The Hexis

Quote of the Day

2010-04-23T23:55:00.002-06:00

“To each there comes in their lifetime a special moment when they are figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered the chance to do a very special thing, unique to them and fitted to their talents. What a tragedy if that moment finds them unprepared or unqualified for that which could have been their finest hour."
-Winston Churchill

Quote of the Day

2010-03-13T13:11:00.000-07:00

“Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” – Mark Twain

Warning: If you are easily offended…DO NOT READ!

2010-03-09T10:46:00.000-07:00

At great risk of upsetting all of my dear family and friends who are public school teachers, I discuss a book I recently read. I just have to respect a guy who is willing to take a stand.   Today that someone is John Taylor Gatto, author of Dumbing us Down and Weapons of Mass Instruction, New York City Teacher of the Year, 30 year veteran of public school instruction. He now has devoted his life to fighting for school reform. His latest book, Weapons of Mass Instruction, was a real eye opener for me.

I’ll give you two reasons to read this book

1. Most likely you have been to public school yourself or you have children or grandchildren in public school – and you ought to hear his ‘insider’ side of the story.

2. It is highly entertaining. More entertaining than anything you will watch on your flat screen tonight. It is funny, violent, inspiring, full of intrigue and conspiracy and there is plenty of drama. In fact, I am willing to bet that at some point it will make you cry. Gatto is hoping it will make you mad. Mad enough to want to act.

Everything you know about school is wrong. That is the title of the first chapter. This newest revelation in the schooling world is full of research, experience and stories to illustrate his strong opinion of what is happening and what should be done. He doesn’t apologize for his stand, he doesn’t sugar coat his ideas. If you pick up this book you will get some straight talkin’.

Here are just a few of his points:
1.    Education is essential.
2.    Schooling gets in the way of what is essential.
3.    Only you can educate yourself.
4.    Modern schooling was specifically designed for a purpose and it is fulfilling that purpose very well: creating consumers.

There is little point in arguing that we have an education problem in our country. We do. Some of the more recent school reforms have done nothing to help and have only tied the hands of dedicated teachers and further squelched the enthusiasm of students. We have a problem and we need to man up and do something about it. After reading Gatto’s books I feel absolutely certain we have the wrong people at the head of education in America. Let’s replace Arne Duncan with John Taylor Gatto. It won’t happen because I am positive Gatto won’t stand for Chicago politics messing with this nation’s children…even if their parents think it will bring hope and change . Or why don’t we oust Kevin Jennings, czar of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, founder of GLSEN (What is GLSEN??? Click here: http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/about/history/index.html?state=about&type=about) and director while this recommended reading list for your publicly schooled children between grade 7 and 12 was compiled (Warning, some of the content is very explicit: http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/booklink/7-12.html).

But wait, I slip back into my box-like thinking. One of Gatto’s points is that fixing things within the system isn’t going to work. It’s the system itself that is getting in the way of true educational reform. Why? When you are at the top, you just don’t want to change things.   And the system and methods of American education are designed to promote the consumerism our society is convinced is necessary for survival. Throwing 4.5 billion into a race to the top is really just the same spin over again to get the public thinking something is being done. And it is. Your money is being spent on a system that will help millions of children discover they really hate learning.

Have you read Gatto’s books? What are some of your ideas for changing the face of American education?

Quote of the Day

2010-03-05T15:16:00.001-07:00

No one but doctors and mothers know what it means to have interruptions. - Karl A. Menninger

Trying to finish a post......

Quote of the Day

2010-02-25T14:42:00.000-07:00

“I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; Believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.” – Judge Learned Hand

Kate Becoming

2010-02-24T15:29:00.000-07:00

Author Gene Stratton-Porter was delightfully skilled in the art of character development. She had a gift for walking a character right through the trials of life to be worked upon and end up reaching the full measure of their character – for good or for bad. Her work is splendid.

