Ah...glorious obstruction of government...

http://www.policymic.com/articles/28821/rand-paul-filibuster-live-stream-how-long-has-rand-paul-been-filibustering

The Conservative Sociologist: Yeah, Pretty Much...

The Conservative Sociologist: Yeah, Pretty Much...

I'm cool with it...

The Fallacy of Equality: How to make Egalitarians Squirm

               To anyone for whom equality is a driving political motive, whether they be egalitarians, socialists, communists, or really any sort of political or philosophical '-ist' deriving from the folly of the Enlightenment, there exists one singularly disparaging conundrum which has yet to be adequately answered. Quite simply, "When will we know that equality has been achieved? How will we know when the Great Task is completed?"

                For any undertaking or objective, in order for it to be of rational order, it must be achievable. As such a purpose necessitates a metric, a system by which completion of the task may be gauged. Before we can reasonably claim a particular intention, we must then first determine by what means we will assess the task. In the case of equality how then can we determine that the aim has met its mark? Simply, there are two broad categories of egalitarian which I will be addressing, though rest assured there are more, I will be addressing these two and their conceptions of equality to begin with.

                Of the first order of egalitarians there are those on the most radical limb who honestly and openly drive towards equality of outcomes. That there will be similarity in how people are, the facets of their lives and in the way they think and how they moralize. To paraphrase a right-wing political philosopher, "They hate diversity. To them diversity means for everyone to act like a stupid, gullible, middle class white person and simply have a wonderful myriad of varying skin colors and hair textures." An accurate description of the position if ever there was one. This position is readily assailable for a number of reasons, and though it ventures into areas which I will not cover here, it is necessary to frame this position before addressing the second form of egalitarianism. The argument as follows is one of logical inconsistency. I will grant that this egalitarianism of the first order is at the very least, consistent, though I find it personally repugnant.

                Egalitarianism of the second order is that which stakes the claim of 'equality of opportunity' as its goal. Within this category are groups as wildly disparate as Social-democrats, Libertarians, Socialists, Republicans, and in essence every major popular political party or group with any real weight in American Society. However, they do not address the Metric Question, or how will we determine when equality of opportunity has been reached? As of yet, I have not received, nor can I conceive of a reasonable response. With that in mind, consider then how these groups claim to know that we don't already have equality of opportunity?

                Consider the normal modus operandi our society places for this question when it is delivered inversely as a statement. That is to say: "X" group is unsuccessful because they were not granted equality of opportunity. Whether that group be the impoverished, the 'oppressed' women living under the tyranny of the patriarchy (lol), or any one of the many ethnic minorities which live within this country, this is always the formula for determining an inequitable opportunity on the part of the unsuccessful.

                Notice that this argument uses group success (outcomes) as the means to determine whether equality of opportunity has been reached, or whether equality of opportunity is necessary at all as a desirable outcome,  without ever considering that this argument is simply one logical step removed from the one delivered by Egalitarians of the First Order. That group the Second claims so strongly to be "different" from.

               

                A purpose is no purpose at all if it cannot be achieved, unless the achievement is the act in and of itself. However, such an aim is one of personal growth, the sort of act undertaken by an individual whose values are clear, given to a personal hierarchy, and which in any given moment can be conclusively  ordered. Within a society, this is an impossibility for there are intentions, desires and values which are legion. Thus, equality for the sake of equality is no counter.

                When framed in this way, that is framed not in theory but in practice, social equality becomes an untenable position. Barring a conclusive answer to the Metric Question which can be agreed upon to some degree (another problem similar in nature, democracy) Egalitarians of all stripes will quickly find themselves either recognizing and rejecting the inevitable drive of such thinking, or embracing it and once and for all openly admitting they hate diversity and dissent and anything which remotely challenges their world view. They will be forced to become steely eyed realists, or petulant children who insist on their world view being accepted, or by God they will take their ball and go home.

