sjw

That's not a very scientific/empirical analysis Selene. I'm not claiming you're wrong, but without supporting facts and statistics comparing teacher pay several decades ago to today, and accounting for possible increases in other professional fields, it's mere speculation. Shayne

Some reasons for tuition hikes: http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2009/01/15/the-surprising-causes-of-those-college-tuition-hikes Shayne

Very interesting Michael, but is it really true that the bulk of the tuition increases are actually going into the leftist professor's pockets? Shayne

Phil is in an important sense correct, there is a lot of value in those lectures on tape, in the writings, etc. The problem is that he made his case in a completely incompetent way. Which undercuts his case. Brant picked up on a major portion of the incompetence in recognizing that what Phil was arguing for was overly authoritarian. The Objectivist material, which is indeed very valuable, must be examined in a purely first-handed way, coming at it with the expectation that errors will exist, perhaps even fundamental errors. I could go on but this is Phil's job. Shayne

Which is precisely what I said. Why do you feel the need to correct what is already perfectly correct? Shayne

Like I said, random facts. Also, if you disagree with parts of the lecture, that counts as random facts since there's no where in your own mind to place the idea relative to a principle. Shayne

Speaking of pragmatists: http://the-diplomat....80%99s-tragedy/ (The analysis there is a bit deranged, but on the right track. It's not altruism, but principle that is the matter at issue). Shayne

I think part of these note-taking friends' problem is that they didn't really trust their own mind's ability to understand. If they were to stop using the crutch of note-taking and instead try to understand, they'd be afraid that they'd forget something. Which leads to the rather perverse result that they waste part of their mind trying to take notes, which brings their mind down to a more concrete level, and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. A young, healthy mind is a miraculous thing. It's amazing that once it really understands something, it can reliably remember it later. So notes are typically unnecessary, and even distract from the lecture. (Notes are of course needed for miscellaneous random facts that have no logical connection to one another.) What I would advise a chronic note-taker to simply trust his own mind, and focus more on understanding, and less on being a recorder. Also, I am not saying that no notes whatsoever should be taken. A sparse set of notes that remind one of the content covered can be a useful map when there is no textbook - a single word or so here and there. Also, occasionally a philosophical lecture will contain quotes that are worthy enough to record exactly as they are spoken, but this is rare. The goal of learning is to be able to re-synthesize a first-handed understanding of the content as needed, not to be able to regurgitate. So the best mental stance is to approach a subject that is comprised of principles this way, every step of the way. (Obviously, a method such as this won't work very well for something like history, which is rich in random facts). Shayne

When I was in college, I remember my friends remarking: "How do you always do so well on the tests? You never take any notes." From their observations, all I ever did was sit there. While they were furiously taking notes, I was listening and thinking. I was trying to think of what the professor would be saying next and why, and if I could not predict or understand his next move then I would consider my understanding lacking and intensely focus while trying to understand his explanation. It is a great discomfort to not understand something, and some discomfort to not be able to predict it (where there was some logic in the flow of one idea to the next), so I would remember my fault and work on it later. My question is: How can they do so well while wasting their time taking notes? Actually, I think they made up for it by working harder than me after class. (Concerning homework, I and my high-achieving friends would of course both work through all the assigned problems). Shayne

Police infiltrate OWS in order to make protesters look bad: http://www.observer.com/2011/10/citibank-protester-talks-about-undercover-infiltration-in-occupy-wall-street Agent provocateur: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur Shayne

I see no reason to conclude that it's not the trash taking out the trash, with one thug being replaced for another. They unnecessarily tortured and killed him. A civilized group would have brought him to trial. Of course, America is going down this barbarous route as well. Political unrest, combined with no concern for due process and the rule of law, is a bad combination. Of course, I'm sure Khadafi had a lot to do with why his countrymen behaved this way, which may be justice for him, but it's still not good for society to be run by one kind of animal vs. another. Shayne

Now that George is supporting Romney, I suppose this video of a qualified endorsement of Ron Paul by him better come down: Shayne

If Ron Paul were to win the nomination, Obama would be in serious trouble because of all the GOP candidates, he has the most power to draw in the democrat voters, not to mention all the voters who are fed up with the status quo. Shayne