Daughter of the Land is a story about Kate Bates, a woman with a dream. She is a woman living in a man’s world with a mind for business and a strong work ethic, but life has a way of sending trials. Kate Bates is so real, so fallible, and so strong. One of my favorite quotes from the book is, “So Kate ‘cut that idea out’ at once, but the operation was painful, because when one turns mental surgeon and operates on the ugly spots in one’s disposition, there is no anesthetic, nor is the work done with skillful hands, so the wounds are numerous and leave ugly scars; but Kate was ruthless.” I love Kate for it. She sees her own weakness, and takes it head on. She sees where she has made mistakes. Mistakes that most people use as an excuse not to make anything of themselves, but Kate takes on her ‘ugly spots’ and makes them shine.

As often as not I wanted to throw this book across the room. Reading about hard knocks can be painful. But I hung in there and was rewarded with the final idea that “the more we get hurt in this world the decenter it makes us...it really seems as if failure and hardship make more of a human being of folks than success.” I am enjoying pondering that idea. All success and no failure or hardship doesn’t stretch us to become. Kate is an example of becoming.

My one caution and warning is that the edition I purchased from Amazon is not edited well. It can be irritating to read so many errors! Stratton-Porter has written other marvelous books. I can heartily recommend Laddie, Freckles and A Girl of the Limberlost as well as A Daughter of the Land. If you are in the mood for a lovely healing book, pick up something by Stratton-Porter. Some of the most prevalent values in our country, once so common and now nearly extinct are oozing from her books. It is a delight to spend some time reading about salt of the earth people who win at life in spite of adversity that seems nearly impossible to overcome.

Quote of the Day

2010-02-23T22:44:00.000-07:00

“Waiting your turn is often the worst way to get what you want.” - John Taylor Gatto

Glass Botto"n" Boats

2010-02-18T10:06:00.001-07:00

I spent 2 years in Mexico from Dec 1990 thru Oct 1992. I loved it. If you had asked me back then, I would have guessed that I would have been back many times since. Odd thing is I never went back. Until now. Twenty years later (actually 17 1/2) I went back to Mexico for the first time. And guess what? I still love Mexico. Why? The regular-Jose’s (Joe), the regular-Juan’s (John) and regular-Maria’s (Mary) in Mexico are some of the nicest people I have ever met.

Oh sure the Canadians are nice, as Rick Reilly points out here http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=reilly_rick&id=4906756. I have been to Vancouver and the surrounding areas (Abbotsford, Victoria, Surrey) many times – even Kelowna. I lived in Montreal for four months, and have visited Toronto, Mississauga, Windsor, etc. Sure the people of Canada are nice. But they aren’t Mexican nice.

I lived in Brussels for a few months too – and I’ve visited (multiple times) many European countries. Spain is wonderful. Friendly too. There was a different level of friendliness on the subways in Spain than I experienced in, say, Austria, or Germany, or Switzerland. Even French people are surprisingly nice if you try to speak a little French…don’t boisterously walk around like you own the place…and show a little respect for their wonderful country. The same could be said for Great Britain, the Czech Republic, BeNeLux, etc. But there’s something a little more open and warm about Mexicans: Kindness.

I went to a store in Mexico named “Soriana” (think of an enormous Fred Meyer or Dominicks or Wallmart.) After I purchased my mangos, an older man approached me. He started asking me how to say certain things in English. Things like “I am a carpenter” and “I will fix your doors, your windows, tables”, etc. Where he lives, near Los Cabos, work has dried up, and lots of English-speaking people have built homes. He hopes to go door to door letting them know that he can do repairs or build them whatever they may need. He was having particular trouble with the word “fix.” The -cks sound at the end wouldn’t come off for him. But he kept at it. I wrote down some phrases for him on a piece of cardboard he was carrying. After we finished, and he had shaken my hand umpteen times, and invoked blessings from Heaven upon me, I tried to give him his pen back. He wouldn’t take it. He wanted me to have it. He said that I had given him help, and he wanted to give me his pen in return. Not in so many words, but the meaning was understood. A small gesture, to be sure, but one not lost on me.

Another time we took a taxi way out from the city. Past the pavement. Not only did the taxi driver come back for us on time; on our way back downtown, we realized we were out of baby wipes for our 10-month old. He took us way out of our way to get some more. He parked and went into the store and did some minor shopping while we did ours. Then he took us up and down a few streets to show us some interesting sites. And in the end he charged us the same fare as the first trip out of town. His reason? He said he wanted us to feel welcome in Mexico.

