Friday, April 8, 2022

Politics Without Romance

Human nature is the nature of humans. 


This is a weekly column consisting of letters to my perspicacious progeny. I write letters to my grandkids
 — the Stickies
 — eventual selves to advise them and haunt them after they've become grups and/or I'm deleted. 
Best perused on a screen large enough for even your parents to see and navigate easily.   

Trigger Warning: This column is rated SSC — Sexy Seasoned Citizens — Perusal by kids, callowyutes, or grups may result in a debilitating meltdown.  
Glossary 

Featuring Dana: Hallucination, guest star, and charming literary device  

"There's a reason that there are oodles of young Aussies, Germans, Japanese, even Chinese backpackers traipsing around the world. They are unencumbered by debilitating student loans. No such luck for the American Theater Arts major with $120,000 in loans." -J. Maarten Troost


Dear (eventual) Grandstickies and Great-Grandstickies (and Gentlereaders),

The public-choice school of economics, a.k.a public-choice theory, is, well...  'As James Buchanan artfully defined it, public choice is “politics without romance.”' -econolib.org 

For the record, I can't find exactly where or when Mr. Buchanan actually said that. I did find dozens of versions of something along the lines of 'As James Buchanan said, public choice is "politics without romance."'

{And this matters because?} 

Well, the dude won a Nobel Prize for his work in the field, you'd think that... 

{You really need to get out more, Sparky.}

Anyways... This normally would be a good place to quote the Wikipedia entry on the subject at hand, assuming, of course, it wasn't clearly crafted by a Wokie (it wasn't), but since it reads like it was written by an impoverished grad student who will never be famous for his/her/their prose stylings...

{Seriously, dude, you're not that old, find the car keys and...}   

Instead, I'm going to post the video below, because I'm cool like that and it does an excellent job of explaining public choice theory.



Now, for those you that are wandering in the wilderness and following the locusts and honey diet, or the Luddite like gentlepersons among my vast hordes of regular readers that rely on some intrepid soul to print out my column (not to mention any names, Ed), permit me to vastly oversimplify. 

Public choice theory holds that the politicians (sleazy and otherwise), and bureaucrats (and bureauons) that constitute the group of H. sapiens that run or work for the government at any level are subject to the same drives, incentives, and motivations as we mere mortals. 

{That's just common sense.}

Not necessarily. There's an awful lot of people that maintain that they're just humble but lovable public servants, grateful for a chance to serve. 

{Sure, but nobody actually believes...} 

So you say, but there are also an awful lot of people who say that we need a government solution for this, that, or that other thing — which can be true.

Big BUT.

As the video points out, instead of just asking what government policy is needed to solve a given problem, we also need to consider what policy is likely to actually emerge from "real-world democratic politics," and take that into consideration. 

To which I would add: before we pass yet another law on top of the thousands of other laws that, so far, have not led us to the promised land.  

Which is to say: since the H. sapiens in the government business are just as prone to temptation, egotism, and screwing up as you and me, what we want is often not what we getthat's politics without romance. 

And it gets worse: people in the government business don't suffer from an inconvenient constraint that most of us do, they pay the bill with other people's money.  

{This would be a good place to supply an example...}


For example, on a recent Joe Rogan podcast, Rogan had a guest, Ben Burgis, a writer for Jacobin magazine. Mr. Burgis is a socialist who, like Mr. Rogan (a democratic socialist), supports things like universal healthcare, a universal basic income, free college, etceterage. 

{Impossible, Rogan is a card-carrying member of the alt-right, just ask Neil Young.} 

They both agree that college should be free, and consider that the cost of a college degree nowadays, as well as kids going into debt up to their... butts is completely unacceptable. I don't agree with the free part — free is rarely actually free, and "free" is often perceived as having little value — but I do agree that kids just beginning their adult lives deep in debt is unacceptable.

But one of the many reasons college is so expensive is the result of several decades of The Fedrl Gummit handing out easily obtained loans to children (which can't be discharged via bankruptcy) and then the higher education business raising their prices faster than the inflation rate to absorb the money. 

This isn't an open secret, it's not even a secret. 

{They're not children! Well, not exactly, they...}

Simultaneously, education incorporated is top-heavy with administrators who are teaching nothing to no one, and many of these positions are mandated by The Fedrl Gummit. What about taking a machete and thinning out the ranks of all those people that don't actually teach anyone?

{You mean their jobs, right? Not actually the...} 

Isn't reforming the bloated education business the place to start?

{Bloated?}

Schools with well-fed endowments are currently fighting a 1.4% tax on their investment incomes if their cash stash is worth more than $500,000, per student! Leaving that tax in place is not just politics without romance, it could also be called common sense.

Poppa loves you,

P.S. How about college grads having to take a standardized, general knowledge test to graduate and prove they didn't slip through with inflated grades, and publishing the aggregated results? 