Ron Paul knows more than Dennis too: Shayne

Michael, I was intending to refer to his OWS remarks, I didn't listen closely to his Cain remarks. (The OWS stuff is around the last third of the video). Shayne

Peter Schiff makes far more sense than Dennis: Shayne

I don't know what fairy tale you're living in Bob, but the US legal tender laws are not a myth. There are serious consequences to creating a competing currency. You claim it's OK for government to violate rights sometimes. You don't specify any principle or draw any line so anyone can tell how far you go with this, or why. If you handed government the power to violate individual rights, without any definition of when and where, what do you think the consequence would be? You also seem to want pot to be outlawed. You weasel and hem and haw on this, but we can be assured that here's yet another place where you think it's OK to violate individual rights. No one can know to what extent tyranny can reign under Bob's pragmatist system. His ideal system is some ill-defined mixture of a respect for rights, when he feels like it, and tyranny, when he feels like it. No wonder that when I point out instances of tyranny and their consequences, he is completely nonplussed. For him it's part of an undefined cost-benefit analysis completely devoid of principle, and he's arbitrarily drawn some magical line in the sand about what he's going to care about and what he's not, and that's that. Shayne

Where do you draw the line? In my approach I don't think in any such terms so I don't need to draw pragmatic lines. E.g., I don't consider it violating a homeowners property rights to save a hostage inside; I consider the hostage taker to be the rights violator in that scenario and my efforts to save the hostage, so long as they don't go beyond what is reasonable and necessary, are extensions of the rights-violating action of the perpetrator of the crime. Your lack of principled thinking makes you high maintenance and high effort to communicate with. Of course, since the state of your mind is confused, I should expect the communication of your ideas to be confused in order to match. The question isn't about whether a foreign bank can create currency, it's about a US citizen creating an alternate currency and the inevitable consequence: a SWAT team and a decade in prison. Please try to stay on topic, you're difficult enough as it is. The question you haven't answered is whether you can imagine any untoward consequences from this kind of scenario, or whether you think that being forced to use a single fiat currency does any kind of substantial individual harm. Same for the pot question. God you are tedious and petty-minded. I'm about to throw my hands up and be done with you. Shayne

So, sometimes it is OK for the government to violate individual rights? When? Does one have an individual right to (say) grow pot and sell it, or (say) create an alternative to fiat currency and trade it? Is it OK to send in a SWAT team when someone does these things? If you think it is not OK, what kinds of harm can you imagine that results from these individual rights being violated? Shayne

Let's make this even simpler for you Bob. Do you believe in natural/individual/inalienable rights? What, for you, defines the line that government should never cross? Shayne

No. Shayne

Cool!!! Please let me know what it is! Does it involve a fascist nazi plural marriage freemason conspiracy?? I hope so. Always wanted to be a part of one of those! Bob The passive-aggressive evasions continue... It's a simple, straightforward question Bob. Shayne

So by your mocking me, I take it that you think the distinction between a religious person who goes through the motions and believes his religion in a woozy manner, and one who literally believes that their Magic Underwear secures them from harm, is unimportant? Would you vote for someone who believed in UFO's? It's one thing to go along with the common culture, it's another to participate in intensive and weird rituals. Shayne

More accurate to say that much of what you percieve to be structural injustices, are in reality less serious, less secure or even irrelevant. And also, some of your percieved injustices are not really injustices. It is usually not unjust to give preferred service to wealthy people. Well, this is a blatant evasion of my question. Evidently you're lapsing into passive-aggressive mode again, or feel that your answer would put you at rhetorical disadvantage. Is there a reason why you want to hide your answer, or are you just not sure of your answer? Or perhaps you sense that your answer looks a lot like the dirty laundry that it is? I do know what your answer is by the way, I just want you to say it yourself. Shayne

Michael, speaking of the "next door" perspective: Romney is a guy who wears Magic Underwear with bizarre markings on them, and thinks that it protects him from harm. He participates in bizarre temple rituals. Do you really want someone like that in the White House? I'd much prefer Cain. Shayne