There was someone else in our group that needed to drive to a gated resort for a party, but didn’t have directions. She stopped and asked a Mexican guy on the street. He and his friends started talking – but realized there was no good way to tell her without getting her lost. So – he jumped in his own car and said, “follow me.” He drove her to the front gates. No pay.

I know Mexican people don’t have a corner on the kindness market. But how many of you can imagine these types of experiences in Germany, England, or France? It might happen. But it happened so often in Mexico that it appeared to be the rule rather than the exception.

I know we have major problems with Mexicans and the US Border. It drives me crazy and needs to be fixed. I also know there are little things that make us laugh a bit at Mexico. The many peso devaulations over the years. The crazy border crossing stories. The dusty roads and corrupt government officials. One snorkeling boat we were on was misspelled with “Glass Botton Boat” painted on the side. We saw “looby” for “lobby”, any many other funny signs.

These kinds of things make us laugh, and maybe cause us to look down on them a bit. It might even make us feel superior at times. But that would be a big miscalculation.

The people I lived among 20 years ago and for the last 2 weeks have one thing in common: they are helpful, cheerful and kind beyond measure — even in less than brilliant circumstances. I think having this kind of attitude toward our fellow human beings is one big lesson we can learn from them. Hopefully the lesson will not be lost on me.

The Great Global Warming..... Religion?

2010-02-02T11:47:00.008-07:00

My first foray into speaking out against the global warming hoax was when I made CDs of a youtube video – the Great Global Warming Swindle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs) – back in 2006 and distributed them at my place of work in Portland, Oregon. It was a big hit. I did it anonymously on a bulletin board (the old school kind with cork and pins) and had fun listening to people talk about it in Cubicle-landia. A couple of people thought it was crap, but most of them – being software developers, engineers, and project managers accustomed to using logic and reason – seemed to enjoy the fact that they were beginning to understand the science involved, or lack thereof. Al Gore’s claims just didn’t add up, now matter how many inconvenient truths he claimed to have found.

I personally think that his biggest “inconvenient truth” was that the real-world data didn’t support his claims of impending doom, and he chose to ironically name his book on purpose. It was his way of getting back at the American People for not voting him into office in 2004. Some say.

Continuing in this personal vein, I have a brother who we lovingly refer to as “RESEARCH!” because if you ever want something found on the web, or anywhere else for that matter, he can do it. He even found a very hard to find clip of a soccer goal scored in an obscure indoor league in the upper Midwest of the USA after many others had attempted to do so and failed. Oh, and not only that, but he ended up with a new friend in the team’s front office. (Some people have it, others don’t.) But more on him in a second.

I made a discovery of my own recently, with help from my favorite British bloggers at the Telegraph, about the man behind a lot of the mis-information on Global Warming. Read about it here http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/

Basically, the jist of it is that one man, Cambridge-based scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley, hijacked Wikipedia for his own Global Warming Doom Campaign. First, he edited thousands of articles to only include data that he and his political agenda agreed with. Then, he obtained administrator privileges on the site, and either removed articles or black-listed thousands of contributors that were trying to publish truly scientific information that was detrimental to his crusade. How is this possible on a supposedly open-community like Wikipedia claims to be? Furthermore, the company Connolley helped found, Real Climate, pumps out information about the realities of global warming, knowingly modifies and hides real scientific data, and vociferously attempts to discredit anyone who may disagree with their agenda.

You know, when I was a child, there were certain types of people that you trusted. The Police. Firefighters. Teachers. Parents. Pastors. And Scientists! These were the guys doing their best to understand our world, and make sense of it through true scientific discovery, uncluttered with politics and agendas. I remember idyllic trips to San Francisco, or the wetlands at the California coast, where we visited museums, planetariums, and marshlands to learn about new scientific discoveries. Well, we all know the dangers of Pastors now (thanks Catholic Church), and the Police (just type in police brutality on youtube). I’m not saying that we can’t trust them at all - of course not. But we need to be more wary than we once were…and, sadly, we need to add Scientists to this list. Why? Because of the politicization of the global warming debate, and any other debate where there are massive amounts of money to be “politicized” away from people like you and me.

Here's a quick time line on the Global Warming debate over the last nine weeks, courtesy of ... “RESEARCH!”

