recently complained in the UK Guardian about the ICCC (International Conference on Climate Change) global warming “deniers” :
The 600 attendees (by the organisers’ count) are almost entirely white males, and many, if not most, are past retirement age. Only two women and one African-American man figure on the programme of more than 70 speakers.
In the UK, profiling like that might be considered a hate crime if it were about any other group other than the one she described. But that isn’t the point. Below is a photo of the vaunted IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change) taken at their last meeting. The spitting image of her description of the ICCC. No doubt Ms. Goldenberg considers the adult white men in the IPCC to be great visionaries, leading the noble fight against climate Armageddon.”
“Is it a big surprise that most senior scientists are adult white males? And what criteria did she use to choose the expertise of one group of prestigious scientists to the exclusion of another? Does she consider her personal climate expertise to be superior to Dr. Richard Lindzen, to the point where she can choose to simply ignore his opinion?”
“It is one thing to question the scientific conclusions of an organisation, and a completely different matter to make an ad hominem attack against an entire group – based on such witless criteria.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/13/who-makes-up-the-ipcc/#comments
philboy – I meant what I said. I wasn’t talking about different standards; I was talking about having standards vs not having standards.
Then, one can move into judging the value of standards – and this moves us into the economic infrastructure of a society. If the society is a small band, comprised of about 30 people, then, the standards of life are based around a rejection of individualism and a focus on sharing. These standards wouldn’t function in an economy with a much larger population which requires individual enterprise and innovation.
As for the standards that constrain the individual, in any societal system, they are focused around one rule: The Golden Rule – Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation’.
These therefore include integrity, consistency, justice, temperance.
Lindal – I disagree. I think that Reason most certainly teaches us ‘right and wrong’. Your definition of reason as only pertaining to logical frameworks is incorrect, for even though the logical framework may be valid, the premises may be irrational, empirically false.
For example, this syllogism is valid:
All men are wise
So and so is a man
Therefore So and so is wise.
But, though the syllogistic framework is valid, the conclusion is false. Why? That first premise, ‘all men are wise’ is, in itself, empirically false.
But I agree with you that we can ignore religion and seek out moral teachings that do indeed articulate common moral values. And we, as humans, over the centuries, have arrived at these by our use of Reason. And indeed, they are common.
Yes, I fully agree; it is refreshing to have a political leader talk about moral values.
Bluetech,
I don’t think I “misrepresented” anything Harper said. Your statement pretty much confirms what I did say: that Harper sees no significant role for central banking in causing this crisis, instead preferring to pin the blame on what some have called the “animal spirits” of investors. I outlined the reasons why this line of thinking is fallacious.
While it is true that our economy did not tank as quickly as the U.S., this may be more the result of a time lag, or the lasting effects of the oil boom, rather than the result of foresight by our supposedly super-smart regulators. Considering that the oil boom is now stalling, and that the auto sector bust is raging in Ontario, it may be our turn soon enough.
If you truly believe that our economy will recover quickly, then I hope you are right. But I do not believe this to be the case. This economic contraction will get a lot worse before it gets better, especially if we don’t convince our politicians to stop saddling the economy with all this monumentally unproductive stimulus debt.
Who is afraid of a beautiful polar bear Humvee?
“”We’re happy that we have a military vehicle because it is armoured and will protect us from polar bears.””
> They ain’t no polar bears in the Arctic. Sheesh these warmbats are so smart.
And … “a unique traversing of the bitterly cold and mysterious frozen sea ice of the Northwest Passage”.
And … They ain’t no “bitterly cold and mysterious frozen sea ice of the Northwest Passage”.
The ice is warm amd huggy and it’s not frozen, either.
They are slow learners.
…-
“Researchers plan trek across Northwest Passage
They plan to make polar history in a Humvee.”
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/602160
Decades of research; where’s the cure for cancer?
CCS smells.
…-
“Cancer Society looking for fund-raising volunteers
Canada.com – 9 hours ago
The Canadian Cancer Society is gearing up for their April fundraising campaign,”
This is how Bloomberg reports “refreshing” Harper
March 13 (Bloomberg) — Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in a speech yesterday that Wall Street, consumers and homeowners caused the global recession,
ET — Yes, my definition of Reason does limit it to logical frameworks, and of course conclusions can be incorrect if the premises are incorrect. I do, however, have difficulty conceptualizing Reason outside of such a framework. What then, is “Reason” and how do we access it?
I think that our notions of right and wrong depend on some sort of external authority. It used to be the Church. These days it is more likely to be an agreed upon set of positive human values . . . but already I am in trouble because Western humanist values do differ considerably from values espoused in many earlier societies and also those of many non-Western societies today. I am not sure how reason solves this dilemma.