Educational Leadership: Leading and Teaching in the Classroom

When you are the teacher in a classroom, you can NOT be a friend to those students. They have a whole school full of friends they don't need more friends, they need a leader. I've been a substitute teacher for 2 years now and I'm a litter over a third of my way through my Student Teaching and while there are teachers with infinitely more experience than myself, there are patterns in leading a class that I have observed. It is not in my nature to be able to innately and naturally conduct myself in the following manner. There are those to whom such a commanding presence is ingrained, and of them I am admittedly envious. I myself am much too friendly, too overconfident of everyone elses' abilities on a regular basis and as such I must be AWARE of the following. I must teach myself how to be a teacher.

 These rules of thumb, these observations of mine:

1. Successfully command and lead the men in the room, and the women will follow suit. They are the focus. Males create hierarchies, women do not. In order to lead you need to be a leader, in order to be a leader you need to create and be aware of a hierarchy and you need to be on top of that hierarchy.

2. Focus. Be decisive and have goals in every action, with every word. Even if you are unsure of what comes next, you must never appear not to know. Indecision and cowardice cannot a people lead.

3. Do not engage a challenger on their terms. When you teach you will find yourself tested at every turn by your students. They are unaware of it, but they are looking for signs of weakness. DO NOT ENGAGE A CHALLENGER, write them off. Engage them later on your terms, and cut them down so as to leave no question who 'won'.

             3a. Don't make it personal. After you hit them, it's over. Make sure they know that you know.

4. The only thing that matters when those students enter the room is History. Nothing else matters. Not their problems, not yours. They WILL get it. They WILL learn today, tomorrow, and every day you have them because you will make them.

              4a. Don't waste their time, and in turn leave no doubt in their minds that you will NOT have your time wasted.

5. Listen. At all times be listening. These are human beings, all the rest of the rules are moot if you forget this one simple rule. You are leading living breathing creatures, not machines. If you are not constantly watching, ever vigilant of every mood in your classroom, you cannot possibly conduct yourself successfully as a leader.

Simply some characteristics I've noted that seem lacking in the modern American classroom, which work. Many teacher have one of these, or even a few in varying measure, but they are all techniques I have observed that work. 

Today in the cowardly and feminized excuse for American culture that we find ourselves mired in, leadership, true leadership and direction for students is invaluable. You will not always be successful. The cards are stacked insurmountably against you: indifferent parents, a zeitgeist of irresponsibility for your own actions, a system more concerned with political correctness and indoctrination than actual education, and those pieces of refuse who are ushered into your classroom when they should be left to their own self-destructive devices (Yeah I said it. Some people don't belong in the classroom. They're a significant minority, but rest assured they're there.).

It's an uphill battle, but that just makes it all the more worth the fighting. Nothing worth doing was ever easy.

The American Divide/A Right-Wing Manifesto

The American Divide:

                When discussing the left/right dichotomy in all walks where that division is applicable: philosophy, politics, structures, there is often a predilection to demonize the opposition. This is not in many cases intentional. Between these two broad categories there exists a gulf of differences which reject compromise on very fundamental levels. Perhaps an alternative ideology will develop some day which could force a coalition between the two broad strokes, but it would likely be assimilated into one of the two existing camps. As it stands the two look at one another across the ideological chasm with unreserved antipathy and mistrust at best, and outright hate and terror at the worst.

                Which leads to the question of application. Structurally how do these two forces play out within the same society where interaction is forced by happenstance? Is it enough to create a mongrelized one-dimensional ideological horde out of the opposition because to do otherwise would be to disarm yourself against an enemy who has no such conniptions? No, it is not. There exists a way to further disarm your opponents, and it lies in the opposite direction: less aggression.

                The current problems we perceive in today's western societies are not in fact a result of one side or the other. They both have influence and exist in roughly equal parts, otherwise the polarization we see today could not exist as one side would exert its hegemony uncontested regardless of the protests levied by the other.  The problems are a resultant of internal incoherence.

                We can bandy about which sides ideological framework functions best when approached pragmatically (I myself am inclined to agree with the Right), but at the end of the day when our culture and society is viewed as a single unit, that is irrelevant. The major structural flaw, which results in all the others, is the inability to properly elect for ourselves a suitable leadership. That is not to say that members of the current leadership are wholly inept (though there is a case to be made), but rather we are not electing for ourselves, but for everyone else. Each side imposes its leadership on the other when the views held by each side are, as we've outlined above, incompatible.