1.    World-leading British and US scientists get busted for fixing data, pressuring science publications, and breaking the law. (They won't be prosecuted because the events are more than six months old and British authorities are claiming action needed to be quicker. The Brits are arguing about this now...
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/politics-propaganda/6249-climategate-is-the-british-government-conspiring-not-to-prosecute

2.    Copenhagen Summit...TOTAL collapse. Massive December snow storm that hasn't happened there in ~13 years. (see Gore Effect) Russia leaves early. Obama shows up at the meeting only to find himself late. China, India won't play ball... The US Senate would need 67 Senate votes so this was all an exercise in futility anyway to placate Left-wing base...

January 2010

3.    An administrator in British climate office accidentally(?) blurts out in an email/blog that the way they test for warmest/coldest winter is to take the warmest 15 temperatures of the season. That's "15 *warmest* temps". Is this really the scientific method? C’mon….

4.    IPCC head (Rajendra Pachauri) admits the data for the Himalayan Glacier 'facts' are not based in science but on "comments" in a phone conversation made by a basic 'nobody' from almost 10 years before.
a.    Pachauri says he didn't know about this Himalayan error
b.    Asian sub-team that wrote that section admits to knowing the data wasn't there...but that they included for "political reasons".
c.    Due to FACTS coming out that prove Pachauri knew about the Himalayan error BEFORE Copenhagen, he admits he DID in fact know about it...

5.    Last week…another ‘oops’: IPCC section written about Andes mountains losing snow/ice is actually based on a student’s anecdotal interviews with hikers/climbers and is published in a HIKING magazine…not a peer reviewed journal.

6.   Just yesterday it came out (London Times) that the IPCC data ‘proving’ the S. American rainforests are in danger is bogus. OOPS!

7.    Canada, Russia, New Zealand scientists have all come out this month saying the data collected in their country is probably ‘cherry picked’.
a.    Example: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/
b.    Example: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Scientists+using+selective+temperature+data+skeptics/2468634/story.html

February 2010

8.    Published today…turns out the data from China used by an IPCC leading scientist – Phil Jones (see item #1 above) has been manipulated with, among other things, whole weather stations having been moved. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud

Combine these scientific shams with an obvious agenda that is being perpetrated by people like the William Connolleys and Al Gores of the world, and you have a massive mis-information propaganda machine. If you get stuck wondering what the propaganda is for, just think of the TRILLIONS of dollars that are going to be taxed, capped and traded! And to top it off, anyone that doesn’t believe in the “Religion” of Global Warming is a fool. Why religion? Where have you seen so much faith demonstrated in a world where participation in organized religion has fallen so far? It takes a lot of faith for the believers to believe in something that they cannot see, and the data does not support. The believers also defend their belief with a fanatical enthusiasm – in the face of mounting data against their claims. I wonder if the Christians that were persecuted for their faith in old Roman Empire times aren’t a little bit proud of the zealotry being displayed by these new "believers."

Lessons from Jane

2010-01-20T10:49:00.001-07:00

I just finished reading Jane Eyre again. Once again I am reminded why I love that book: Principles, Laws and Helen Burns. At least that is my answer this time. What mother doesn’t read that book and have a deep desire for her own daughters to be as principled and strong as Jane? How many nineteen year-old girls today choose principle and natural law over the whims of the heart (or something totally frivolous)? Exactly.

Jane begins life in want of affection. So much so, that she believes to be loved is above all other cares. In great wisdom, her dear friend Helen Burns sets her straight, “Hush, Jane! You think too much of the love of human beings; you are too impulsive, too vehement: the sovereign hand that created your frame, and put life into it, has provided you with other resources than your feeble self, or than creatures feeble as you. Besides this earth, and besides the race of men, there is an invisible world and a kingdom of spirits: that world is round us, for it is everywhere; and those spirits watch us, for they are commissioned to guard us; and if we were dying in pain and shame, if scorn smote us on all sides, and hatred crushed us, angels see our tortures, recognize our innocence … and god waits only the separation of spirit from flesh to crown us with a full reward. Why, then, should we ever sink overwhelmed with distress, when life is so soon over, and death is so certain an entrance to happiness – to glory?”