Reason is a class of meta-information, Linda; here’s an example of how it works. It is not technically correct, ET, to say that the conclusion is false, as you said. The syllogism you provided is more accurately stated as: (1) If x is a man then x is wise, and (2) SAS is a man, therefore (3) SAS is wise. However, since (1) is false, as you noted, and since we have no other information about SAS in this sample problem, then neither modus ponens (confirmation of the antecedent, which is a bi-conditional that would require both terms 1 and 2 to be true to be itself true) nor modus tollens (denial of the consequent, based on a priori information) apply here. Therefore, without further information, the conclusion is indeterminate, that is to say: it is not determined one way or the other, by the given syllogism, whether or not it is true that SAS is wise; he may, indeed, be wise, even though some men are not. Denying a consequent based on a denied antecedent is a fallacy, as is confirming an antecedent based on a confirmed consequent; syllogistically speaking one can only confirm a consequent based on a confirmed antecedent, or deny an antecedent based on a denied consequent.
Re: “Reason is a class of meta-information, Linda” — Uh oh . . . if that is the case I think I may need to resort to religion to sort things out.
1991 Royal Tournament — Massed Bands
lindal – when you state that our notions of right and wrong depend on some ‘external authority’, what do you mean? External to what/whom?
Certainly, morality is a communal conclusion; in this sense, it is external to the individual. As such, it can indeed differ from era to era. As I pointed out, in a small band of about 30 members, the morality requires a great esteem for sharing and a low esteem for the individual.
I do think however that ‘the Golden Rule’ is basic to all human societies.
However, in economies that are, more or less, similar (industrial and high population) I think that the morals come, by the use of reason, to be common.
Reason is our ability to think, to empirically sense data, to analyze this data and come to conclusions about causes and relations.
I don’t think that ‘Reason is a class of meta-information’, in contradiction to Vitruvius. I think that Reason is a process rather than a ‘thing’; it provides both meta-information (abstracts, universals?) and particular information.
Vitruvius – you have changed my syllogistic Barbara framework into a sentential propositional IF-THEN framework. At least, the Major Premise has been changed to an If-Then proposition. I don’t think it makes much difference, although I see and accept your point about clarifying exactly how this major premise..and therefore, the conclusion, could be false. I, of course, agree with your outline of both modus ponens and tollens.
I only have one question. What is Me Too hanging on to?
http://www.break.com/pictures/why-is-he-wearing-a-dress685117.html
I think you are correct, Linda. I think that religion, or rather, faith, is just and exactly the neurological mechanism that we punt to (resort to) when situations are both too urgent and too complicated to allow us the luxury of restorting to reason. Faith is sort of like adrenaline, except that it operates at the neocortical level, rather than at the limbic level.
And roger that ET, fair enough. Now, may I invite your contribution to
tonight’s SDA LNR DLDI Symposium, which I have just now posted?
ET: “when you state that our notions of right and wrong depend on some ‘external authority’, what do you mean?” I do mean external to the individual, for sure. Even though individually we use our conscience to distinguish right from wrong, a conscience is simply like radar — it allows us to detect the moral position, act on it or not . . . but it is not the authority behind good and evil.
One’s conscience operates in response to some “yardstick” which defines what is right and what is wrong. This used to be the Ten Commandments (in the Christian world). Without such an authority, what is morally right is not clear. Take murder, for example. Who is to say it is wrong? Indeed in certain contexts some will say it is right.
Also, external to the society . . . since whole societies can sometimes get caught up in evil. Really, I think in his own mind Hitler thought he was saving the human race, as did many around him. We need something bigger than ourselves. . . a great spirit or collective consciousness. To some degree a society or a culture can be the mirror for what is morally right, but again, the society — even given a level of social consensus — does not really determine what is right.
I am not so sure about the Golden Rule being basic to all societies. We as individuals see the Golden Rule as a universal principle, but many societies would not . . . Sparta, Saudi Arabia, tribal societies where security and or dominance of a group takes precedence over “do unto others.”
Also “to empirically sense data, to analyze this data and come to conclusions about causes and relations” — isn’t this essentially equating reason with logic?
Lindal – I think that the Golden Rule is universal. I wrote it out; it would apply even in tribal societies.
I think that ethical standards, morality, are a product of the human mind. They are, as I noted, particular to societal structures, but, as our societal structures become more similar, so too do our ethical standards. I’m an atheist; I don’t believe in any ‘god-given’ rules.
Of course reason is logical! What else can it be? But logic isn’t simply about the format of the Argument; it also concerns the content of the assertions.