Galileo wrote the following in a letter to Kepler.

I have been for many years an adherent of the Copernican system, and it explains to me the causes of many of the appearances of nature which are quite unintelligible on the commonly accepted hypothesis. I have collected many arguments for the purpose of refuting the latter; but I do not venture to bring them to the light of publicity, for fear of sharing the fate of our master, Copernicus, who, although he has earned immortal fame with some, yet with very many (so great is the number of fools) has become an object of ridicule and scorn. I should certainly venture to publish my speculations if there were more people like you. But this not being the case, I refrain from such an undertaking.

Newton felt the same way after publishing some earlier works, and again after publishing Principia later in life. I wonder how much more material he could have introduced, had the constant defense and rebuttal required to do so not been so taxing? I wonder how many more intellectual giants have passed through this world unnoticed for the same reasons?

Perhaps people aren’t so foolish today as to believe that all celestial bodies revolve around Earth. But is their propensity to believe whatever they’re told from birth any less? Is rationality given any higher regard today than it was four centuries ago? Nearly 90% of the world’s population believes in some form of invisible all-knowing man in the sky. Often with an enormous gray beard. Pile that on top of all the bullshit that inevitably follows. And it’s all accepted without evidence or analysis. Will the landscape of accepted and allowable ideas ever change from those faced by Galileo? Perhaps the church didn’t require Einstein to “abjure, curse and detest” his ideas, but it couldn’t have been easy for him either.

The Honda dealership down the street from my workplace has a giant banner over the lot proclaiming “Official Cash for Clunkers Approved Dealership”. It’s been there for at least a week. The Toyota dealership across the street has no such banner. I don’t know whether they’ve applied or been approved or whey they don’t have a similar competing banner, but it stinks. It’s meddlesome. These two businesses openly compete with each other for buyers’ money, innovating (to the extent the law permits) and meeting consumer demands. Then the government steps in and says “if you jump through these hoops, you’ll get a huge advantage over the other guy.” Now, instead of competing by means of innovation and customer service, they’re competing by means of jumping through hoops. Multiply this effect for every aspect of the auto industry subject to oversight, regulation, bailout, or subsidy. And you wonder why buying a car is such a pain in the anus.

Funny that the National Automobile Dealers Association is now warning dealerships against taking clunkers for the assumed government subsidy because there might not be any money left. I wonder how many dealerships will interpret that as “get it now before it runs out”?

So you read Whole Foods CEO’s WSJ column? Now think about who his customers are. And look at this bullshit. Mackey knew exactly what his customers would think of his reasoning. (They don’t see it as reasoning. They see it as partisan opinion.) Something propelled him to choose to publish it anyway. Some self-interest. And it wasn’t sales figures. Either he’s taking a stance on a moral code, or he stands to benefit behind the scenes. His proposals leave little room for behind-the-scenes benefits. Or he’s off his nut and just screwed himself. I bet he isn’t off his nut.

I was reading an Ayn Rand lecture last night. She was expressing relief that much of socialism as a moral ideal was squashed out with WWII (rare for her to say that things actually aren’t headed towards apocalypse). She used Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and Socialist England as the three pinnacles of socialist ideals. At the time of her lecture (not sure when, 60s?), socialism was no longer so aggressively defended as a moral ideal. Now it’s being thrown about the media as if it’s not such a dirty word anymore, that maybe it’s a good time to try it out again.

That, plus Bobama’s propaganda machine, leads me to believe that we’re completely fucked.

John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, got his opinion on necessary health care changes published in the Wall Street Urinal today. It’s on page A15. Not exactly prominent, but it’s great to see some media coverage of less intrusive alternatives Bobama’s cockamamie pet projects.

Excerpts:

Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). . . .

Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. . . .

Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. . . .

Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care. . . .

Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

I love that word. Repeal. Mmm.

While it’s refreshing, he takes a utilitarian perspective, suggesting that his proposals would be better for everyone. That’s exactly the stated impetus behind all the other (more ridiculous) plans. What the hell does that mean? Every last person in the country will be better off? Wrong. No one would explicitly claim that anyway. We’d be better off on average, on the whole, collectively? That’s usually what they’re getting at. And there’s the problem. There is no average goodness, no greater good, no quantifiable public welfare. People have desires, and they are individual. The weights of those desires can only be known to each individual, NO ONE ELSE. No one can know what’s best for me but me.

If there were such a thing as an average of a population’s desires, it can’t be knowable. I decide what I want and how much I want it. And I’ll change my mind whenever I feel like it (most often when someone else thinks they know what I want). Appealing to utilitarianism never works unless you’re a well-funded sophist with big special interest friends.

The aerosol can in the company bathroom states on the back that it’s a violation of federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. The operating instructions are to spray for one second toward the center of a normal-sized room. What if I spray for two seconds? Is that inconsistent with the labeling? I’m nitpicking, you say? What if I hold the button down and empty the whole can (if I don’t pass out first)? That must be violating federal law. Where to draw the line? Five seconds? Twenty? Shouldn’t that number be stated on the can?

Here’s a peculiar way to scale back a budget.

Back in February, I applied for entrance to a music program at San Diego State University for fall 2009. Didn’t pass the audition. So I made arrangements to try again this fall for spring 2010 enrollment. Not until I called them a few months ago did I find out that they canceled spring 2010 enrollment and will be admitting no new students for that semester. The reason? Budget cuts.

When an institution refuses to serve half of their annual potential paying customers in order to cut spending, that ought to say something loud and clear. It does to me.

I’ll get a new audition for this fall. I’ll still attend if I get in. There’s no way to avoid using stolen money. It’s in our roads, our public transit, our food regulations, our schools. I need to straighten out my morals on that one. Do I give up and exploit or hard-line it and go hermit? Is there another option?

I just saw a headline on the Pope breaking his wrist in a fall. I thought, big deal, he’s just the Pope, he has no real power, only that which is given to him by his followers. That got me thinking about all different kinds of powerful people and how they get it. BObama is only powerful because enough people submit to him. In the absence of that submission, he would have nothing. DTrump is only powerful because enough people recognize and protect his private ownership of his property. They do this because they want the same protection for their own property, no matter how much. Is this artificial? What about confronting a tree trunk of a man in a dispute? His power seems more real. Or a guy with a gun in a supermarket. But still, they don’t have power until people acknowledge it. If no one in the supermarket knows what a gun is, then he can’t very well get his way until he starts shooting people and they figure out what the boom stick does. I used to think clergyfolk were particularly hollow, but I’m beginning to wonder if all power is the same way.