Thank you Helen Burns. How many of us, as children, as teenagers, as grown women, put too much stock in the love of human beings, the acceptance of human beings, the validation of human beings? Think fashion marketing, cosmetic surgery, and teenage pregnancy... It’s really sad. Do we as adults look to a higher power for the love we desire, or do we only look among those ‘feeble creatures’ like us?

When she finally does find love and affection, it comes at a high price. In a very decisive moment Jane contemplates: “Laws and principles are not for the times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise in mutiny against their rigor; stringent are they; inviolate they shall be. If at my individual convenience I might break them, what would be their worth?” Ah, Jane. What would be their worth if in our trying moments we set them aside for what is easy, or convenient or temporarily delicious to our hearts?

Following her moment of decision, Jane experiences a very difficult and truly humbling experience. One that pushes her to the edge of wishing for sudden death. But she pulls through. Of course she pulls through. She has a divine maker watching over her. After the difficulty passes Jane says, “Yes; I feel now that I was right when I adhered to principle and law, and scorned and crushed the insane promptings of a frenzied moment. God directed me to a correct choice: I thank His providence for the guidance!” She recognizes the significance of standing firm in her resolve. Jane stuck with the principles she believed to be true, though very difficult, and now has the benefit of knowing her choice correct. The added beauty of it is that when she stayed true, she was blessed with what she wanted most, but this time not at the cost of righteousness. Her maker did not abandon her.

So now I ponder - how do I teach that strength, that fortitude? How does one encourage standing steadfast in truth and in principle to a young generation when our culture does not even know what those words mean? Jane had mentors like Helen and Miss Temple, Diana and Mary and St. John to help her, to stand as models before her of these attributes. We must be the mentors for our young. We must model that strength of principle and adherence to law in our daily moments of decision. We must do it even when we are worn down and tired and it’s hard. We must do it with love. And then, because we can never be as perfect as a character in great fiction, we can put before them the examples that we know inspire this character development. Once we know Jane Eyre and Helen Burns and Diana and Mary Rivers, we can put them before our daughters as mentors. My next question is - what are you going to do now?

America as the New Israel

2010-01-13T11:01:00.000-07:00

Since a few people have asked for it, here are a few quotes 'n' sources to start learning about early American leaders' beliefs of America as the New Israel.

"We shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us...," Puritan John Winthrop wrote. The Puritans who disembarked in Massachusetts in 1620 believed they were establishing the New Israel. Indeed, the whole colonial enterprise was believed to have been guided by God. They had seen Haley's comet, and believed that it was a sign for a new Millennium or new Order, which they were going to build on the new continent. See "Mayflower" by Nathaniel Philbrick.

"We cannot but acknowledge that God hath graciously patronized our cause and taken us under his special care, as he did his ancient covenant people," Samuel Langdon preached at Concord, New Hampshire in 1788.

George Washington was the "American Joshua," and "Never was the possession of arms used with more glory, or in a better cause, since the days of Joshua, the son of Nun," Ezra Stiles urged in Connecticut in 1783.

Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson proposed Israelitish images for America's Great Seal. Franklin proposed Moses dividing the Red Sea with Pharaoh's army being overwhelmed by the closing waters. Jefferson urged a representation of the Israelites being led in the wilderness by the pillar of fire by night and the cloud by day.

These are some specific examples. There is more written about it in Russell Kirk's masterpiece "The Roots of American Order".

The Covenant was restored in modernity in America, on a continent that had been kept secret from the rest of the world for generations in order to be a free land expressly for the purpose of re-establishing the Covenant.

And don't forget to read about a New Jerusalem that will be built in America, which also draws parallels between America and Israel. Not that I have seen any early American political leaders write about this topic specifically, but I have seen in John Adams' writings that they knew they were engaged in something amazingly grand with the help of God.

All of the Cookies are not in the Jar

2009-12-20T21:32:00.000-07:00

Adam Smith. Karl Marx. Frederic Bastiat. John Maynard Keynes. Milton Friedman. Murray Rothbard. Paul Samuelson. No, these are not name contenders for the new family pets. These are some of the economists who have become dinner table conversation at our house this year. We discuss which ideas we like and we smile and laugh. We discuss which ones we don’t like and we boo and hiss. We talk about which ideas got used and which ones didn’t. We dream about what it would be like if we actually tried some of the better ones. We discuss which ones we are living and really shouldn’t be. So, pull up a chair and join in.

