Postmodernism: A Unified Theory of All the Trouble in the World

I've referred to the role of postmodernism in a number of issues such as global warming. This article does a nice job expanding on the influence of postmodernism.

Postmodernism: A Unified Theory of All the Trouble in the World

What is enough?

Earlier this week I saw a post titled Obama and Sowell: who can tell when people have made enough money? on the always-excellent neo-neocon about a speech Obama gave regarding the recent push for financial reform. Neo-neocon’s post has the following quote from this speech (which, in the interest of full disclosure, I have not dug up and read, yet).

Here is the quote.

“We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.”

Neo-neocon’s response:

One of the most interesting things about the Obama quote under discussion is that, if you look at his scripted speech, he was trying to do his version of supporting what Sowell says—that is, of praising the power of capitalism’s ability to allow the aggregate forces of private enterprise and personal initiative to grow an economy. He knows that’s the American way, and that it is necessary for a president to pay some sort of lip service to it. But he couldn’t help blurting out what for him is the truth—that he doesn’t really believe in it at all—and that he and the other brilliant intellectuals surrounding him know much better, both practically and morally.

Let’s unpack what he says. There is a lot in this one paragraph consisting of four sentences.

“I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” Enough for whom and for what? Is the $5,000,000 Obama made last year primarily from his book sales the level that demarks what is enough? What happens if you exceed what is considered “enough”? Does the government cap it so you can’t receive it? Is it taxed at a 100% rate? Notice too the elitism inherent in this statement, that he and his cohorts know better than the rest of us what is “enough.”

“But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service.” Maybe I’m reading too much into his choice of words but it seems as though he harbors disdain for what is known as the American dream, especially with his choice of “just keep on making it.” Apparently once you’ve had enough you’re supposed to do what? Stop? Give away what is considered excess? Or, if you’re enlightened like Obama you don’t strive to just keep on making money in the first place.

“We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.” Here he seems to be saying that the justification for people succeeding economically is not because it is their right to do so (provided they’re not violating the rights of others). No, he seems to be saying it’s OK for them to succeed (up to a point defined by him, of course) as long as it’s fulfilling a responsibility to grow our economy (i.e., benefit others). I don’t see personal economic success and benefiting others as necessarily being mutually exclusive. Obama seems to be hinting that this success is justified onlybecause others benefit too.

I would argue that socialism and planned economies, which aim to stifle or punish the individual drive for success while supposedly helping the “disadvantaged” accomplishes less of both than free markets. While the free market does a better job of enabling people to achieve personal economic success and benefiting others through the ripple effect of this success in creating opportunities for others or by generating the tax revenue the government needs to fund programs that help others. And that for me is more than enough.

Who are the 47 million uninsured?

This site contains some interesting facts regarding the hordes of uninsureds on whose behalf our friends in the government have foisted the behemoth healthcare bill upon us.

http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/who-are-the-47-million-uninsured/

• 9,000,000 Millionaires
• 27,000,000 people who make more than $50,000 per year, but choosenot to get insurance
• 22,000,000 Young adults who can afford insurance, but choose not to
• 14,000,000 People who can already get medicaid, but choose not to
• 11,000,000 Illegal Immigrants
• 23,000,000 People who are actually insured. That’s right; you’ve been lied to…surprised?

Cahill: Mass-type Care Could 'wipe Out' Economy - WBZ NEWSRADIO 1030

Cahill: Mass-type Care Could 'wipe Out' Economy - WBZ NEWSRADIO 1030

How Real are the Defects in Toyota's Cars? - Business - The Atlantic

This post by Megan McArdle does a nice job analyzing the Toyota recall controversy. It reminds me of the sudden acceleration issues Audi had in the early 1980s.

How Real are the Defects in Toyota's Cars? - Business - The Atlantic

Hurt by The Hurt Locker?

As usual controversies surface during the buildup to the annual Oscar Awards ceremony about the nominees. This year the news media has harped on the criticisms about The Hurt Locker, a movie about the challenges of an Iraq bomb disposal squad. A large part of the controversy stems from a Los Angeles Times article on the various reactions, both positive and negative, to The Hurt Locker.

"The depiction of our community in this film is disrespectful," said Paul Rieckhoff, the executive director and founder of the 150,000-member Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. "We are not cowboys. We are not reckless. We are professionals. And a lot of the film would make you think the opposite.”

Naturally, the media has picked up on this criticism while downplaying the supporters.

I saw the movie last week and believe those who feel the movie disrespects them have lost their objectivity. Why? I believe the critics drop or forget the movie’s context.

The movie starts with an episode involving the previous leader of the bomb disposal team (Explosive Ordnance Disposal, EOD). It shows how the leader and his team take extreme care to follow their EOD protocols to ensure they are using the safest methods to prevent accidental detonation of the ordinance. I won’t say what happens but the team ends up with a new squad leader, Sergeant First Class William James, who jettisons many of the safety protocols. The rest of the movie centers on the interplay with James’ teammates who are appalled by his behavior and his need for the thrill of pushing the envelope. The movie creates tension precisely because James is a renegade who doesn’t want to let the constraints of normal procedures to cramp his need for getting a rush.

Question. If the movie shows the EOD in a bad light why are the teammates upset with James’ behavior? Because he isn’t following normal procedures.

Question. How many movies have we seen about renegade cops? Or doctors? (The Fox TV series House is an example.) Or any other profession? Do we conclude therefore that all doctors and cops are rebels? No. We know that the renegade genre depends on the protagonist acting fundamentally different than his or her colleagues to create the dramatic tension. Is this such a hard concept to grasp? I think not!

This point seems so obvious that it’s almost embarrassing to bring it up. I don’t know if the movie’s critics truly miss this point or if they want their 15 minutes of fame from a media that loves to focus on the negative. The bottom line is that a controversy has been manufactured thanks to loss of objectivity.

Gore still hot on his doomsday rhetoric - The Boston Globe

Gore still hot on his doomsday rhetoric - The Boston Globe

Posted using ShareThis