Presidents present and past compare and contrast

And from the comments:

If you look at the photos, you can see who’s talking.

In the top photo, it is Dr. Anthony Fauci, a medical doctor at the National Institutes of Health who has worked on finding treatments for emergent diseases; his experience even includes working on SARS and Ebola. Everyone is listening attentively to Dr. Fauci, including President Trump.

In the other photo of the Ebola task force, the speaker is President Obama, a non-practicing attorney and community organizer who has had the flu a few times. Dr. Fauci is not at this meeting at all.

Neither the media and the left [same thing, obviously] have any idea about policy nor about what is required to make things work.

I keep hearing voices in my head

I have known for a long time that I have a constant monologue in my head since every time I am accosted by someone selling a magazine on the street, my thought processes are interrupted. Yet I had been told years ago that only some people are like that. That story therefore continues here: Today I Learned That Not Everyone Has An Internal Monologue And It Has Ruined My Day. This is the full article.


My day was completely ruined yesterday when I stumbled upon a fun fact that absolutely obliterated my mind. I saw this tweet yesterday that said that not everyone has an internal monologue in their head. All my life, I could hear my voice in my head and speak in full sentences as if I was talking out loud. I thought everyone experienced this, so I did not believe that it could be true at that time.

Literally the first person I asked was a classmate of mine who said that she can not “hear” her voice in her mind. I asked her if she could have a conversation with herself in her head and she looked at me funny like I was the weird one in this situation. So I began to become more intrigued. Most people I asked said that they have this internal monologue that is running rampant throughout the day. However, every once in a while, someone would say that they don’t experience this.


My life began to slowly spiral out of control with millions of questions. How do they get through the day? How do they read? How do they make decisions between choice A and choice B? My friend described it as “concept maps” that she sees in her brain. Another friend says that she literally sees the words in her head if she is trying to think about something. I was taking ibuprofen at this point in the day because my brain was literally unable to comprehend this revelation. How have I made it 25 years in life without realizing that people don’t think like me?

NoUkL6drTiahwkMY0qqBJQ_thumb_13d6.jpgI posted a poll on instagram to get a more accurate assessment of the situation. Currently 91 people have responded that they have an internal monologue and 18 people reported that they do not have this. I began asking those people questions about the things that they experience and it is quite different from the majority.

I would tell them that I could look at myself in the mirror and have a full blown telepathic conversation with myself without opening my mouth and they responded as if I had schizophrenia. One person even mentioned that when they do voice overs in movies of people’s thoughts, they “wished that it was real.”

gfva7cPSQEGZvIHGIM0vlg_thumb_13e5And to their surprise, they did not know that the majority of people do in fact experience that echoey voice in their head that is portrayed in TV and film. Another person said that if they tried to have a conversation with themselves in the mirror, they would have to speak out loud because they can’t physically do it inside of their mind.

I started posting screenshots of these conversations on my instagram and my inbox started UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_13e2to flood with people responding to my “investigation.” Many people were reassuring me that I was not crazy for having an internal monologue, while others were as absolutely mind blown as I was. People were telling me that I ruined their day and that they now do not understand anything about life. Maybe you are all just a figment of my imagination, but regardless, yesterday made reality seem even more skewed.

How do they think? How does this affect their relationships, jobs, experiences, education? How has this not been mentioned to me before? All of these questions started flooding my mind. Can those people without the internal monologue even formulate these questions in their mind? If they can, how does it happen if they don’t “hear” their voice? I mentioned earlier that I was spiraling out of control. Well, as I write this and as I hear my own voice in my head, I am continuing to fall down the rabbit hole.


Whether people just have different definitions of their thoughts, or if people literally don’t have an internal monologue, there is one thing that we do know… you will definitely get a headache if you keep thinking about this. Just trying to wrap my head around it is causing irreversible brain damage. I suggest asking people around you what they experience. If you are one of the few that do not have this internal monologue, please enlighten me, because I still do not understand life anymore. Send help.