What about students who are often taught by absurdly underpaid "instructors" and "teaching assistants" (often as not in debt up to their eyeballs in student loans) that help to prop up the system? 

What about charging the NFL for running a minor league for professional football wherein the coaches are often better paid than the professors? 

What about... 

{We gotta go, folks.}


Scroll down to share this column/access oldies. If you enjoy my work, and no advertising, please consider buying me a coffee via PayPal/credit-debit card.    

Feel free to comment and set me straight on Cranky's Facebook page. I post my latest columns on Saturdays, other things other days. Cranky don't tweet. 









 

  


Friday, April 1, 2022

Critical (Everything) Theory

Traditional theory vs. Critical Theory.


This is a weekly column consisting of letters to my perspicacious progeny. I write letters to my grandkids
 — the Stickies
 — eventual selves to advise them and haunt them after they've become grups and/or I'm deleted. 
Best perused on a screen large enough for even your parents to see and navigate easily.   

Trigger Warning: This column is rated SSC — Sexy Seasoned Citizens — Perusal by kids, callowyutes, or grups may result in a debilitating meltdown.  
Glossary 

Featuring Dana: Hallucination, guest star, and charming literary device  

"It is much easier to be critical than to be correct." -Benjamin Disraeli 


Dear (eventual) Grandstickies and Great-Grandstickies (and Gentlereaders),

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP), a critical theory "...must be explanatory, practical, and normative, all at the same time." This concise definition is a distillation of the broken-hearted Marxist's philosophy developed by the scholars of the "Frankfurt School," who developed the theory back in the 1930s.

This was prior to them fleeing Germany and heading for the USA so as to understandably avoid being rounded up by Heir Hitler and friends who had devised a rather unpleasant final solution to rid themselves of all sorts of folks they didn't much care for that Ghengis Khan would've envied.

{Explanatory, practical, and normative?}

From the SEP: "...it must explain what is wrong with current social reality, identify the actors to change it, and provide both clear norms for criticism and achievable practical goals for social transformation" (my emboldening).

{Right... Okidoke.}

From me (well, from my research): A mere traditional theory attempts to account for/explain the reason something occurs in the world. 

Critical Theory starts with a conclusion, that the traditional social arrangements most H. sapiens take for granted, particularly those folks who are the children of what used to be called Western Civilization, are an unmitigated mess. 

And furthermore, most of the he/she/theys who take them for granted are too damn dumb to realize that we need to burn 'em down and start over, from scratch. Hey hey, ho-ho, current social reality's gotta go.  


One of my heroes, James Lindsey, explains the big three thusly. A critical theory: 

1. Must have an idealized vision for society.

2. It must explain how the existing society doesn't live up to that vision

3. It must inspire social activism on behalf of achieving that perfect world. 

{Bend over. This is going to hurt for a bit, but in the end, you'll thank me? Wait-wait-wait. Heartbroken Marxists? What's critical theory got to do with Marxism?}

Ever hear one of Lenin's "useful idiots" declaring that communism is actually a good idea, that it just hasn't been properly implemented, yet? Well, the critical theorists were upset about what had happened in Russia after the revolution and which was becoming harder and harder to ignore/explain away. 

Also, they were pissed off at the working class for not overthrowing the corrupt bourgeoisie in various and sundry countries and setting up dictatorships of the people. 

Marx had got it wrong, the proles were easily duped by rising standards of living, consumer goods, and "...the technological developments that allow cultural products, such as music, movies, and art, to be distributed on a massive scale," among many other things

{You made that quote up!}

Nuh-uh! it's from Simply Psychology and an article that was the first hit that came up when I googled critical theory. Not exactly light reading, although an excellent analysis, it explains in (mostly) everyday English what critical theory is, but without much in the way of details as to how its acolytes are going about implementing it. 


What's a Wokie to do? After all, "cultural hegemony" ensures that "...the rule of the dominant group is achieved by the spread of ideologies—beliefs, assumptions, and values—through social institutions such as schools, churches, courts, and the media, among others."

Easy-peasy. Train and indoctrinate a dedicated guerilla army whose soldiers think they're saving the world, and then turn them loose. There are now Critical Theories of pedagogy, law, gender, globalization, race, geography, literature, etceterature. 

Critical Race Theory is currently getting a lot of attention, Dick and Jane (dated Boomer reference) feel guilty about their white privilege. 

“Let’s be clear: Critical race theory is not taught in elementary schools or high schools. It’s a method of examination taught in law school and college that helps analyze whether systemic racism exists,” -Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers

Technically speaking, that statement is not a lie, your honor. 

The ball did get rolling in law schools and colleges, but it's now bouncing all over the country. CRT ain't being taught in grade schools, it's being implemented in grade schools, as outlined in this article

Remote learning and helicopter parenting aren't all bad. Joe and Joan Bagadonuts, and Zach and Meadow Bagabrie, now know what's going on in this, that, and even that other school, the one they can't afford to send Dick and Jane to. 

