Paul Got Da Bump...

By -
I was looking for in South Carolina -- his excellent showing in New Hampshire lifted him about 3 or 4% in the SC polls. Here's is what to watch for next: can he secure third place ahead of Santorum? (They are now running neck-and-neck.) If he does that, he'll be in great shape to go to the GOP convention with a boatload of delegates, which he can use to influence the party platform.

Comments

  1. Anonymous3:06 AM

    Gene, I was just curious about something. Of course, we all know that you are no longer a libertarian and that your economics is no longer what can be described as purely Austrian (though, I sense a great amount of Austrian influence still present), but you still have been rather kind to Ron Paul.

    Your comments regarding the newsletters was pretty good and I agreed for the most part, and you seem to support his stance on foreign policy. So, I must ask, what are some of the things that you like about Ron Paul?

    This is a little off-topic, but regarding your move away from libertarianism, I feel that you are often unfairly criticized for this. If it is any consolation, even though we may disagree on certain topics, I still think you're alright and I also think that you're pretty darned good when it comes to philosophy. Which brings up another question: why did you pursue a career as an economist if your heart seems to lie in philosophy?

    Sorry to ask that on this post, but it's something that has been on my mind for a while and I haven't found a good place to bring it up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah7:46 AM

    "Which brings up another question: why did you pursue a career as an economist if your heart seems to lie in philosophy?"

    But Joseph, I have not pursued a career as an economist: it has pursued me! (Seriously, I am teaching economics right now as that is the job that opened up.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah7:47 AM

    Oh, and thanks for your kind words.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous8:14 AM

    Hey, no problem, Gene. I am a pretty open-minded guy, and I can easily tell when somebody is being vilified just because he is no longer part of the club. Personally, I am a man who believes in never burning bridges over such trivial matters.

    On my question:
    I guess I should have phrased that differently. I should have asked why you pursued an education in economics if philosophy was your true passion?

    If I were to guess, I would say that it is because economics is probably the closest thing to philosophy in which there is a greater prospect of getting work. Plus, from a philosophical point of view, economics is pretty darned interesting-- there is plenty of philosophical content in economics.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more