The one concept of Keynesian economics, the theory introduced by John Maynard Keynes, that has not so silently become a prevailing thought in our country is that of Agenda. Keynes said that economic ‘experts’ should determine the Agenda and Non-Agenda of our nation and then politics should be the vehicle for creating new forms to achieve the Agenda. Now, in my house when someone has an agenda and sends someone else out to create a path to achieve it, somebody is going to end up in tears. Unfortunately, it isn’t all that different in politics – only the taxpayers generally end up crying. Economists are like the big sisters who send little brother to eagerly sell the idea of cookies before dinner to the parents. This is exactly what our government LOVES about Keynesian economics. They have someone else – an economic ‘expert’ – think up a new policy or program that appears to solve some of the current problems in our economy. Then the politicians can work to sell it, implement it and take credit for it. They definitely get their cookies too.

Prevailing Keynesian economic thought holds that the best way out of a pinch in the economy is to spend. Spending will make the economy grow, and a growing economy looks great on paper. That is what the stimulus package was all about. It’s called fiscal policy. We have been practicing this idea of spending our way out of trouble for quite a few years now and what it seems to do in actuality is increase our debt. “The burden of debt is as destructive to freedom as subjugation by conquest,” (Cleon Skousen, The Five Thousand Year Leap). Adam Smith, an economist who influenced our founding generation, was a proponent of laissez-faire or ‘let it alone’ economics. He taught a sound economic principle: The way to wealth for individuals is to save and invest wisely. The way to wealth for nations is for the individuals of that nation to save and invest wisely. A government is made up of people and for the economics of the nation to be sound, the economics of the people must be sound. It doesn’t work the other way around. In other words a country cannot be wealthy unless its people are wealthy. “The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations,” (Skousen, The Five Thousand Year Leap). How does that fit with what we are choosing today? See how too many cookies before dinner can ruin your appetite?

Another Keynesian concept is that the government should be making the decisions people are not making. I don’t know about you, but last I checked ‘government’ doesn’t have a brain with which to think. What it does have is a collection of people, hopefully some with brains, who make decisions on behalf of us all. Bastiat, a French economist who fought for a free market, said that collective rights should be an extension of individual rights. The government cannot enforce a right or extend a right that does not exist for the individual. The government has the right to protect, by force, personal property because individuals have the right to protect their own property by force. By the same logic the government does not have the right to equalize property (through taxes, etc.) because individuals do not have the right to take wealth from one citizen in order to equalize the wealth and give to another. Does your daughter have the right to take away her little brother’s cookie and give it to the neighbor girl? No, of course not. It isn’t just. She can give her own cookie away, but she can’t take one from someone else and give it to another. Funny, but kids get this. They know plunder is wrong. That’s why they sneak. We voters seem to forget that just because plunder is legal, it doesn’t mean it is right.

So, if you are getting ready to spend your next stimulus check, let me give you some sound advice. Save it. It will do more good than the spending. Government isn’t its own entity. It is a collection of people, of families. If we are not saving, if we are choosing to support the policies that are prevalent in government today, we are agreeing with them. If you don’t agree with the prevailing thought. If you don’t like the idea of government agenda, of increasing debt, of the state as an entity, what are you going to do about it? My suggestion…do a little reading. Discuss it with your family because, as Ronald Reagan said, “All great change in America begins at the dinner table.” Oh, and you should probably have some cookies ready.

Was Murray Rothbard a "quack"?

2009-12-19T00:49:00.000-07:00

I have heard it claimed that the recently deceased Nobel laureate economist Paul Samuelson called fellow economist Murray Rothbard a “quack.” At first I scoffed at the idea. How could someone like M. Rothbard, so versed in logic and deductive reasoning, be a “quack”? I love how Rothbard, in his economic treatise “Man, Economy, and State”, uses logical deduction to build up his economic theories and axioms step by step. I was happy to see an answer to the question of “where does price come from?” that is exactly the opposite to what I had been taught in my microeconomic courses at Oregon State University. I had been taught that the price of consumer goods is determined by the costs of land, labor, capital, etc. Rothbard explains logically how those costs are actually determined by what consumers will pay for the product. In other words, the consumers ultimately determine the price of goods! I believe Rothbard’s logic to be accurate. So, what about the “quack” comment? I tried to understand what would cause Samuelson to say such a thing. As I continued deeper into the treatise, my disregard of the comment began to weaken as I read more of Rothbard’s refutations of his own critics. I found that his arguments in his own defense were sounding strikingly similar.

