B8005-2 Moron Ideology: Instead We Ought To...

      A common argumentation strategy in energy discussions  is the “Instead We Ought To” routine.  Notice how many times a discussion of, say, drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico or in Alaska terminates in the hopeless non sequitur of “instead we ought to develop sustainable alternative energy sources such as wind, solar or nuclear energy.”  What makes that statement a non sequitur is its wholesale abandonment of the basic argument about oil.  Remember the discussion or argument is about oil.  Let me repeat: the discussion is about oil.  It is not about alternative energy sources that have no applicability to oil-based processes, fuels, and lubricants.  Wind mills do not and cannot power automobiles in any practical way in an expansive nation like the USA.  So why take the argument away from a discussion of oil drilling (as a means of reducing dependence on foreign oil or reducing the price of gasoline, etc.) and into an inapplicable foray into silly assertions about alternative energy that inherently cannot deal with oil dependence or gasoline prices.  Its just as silly as saying, “Instead of paying such high grocery bills, you ought to plant rose bushes in front of your house”
      Notice, too, that a discussion of high gasoline prices begins as an economic argument when some assert that increased drilling will result in larger supplies of oil that will reduce the price of gasoline.  When the discussion is deflected to alternative energy sources, it ceases to be an economic argument and, instead, becomes an ideological argument. When we assert that we ought to do something that does not address the crux of the argument (the price of gasoline), we engage in ideology.

B1042-5 Moron Politics: Dumb Mythology & Other Diversions

Saddled With Stupidity:  Sometimes I think about the accepted mythology of Montezuma when the Spanish conquistadors hit the beach in the Sixteenth Century.  The Spaniards were not seen as invading, threatening beings; rather, they were seen as gods bringing the fruition and fulfilment to history.   By the time Montezuma figured out that the Spaniards were not as benign as their fanciful Mesoamerican mythology would have it, it was really too late to resist the conquistadors. Some would blame Montezuma for his failed leadership.  Others would see the corrosive effect of a faulty world-view on a civilization.  I’m going with the dumb world-view option myself.  Montezuma wasn’t a poor leader.  He was just plain stupid in the face of a sharply-evolving reality.

a.    Science:  Failure to see the world as it is - rather than as one would like to imagine it - is really a common problem.  And this impairment goes across many lines of human endeavor.  The young “scientist,” for example, struggles to incorporate the mythology of science into his thinking while he is in college.  Once he masters the jargon of his field of study, he is no longer capable of being a scientist in the truest sense of the word.  Instead, he becomes a perpetuator of accepted and conventional scientific myths.  In other words, he becomes a cheerleader for the staid enterprise of established science.  He becomes part of the welcoming party on the beach when the mysterious galleons sail into view.

b.    Economics:  One of the more durable myths in economics today is that of Keynesianism as an effective countermeasure for economic ennui.  The scheme has been tried repeatedly since Lord Keynes first promulgated the theory.  In every instance it has been shown to be an abject failure.  Every. Single. Instance.  Yet, each new generation of would-be economists is paraded through the Hall of Mirrors in the House of Keynes as if the theory itself were worth discussing and teaching.  It is the economic equivalent of science’s Phlogiston Theory: It sounds good, but it simply doesn’t work.  To be sure, it should be economics’ most pertinent example of Bad Ideas Gone Wild.  It should only be shown as a Bad Example.  It isn’t, however.  Endless lines of academics recount the horrid lessons of Keynesianism that they learned in Econ 101 as if those lessons were true.  But they are not.  Ms. Christina Romer, former chairman of the president’s council of economic advisors, is one of the latest victims of pretending that a manifestly false economic theory has any merit.  Some  believe that Ms. Romer resigned her chairmanship.  I’m of the opinion that she was fired, not for advising a bad public policy, but rather for a fundamental and obstinate stupidity about things economical.  If it hasn’t worked for five-hundred-and-fifty-times, why would anyone think it should work on the five-hundredth-and-fifty-first time?  How many times does Keynesianism have to stub its toe against the end table of reality before it decides to walk around that object?

c.    Politics: A common Democrat myth in today's world might be simply categorized under the heading of "Taxing the Rich."  Many Democrats believe that the rich should pay their "fair share" of taxes, and they propose that the tax rates for the super wealthy should be raised. They explain why those rates should be raised by saying that the super-rich should pay for the deficits that the country experiences in its tax accounts. Yet, when it is explained that if the United States took every single dime of the super wealthy and applied them towards those deficits, those funds wouldn't begin to cover those deficits. The Democrats' counter-argument to that statement is to stare off into space blankly and then to repeat the talking point that the tax rates for the super wealthy should be raised. In other words, they argue by repeating a basic false premise without supplying any further, supporting evidence. Their counter-argument is simply a non sequitur of belief rather than logic.  That the rich should pay their "fair share" of taxes is an article of faith among Democrats. "Fair share," however, is never defined in constructive ways that anyone could discover.   Exactly what percentage of income that should be confiscated from the rich is never stated definitively. Rather, it is always stated in such a way that the amount should be sufficient to eliminate the debt. Notice that the amount is always open-ended.

B9013-1 Stoppin' Kloppenburg from Floppin'

    Some thoughts on the recent (04-05-11) Wisconsin Supreme Court election.  JoAnne Kloppenburg (D) challenged the incumbent David Prosser (R) for the seat on the Court.  At the time of this writing, Kloppenburg seems to have lost the election by some 7,500 votes out of 1.5 million votes cast.
    As I understand it, Kloppenburg has now lost five judicial elections.  Five elections!  Normally, a candidate is asked to hit the bricks after two or three losses.  Why all that Democrat union money went into such a candidate and why the Democrats ran Kloppenburg again with her losing track record is the mystery for the ages.
    But here are some insights.  If you have a name like Kloppenburg - that cries out for ridicule and mockery, and lends itself to easy satire - you should either, 1) forget about being a candidate in the first place, or 2) have you name changed legally to something that resists parody.  Then, too, if you bear an uncanny resemblance to Margaret Hamilton (a.k.a. the Wicked Witch of the West) in The Wizard of Oz you might want to soften that image with a touch of makeup and a different hair style.  Get rid of that Stern Librarian scarf and those school marm clothes, too.  There are some principles involved here: If you have a clunky name and forbidding looks, and you act like the neighborhood scold from your childhood, don’t expect a warm embrace from the public.  Just sayin.’