And here is the fascinating discussion thread on Instapundit where the article was found.

“Police interrogated me about my Justin Trudeau book. They didn’t know I videotaped it”

That’s Ezra Levant. You would think Trudeau and company would be embarrassed by all this, that the entire country should be embarrassed, but there you are. It is only our historic constitutional rights that preserve our freedom just out of habit, if not conviction. If you do not value Ezra and worry about what you see, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Via Powerline.

There’s nothing like a Dame

As in Dame Edna, of course, and now Bettina Arndt: Bettina Arndt labels Victorian Attorney General’s call to strip her of Australia Day honour ‘ludicrous’. And I’m not all that sure I am happy with such sexist wording in the ABC heading.

The point of the story was that Bettina Arndt received an AM in the Australia Day Honours List which has set off quite a bit of gnashing of teeth among the usual sociopaths on the left. What this has done is once again demonstrate that a large part of modern feminism is not pro-women but anti-male. This is from her article from The Spectator this week where she discusses it all. Cannot link since I have only the original typescript:

Then they rolled out a big gun – namely our former Australian of the Year, Rosie Batty, who became a domestic violence advocate after her son was tragically killed by her mentally ill ex-husband. Sadly, this once admirable woman is now a feminist puppet, endlessly sprouting misleading statistics and anti-male propaganda. Sure enough, the media reported Batty was shocked and appalled by my award, claiming my work “pits men against women”. That’s because I quote the official statistics showing at least a third of domestic violence victims are men, whilst she presents men as the only perpetrators.

So it went on. Next university journalism lecturer Jenna Price put the boot in, piling on all manner of accusations. Declaring herself an ambassador for an organisation seeking more honours for women, Price boasted she was informed by multiple sources that the vote to give this recognition to me was “both close and hotly debated” rather than the desirable consensus vote. Clearly members of this government committee were prepared to breach confidentiality regulations – such was their fury at this award going to the wrong sort of woman.

And then Nina Funnell, was revealed to have egg on her face. She had spent two years on a major hit job on me which was published earlier this week in an online rag, New Matilda. Funnell’s lengthy drivel claimed I misrepresent my professional qualifications by allowing people to describe me as a “psychologist” or “clinical psychologist,” rather than spelling out that was just my initial professional training. Then it turned out Funnell herself had described me a “clinical psychologist” in another article published earlier last weekend. What a hoot!

And, of course, “There’s Nothing Like a Dame” is from South Pacific which I assume includes us!! One more example of material from a galaxy far far away.

And from the comments: Modern Feminism’s Hated Enemy: Womanhood.

Another opportunity to miss an opportunity

Here’s something different: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, UAE welcome Trump peace plan. I doubt it would ever have been put on the table if it had not already been pre-approved. As for the Palestinian leadership, they have never sought peace so something will have to change. The Western media will also likely remain negative, if for no other reason than the plan has come from Donald Trump. As for the Democrats, they never have a foreign policy that is not a domestic policy aimed at winning votes. The details are via Powerline.

Borders: Trump’s plan features a map of what Israel’s new borders will be, should it enact the plan fully. Israel will retain 20% of the West Bank and will lose a small amount of land in the Negev near the Gaza-Egypt border. The Palestinians will have a pathway to a state in the vast majority of territory in the West Bank, while Israel will maintain control of all borders.

This is the first time an American peace plan has included a map.

Jerusalem: The Palestinians will have a capital in east Jerusalem based on northern and eastern neighborhoods that are outside the Israeli security barrier – Kafr Akab, Abu Dis and half of Shuafat. Otherwise, Trump said Jerusalem will remain undivided as Israel’s capital.

In addition:

Settlements: Israel will retain the Jordan Valley and all Israeli settlements in the West Bank in the broadest definition possible, meaning not the municipal borders of each settlement but their security perimeters. This also includes 15 isolated settlements, which will be enclaves within an eventual Palestinian state. Within those settlements Israel will not be able to build for the next four years.