First, a clarification: Paul Samuelson is a “Keynesian” economist, one who believes in implementing fiscal policies at a national level in order to keep the economy humming. These policies are supposed to smooth out the business cycles of boom and bust. Murray Rothbard is an “Austrian” economist, staunch believers in a free market and minimal government intervention into economic decisions.

When detractors like Samuelson attack the Austrian economic pillars of a free market system, Murray Rothbard can only point to the underlying logical principles of the free market to prove that it works. There is a dearth of case studies or real world examples for him to draw from. For example, when critics claim that a free market system is disruptive to society because it necessarily advances too many product innovations that threaten the peace of society, Rothbard cries out that, logically, in a free market, entrepreneurial foresight will be utilized and taken advantage of as much as is possible and desired by consumers. When critics claim that a free market system slows down innovation due to capitalist resistance stemming from a desire of a return on their previously invested capital, Rothbard declares that by logical reasoning, in a free market system, producers of goods will allocate the various factors of production in the most efficient manner possible. In other words, the free market naturally and logically has forces working that are always moving toward efficiency and customer satisfaction. I agree with these logical deductions and, like Von Mises and Bastiat before him, I am a proponent of a laissez-faire economic system with as little government intervention as possible.

But this logically constructed world of Rothbard’s does not exist, and that’s the rub.

There was no major economic system during Rothbard’s time that adhered to the principles he was advocating. There still is not today. There is no proving ground for his theories other than the written word and the adept use of logical arguments. As long as Rothbard can condemn Alfred Marshall’s use of mathematical equations as nonsensical and devoid of meaning due to Marshall’s assumptions being overly simplified and based on the concept of a “long run” economy that never actually exists in the real market, critics will be able to point to Rothbard’s theories and axioms that are based on a world that is not actually in existence, and claim he is a “quack.” My sympathies are growing for the accuser, although I am not in his camp. He seems to be saying that there is something missing from Rothbard’s analysis, and I am beginning to agree. I understand that Murray Rothbard’s free market world is loaded with idealisms that he doesn’t explicitly state; he doesn’t take his discussion of requirements for the ideal market into the political realm. Yet I also understand that by making a treatise of this magnitude, with its very foundation based on political and free market ideals, he is tacitly proposing them. Hear, hear! I applaud the effort and the proposition.

However, until and unless a society will adopt the principles he proposes and becomes more like Rothbard’s ideal free market system, there will be something patently missing from his treatise. I don’t believe he needs to go so far as to develop his own eschatology or raison d’être for mankind. I agree with Rothbard that that work should be left for religion and philosophy. But a greater emphasis needs to be put on how to implement his ideas in the real world: how and what needs to be done to correct our current economic crises? If interest rates are really supposed to be dependent upon how much people save and invest – as Rothbard explains logically – what are specific steps he would take to remediate our reliance on a central bank that artificially adjusts the market interest rates to low levels even when saving is non-existent? How would he purport to demonstrate to Americans that an elevated demand to consume leads to lower wages because it causes capitalists to discount to a greater degree the marginal value of the products that the workers are producing? And since the marginal value of a product is directly linked to the payment of labor (wages), high demand to consume is detrimental to their pay?

Rothbard’s treatise is great. I especially love it for its clear and methodical explanation of how an economy would work on a desert island and inside an evenly rotating economy where all uncertainty is removed. Once we see how an economy would work in these imaginary examples, he adds uncertainty and constant change in order to demonstrate how a modern economy will work within a truly free market. But it needs to be followed up with practicalities that can make a difference in the world in which we live, not only in imaginary ones – because the truly free market Rothbard posits is just as imaginary as his desert island or his evenly rotating economy.