Poppa loves you,
Have an OK day


Scroll down to share this column/access oldies. If you enjoy my work, and no advertising, please consider buying me a coffee via PayPal/credit-debit card.    

Feel free to comment and set me straight on Cranky's Facebook page. I post my latest columns on Saturdays, other things other days. Cranky don't tweet.


 

Friday, March 25, 2022

Can I Quote You On That?

Musings of a quote collector {Shouldn't that be may I quote you on that?}


This is a weekly column consisting of letters to my perspicacious progeny. I write letters to my grandkids
 — the Stickies
 — eventual selves to advise them and haunt them after they've become grups and/or I'm deleted. 
  

Trigger Warning: This column is rated SSC — Sexy Seasoned Citizens — Perusal by kids, callowyutes, or grups may result in a debilitating meltdown.  
Glossary 

Featuring Dana: Hallucination, guest star, and charming literary device 

"I write my own quotes. Except this one. I obviously stole this from somebody really clever." -Brian Celio


Dear (eventual) Grandstickies and Great-Grandstickies (and Gentlereaders),

"Hi, my name's Marcus and I'm a quodophile. This is my first QA meeting." 
"Hi, Marcus."  

I've somehow managed to assemble a 33 page "Google Doc" consisting of hundreds of quotes that I add to occasionally but rarely refer to. I also have a tattered notebook full of quotes that I never refer to but can't bring myself to throw away. 

This is unusual behavior for me because I'm a firm believer that you don't own things they own you and I delight in constantly culling my possessions.

{Who first said you don't own things, they own you? That's an interesting quote.} 

As far as I can tell, I can't tell, Dana. When I went a-googlin' and entered that exact question the Goog, without so much as a by-your-leave, changed the query to Who said the things we own end up owning us? It then answered itself: Quote by Chuck Palahniuk: “The things you own end up owning you. 

It left off the quotation marks at the end. Apparently, the Agorithmite that answered my question needs a grammar update and needs to work on its manners. 

{Who's Chuck Palahniuk?} 

He wrote Fight Club, the book that inspired the movie of the same name. Completely coinkydinkally, I recently tried (and failed) to watch the movie which came out in 1999 (I'm running a little behind). I learned some things though. 

The movie is awful (summary: real men are knuckle-dragging nihilists), it appears the book is awful (I'm not going to read it), and the gang at Google must love the movie, given that my query returned a multitude of hits singing the movie's praises, including video clips.  

{Wait-wait-wait. The gang at Google doesn't tweak search results to reflect their own biases, opinions, and ideologies. That would be unethical!}

Not from their perspective it ain't, however, that's a whole other column. But I drift, this column is supposed to be about my quote-saving obsession. 
 

As I mentioned, it's not as if I regularly fix myself a cup of Cafe Bustelo and scroll through my collection. 

Recently, in the midst of heartlessly and unsentimentally deleting and/or rearranging saved bookmarks in my web browser (those are what saved links to websites are called, Ed <GRIN>), I came across a link to the electronic version of my collection.

Aha! I said to myself for the hundredth or so time, I should go through this thing, only keep the really cool quotes, and actually read them from time to time for inspirational/motivational purposes. 

The same thing happened that always happens. I read a bunch of 'em, liked them all, and...

{I suspect that might be the reason you saved them in the first place.}

And then I gave up, closed the file, thought about how I should transpose the quotes from the tattered and ignored notebook to the usually ignored file — someday — and returned to culling bookmarks.   

<Dana executes an exaggerated yawn.>

{Fascinating stuff this week, Sparky. Leaving the Stickies several hundred columns and a quote collection will no doubt take some of the sting out of the lack of financial remuneration they'll not be receiving to assuage their grief after you're deleted. Hows about a quote for those of us who have endured this column?} 

Well... If you insist.


My most recently added quote is, "The great thing about getting older is that you don't lose all the other ages you've been." -Madeleine L’Engle

{And who, pray tell, is...}

I dunno, wait, I'll be right back... Ah! She was a successful and prolific American writer that I confess I've never heard of.

I also confess that although I agree completely with her, I would add: if you're lucky. An awful lot of my fellow geezers and geezerettes seem to have lost or forgotten much of who and what they were on their way to here and now that would be helpful to remember.

Howsabout this? "Many have lost, or abandoned, much of who and what they once were on their way to here and now that would serve them well." -me

{I'd stick with quoting other people if I were you.}

Harumph! How about "When youth departs may wisdom prove enough."

{That's not bad!}

Not bad! It's great... it's also a Winston Churchill quote. You did suggest that I stick with quoting other writers.

Poppa loves you,
Have an OK day


Scroll down to share this column/access oldies. If you enjoy my work, and no advertising, please consider buying me a coffee via PayPal/credit-debit card.    

Feel free to comment and set me straight on Cranky's Facebook page. I post my latest columns on Saturdays, other things other days. Cranky don't tweet.