Rereading An Article In The Age Of The Idiot

Economy, Intelligence, Political Philosophy, Race, Racism, Reason

The concept of “racism” has been treated, over these pixelated pages, as a political construct in the postmodern tradition—a tradition that uses semantics, often unmoored from objective reality, to create a politically desired reality and achieve political ends. A mouthful, I know. But what has just been said is nothing compared to “Against ‘Racisms’: An Invidious Concept Under Fire” by my pal Jack Kerwick.

Jack uses the formal methods of (analytical and ethical?) philosophy to deconstruct the bogus construct that is racism. I will have to read the piece at least twice to better assimilate the argument and see how it sits with me. So far I like its impetus a LOT.

A word about rereading material, which I do a great deal. Readers complained about having to reread my “Libertarian Anarchism’s ‘Justice’ Problem,” to better understand it. Jack Kerwick joked with me, at the time, about the indignity and hostility expressed by today’s “readers” when required to grapple with challenging material by reading and rereading it.

I’ve always become apologetic when so accused, having never given thought to the point Jack was making: Don’t he and I reread things all the time? Don’t we look up words we don’t know in the (online) dictionary, as well? Don’t we enjoy learning new things; like a challenge? Are we threatened by a writer or a piece of writing that requires extra-concentration? Yes, yes, yes, and of course not.

So why should we expect anything else from our readers?

Go to it.

Dr. Mehmet Oz Vs. Mainstream Medicine

Ethics, Free Markets, Healthcare

So he often advocates what a Vox.com writer terms derisively “simple tricks and natural remedies.” (Come to think about it, isn’t good health about some very simple things?) But has Dr. Mehmet Oz ever killed anyone with his friendly advice or during cardiac and thoracic surgery? Members of the medical establishment certainly have with their Food and Drug Administration approved remedies and interventions, their phony food pyramid, not to mention the many bans and shortages the FDA creates.

I don’t watch Dr. Oz’s show, but in the odd segment I’ve seen, he appears genuine, humble, likeable; someone who loves people (especially the ladies) and does his best to make them happier and healthier. He also makes a bundle in the process. Wicked, I know. At least so the medical establishment thinks. Via CNN:

Earlier this week, a group of 10 physicians from across the country emailed a letter to Columbia University expressing disapproval that Oz is on the faculty. The email sent to Columbia’s faculty dean for Health Sciences and Medicine, Dr. Lee Goldman, said the group is “surprised and dismayed” that Oz is on faculty and that he holds a senior administrative position. Oz is vice chair of the Department of Surgery, at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The email was sent by Dr. Henry Miller, a fellow in scientific philosophy and public policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institute. It was signed by nine other physicians from across the country, none of whom are affiliated with Columbia. They accuse Oz of, what they call, “manifesting an egregious lack of integrity by promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain.”

Dr. Richard Green, the associate chief of cardiac, thoracic, and vascular surgery at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center disagrees:

Oz has achieved some of the greatest scientific accomplishments of his career at Columbia. While a resident there, he was the four-time winner of the prestigious Blakemore research prize, which goes to the most outstanding surgery resident. He now holds 11 patents for inventing methods and devices involved in heart surgeries and transplants. This includes helping to research and develop the left ventricular assist device, or LVAD, which helps keep people alive while they’re awaiting a heart transplant. Oz had a hand in turning the hospital’s LVAD program into one of the biggest and most active in the world.

Dr. Green greeted me in a beige hospital hallway, a compact man with worn skin and white hair, dressed in blue scrubs. In his office, which was decorated with family pictures, diplomas, and medical textbooks, he alternately praised and defended his colleague. He said the following things about Oz: “He’s a brilliant mind.” “He’s a very charming person.” “He has great energy.” “He’s uniformly respected and admired here.” “Maybe he should be president. I would vote for him.” “He’s a talent. He’s multidirectional.” “As for the other doctors who are on TV, I don’t put them in [Oz’s] league. Not even close.”

Green also suggested that the leveling off we’re seeing in obesity rates in the US may be thanks to the awareness Oz has raised about the importance of eating more healthfully and exercising.

MORE.

Coachella: Hardly Salve For The Soul

Art, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Music

Coachella, it would, appear, is a whole lot of crap: The musical equivalent of “Burning Man,” which is a “solstice bonfire” for collectivists posing as individualists. The Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival has featured crap acts like “Amy Winehouse, Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Prince, Arcade Fire, Wu-Tang Clan, The Killers, Radiohead, Daft Punk, Madonna, The Cure, Kanye West, Eminem, Gorillaz, The Black Keys, Rage Against the Machine, Beck, Nine Inch Nails, The Strokes, The White Stripes, Jay-Z, Beastie Boys, Muse, Red Hot Chili Peppers.”

I would not pay to hear AC/DC or Motorhead either.

What makes people want to sweat it out with masses of others in the desert, bobbing about to hip hop and electronic dance music and pretending “installation art” is art.

Hardly salve to the soul.

Foreign Policy Slings Mud At Ron Paul

libertarianism, Neoconservatism, Ron Paul

James Kirchick is at it again: smearing Ron Paul and urging Rand Paul to break with his father: “Dismissing his father isn’t just the right thing to do morally, but politically as well,” asserts Kirchick, who began the practice of badmouthing Ron Paul’s character from the pages of The New Republic, and has migrated to Foreign Policy to continue his gossipy writing.

Since the political philosophy of Ron Paul is beyond the ken of the Kirchicks of the world; they are more comfortable attacking his character in a manner that amounts to ad hominem.

I detected at least one error in the piece. It is untrue that Ron Paul’s “cult-like following” was “cultivated through subscriptions to the “politically incorrect newsletters published under Ron Paul’s name during the 1980s and 1990s, and unearthed strategically in 2008 by The New Republic.” (See “High Priests Of Pomposity Pan Ron Paul.”)

Ron Paul’s following is young. Senior’s supporters were either very young or were not around when the infamous newsletters were published.

Paul has led an exemplary life—has served his country and community, stayed married to his childhood sweetheart for 50 odd years, and is as devout a Christian as he is a constitutionalist. It’s not easy to impugn this impish, man, so mudslinging becomes a must.

Kirchick is correct to point out that the Paul family is a political dynasty and that both father and son have made a fortune living off the plunder that is politics (my characterization).

The article is “What Rand Paul Needs to Learn From France’s Far-Right Political Dynasty.”