                Every person has a right to choose a leadership for themselves, and agreement on that leadership is not always unanimous, but when the leadership chosen is so radically different from nearly a half of the other side's choice that it is viewed not as opposition but as living anathema, a line has been crossed. And this is the issue that must be faced. That we have two different cultures, different nations, living side by side and electing for one another leader's.

               

                Arguments over any form of separation and the resulting  possible failure of the other side are irrelevant. If you're convinced one side will fail, or whether it in fact WILL fail, does not matter. Then you will simply have ideological converts by experience. The crux of the issues facing us today remain the same: we are becoming too different to live together, we have divorced one another in all but practice. All that's left are the tears and the paperwork.

A Right-wing Manifesto:

                As an aside, there are some who believe that a conversion effort, a cultural proselytization is the way to achieve victory for their side. Yet these self same ideological ministers are the same who insist on  the two positions, left and right, stemming from fundamental differences in valuation. In which case it's not possible to convert some. I agree, that in today's society we observe that the left has made its move and exists in uncontested supremacy in the hearts and minds of the people resulting in a number of personages with right tendencies forced into the box of the left. This is evidence in the language, and how it is the ideologies of the left which dictate the language and its developments.  And I agree, that an effort should be set forth to reach these men, these lost souls whose hearts cry for one thing, but their minds and actions speak to another.

                But what next? You cannot destroy the opposition. They have the right to exist, and choose for themselves their leaders. Do we simply allow ourselves to win the coming culture war, and then let it slip away again as agents of opposition continue to exist within our borders? No. As I have said, we cannot kill them, restrict them, censor them...these are all antithetical to basic ideological premises on the right and to commit any of these acts would be treason against our own intentions.

                The only option is separation. Not immediately, not even soon (there is much work to be done in rebalancing the cultural equilibrium) but one day. It is that, or the inevitable regression, or worse...the co-opting of the right by ideological tyrants who would drive us to slaughter, both of ourselves and the left in one clean stroke. Do not allow the latter. It discredits our position. It destroys us by our own hands more completely than a thousand years of festering impatience against the left.

Left/Right Structural Synopsis

A curious structural arrangement of the Left/Right dichotomy, in ideological and philosophical terms not political, is where each begins and where they end. Keep in mind that in both cases you are dealing with the same variables. That is to say that you can give the exact same situation to a person on the Left, and receive a radically different solution to the situation as you would from a person who is ideologically Right. How? Pragmatically there are solutions which work and those which fail, ideology does not come into play. However, because of the general structures employed by each side they function to varying degrees at different points along a timeline.

                Note: For clarification my definitions of left/right are roughly along those outlined by graaaaagh's tripartite breakdown, but lumping them  into broader categories: 

Left is- Left, Progressive and Idealist

Right is- Right, Reactionary and Realist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9myhzG_rQk

In terms of structure:

-The left places emphasis on the collective, in order to benefit the individual. A logical extension of egalitarian ideas, this ideology's final goal IS the individual's benefit, but on the terms of those who defined the collectives. The leftist state passes legislation which benefits a particular group, but their evidence of success is individual. For example, in aggregate, affirmative action has done nothing to benefit those groups it was created to elevate, but there are stories of people properly taking advantage of the system provided (this does not condone the system, but merely observes that people like Sonya Sotomayor played the system to maximize their outcomes).

-The right places emphasis on the individual, in order to benefit the collective, or society. A logical extension of Darwinian ideas, this ideology's final goal is the success of the species, but it simultaneously recognizes that this can be accomplished only by playing into human nature, not trying to manipulate it. A right state passes legislation which allows for the Darwinian experience to flourish on an individual level, but their evidence lies in the successes of society.  For example, the Industrial Revolution saw those capable of better living in the environment of an industrializing society competing, succeeding and failing on an individual basis, with a net benefit to society as human standards of living grew at unprecedented rates.