God's Chosen People

2009-12-19T00:41:00.000-07:00

In the greatest movie ever made, named “Chariots of Fire”, five young British men are chronicled through their university years on their way to Olympic glory. Four of the men met and became friends at Cambridge University in post-WWI England. One of these young men, a Hebrew, won a race against an old courtyard clock that had not been won by any man in 800 years. Upon learning of the feat accomplished by this freshman Hebrew student, one University Master said to another, “perhaps they truly are God’s chosen people.” It has been said multitudes of times throughout the ages that the Hebrews are the “chosen people of God.” But why? What made them God’s chosen people, and what does it mean to be the chosen people of God?

To understand this, we must return to the days of Abram and Sarai in the Torah. In Genesis we read that Abram left the home of his father in Ur, and traveled to Canaan. Abram chose to live a righteous life among wicked and idolatrous people in this land. His new neighbors on one side, the Amorites, were a wicked people. His other neighbors, the kingdoms of Sodom and Gomorrah, were so wicked that not 20 righteous people could be found within the walls of these cities. Abram’s nephew, Lot, and his family went to live among them, but Abram kept himself separate in order to keep his household righteous and obedient to the commandments of God.

After being in Canaan some years, the neighboring peoples had a fight. A group of kings attacked the area near where Abram lived, and carried away many people, flocks, and riches, including Abram’s nephew. Abram went and defeated the army, but he cited his obedience to God as his reason for refusing to engage in plunder. He further displayed his decision to be righteous by paying tithing to the King of Salem on what he did keep for the sustenance of his men. These are outward displays of Abram’s righteousness. But Abram was also a wealthy man, and many people say it is easier to be righteous when one is wealthy and everything is going your way. But not everything was going well for Abram.

Abram’s wife, Sarai, was barren. As a couple, they were getting along in years, and I’m sure the lack of children weighed on them greatly. In spite of being old, childless, and stricken in years, Abram believed the Lord’s promise of seed as numerous as the stars. (Gen 15) He remained faithful to God even though it must have been difficult if not impossible to understand how this promise would be fulfilled given their age. When Isaac was finally born to Sarai and Abram, I imagine the joy was overwhelming. But then Abram – now Abraham (Gen 17) – was tested in the ultimate test a man can bear: he was commanded to sacrifice his son. Throughout all of these experiences Abraham remained righteous and obedient, and this is the reason God made His covenant with him. This is why Abraham became “chosen” of God. His son Isaac and grandson Jacob followed in his footsteps and the Lord renewed the covenant with them – also due to their righteousness and obedience.

When the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob escaped from Egypt in the 2nd book of the Torah, the covenant was renewed with them. Exodus and Deuteronomy are the most amazing books of the Torah for me because God clearly lays out the covenant, His expectations, and the blessings that will come to his chosen people if they will be righteous and obey his commands. (Exodus 20, Deut 28-29) The Lord also explains the curses that will come upon them if they do not obey Him. He then prophesies that due to unrighteousness the Hebrews will reap the curses and not the promised blessings; and that when the time finally comes around – presumably many years later because of the years of sorrow and curses will take place – when the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob returns again to God in righteousness and obedience, they will be accepted, again, as the chosen people of God. (Deut 30)

But why? Why will they still be God’s chosen people? It is because God promised in the Torah that if they will return to obedience and righteousness they can become so. So who can become the chosen people of God? Those who righteously obey His commandments. That is why Abraham was chosen. That is why the covenant was renewed with Isaac and Jacob. Disobedience and wickedness lost the children of Israel these same great blessings, and brought a calamitous curse upon their nation – and their promised blessings were given to others in stead. The founders of the United States of America believed that America is the re-incarnation of ancient Israel and that America is reaping the blessings that ancient Israel lost through disobedience. I agree with this belief, although I also believe it is not just one people or nation on earth that is somehow “chosen” of God as though it is their birthright. Rather, it is the righteous and obedient to God’s laws and commands that become His chosen people. Lest we forget, Jesus himself said that God could raise up seed unto Abraham from stones if he needed to. (Matt 3:9) This statement applies to modern Americans just as much as it did to the ancient Israelites.

AND...now we begin

2008-01-03T22:06:00.000-07:00

For those who were in favor, here it is. A place to try some blogging.