Security: Israel will be in control of security from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The IDF will not have to leave the West Bank. No change to Israel’s approach to Judea and Samaria would be needed.

Palestinian state: The plan does not include immediate recognition of a Palestinian state; rather, it expects a willingness on Israel’s part to create a pathway toward Palestinian statehood based on specific territory, which is about 70% of Judea and Samaria, including areas A and B and parts of Area C. The state will only come into existence in four years if the Palestinians accept the plan, if the Palestinian Authority stops paying terrorists and inciting terrorism and if Hamas and Islamic Jihad put down their weapons. In addition, the American plan calls on the Palestinians to give up corruption, respect human rights, freedom of religion and a free press, so that they don’t have a failed state. If those conditions are met, the US will recognize a Palestinian state and implement a massive economic plan to assist it.

They know what the right answer is …

… but they don’t care

Not to mention:

Why you must side with Donald Trump on impeachment

Since I was asked in a recent post about why we have been avoiding the impeachment story, let me say for myself that there is no there there to discuss. The Democrats and their enablers in the media are apparently willing to destroy the American system of government for some short-term gain in the right to formulate policy, which will ruin the balance of forces that maintain stability. I spent enough years in a political environment to see how things are done, and they are done behind closed doors where agreements are reached with the shake of a hand and then everyone else plays their part in allowing the agreed outcome to come about. There is nothing necessarily corrupt or dishonest about politics.

The one thing that is absolutely necessary is for the representatives of the various interests to be led by strong-willed people who know what they want to achieve and understand when they have gone as far as they can go, given the state of play. No decision I have ever been party to was constructed out of corrupt motives, although there has been quite a lot of political profiteering that has gone on.

Among the reasons I dislike Keynesian economics so much is that it turns governments into dispensers of wealth. Rather than producing value-adding goods and services, people can become very wealthy by being on the receiving end of public funds. There may seldom have been a gravy train as thick as the moneys being lashed out to supposedly prevent global warming, but that is how things are done. Windmills and solar panels, for all their waste and harm, are what the population really seems to want. Self-interest is the soul of politics and it’s not always enlightened.

But the Democrats’ relentless attacks on Donald Trump have gone beyond anything anyone has seen before. None of this is in dispute so far as I am concerned:

  • Barack Obama was at the centre of a cabal of insiders who did all they could by using various government institutions (such as the FBI) to undermine the electoral process to stop Donald Trump from becoming president;
  • There has been a continuous process to prevent and inhibit the Republicans from governing through illegal and unconstitutional actions;
  • Hillary Clinton was the most corrupt and stunningly incompetent politician ever to run for President – the Clinton Foundation was an open non-secret;
  • Joe Biden specifically admitted that he had forced the Ukrainian government from investigating his son who was for reasons unrelated to his knowledge and abilities on the board of a Ukrainian business, receiving millions of dollars, solely because his father, Joe Biden, was the Vice-President;
  • When Mueller could not find any evidence that the 2016 election had been tipped towards Trump by some kind of Russian interference, the Democrats turned on a dime to invent an absurd story about Trump applying pressure on the Ukrainian political system as a means to subvert Joe Biden’s run for the presidency;
  • The media are deranged in their fanatically biased distortions of the events of the day. There is virtually never a positive story in regard to Donald Trump. The ABC is a sewer of lies and distortions, but still remains better than any of the mainstream networks in the US.

And on it goes. Politics is a hard business and often very hard on those who get involved, but also often very lucrative. But the impeachment has reached a new and stunningly high-grade level of corruption. If the Democrats are allowed to succeed in what is essentially a coup, the United States will enter some form of socialist one-party state – not like the Soviet Union, more like Argentina – in which “the will of the people” will be an utterly meaningless expression with no actual reality on the ground.

If this does not worry you to the very depths, then you have no idea what democracy is and why in trying to preserve our way of life you must side with Donald Trump.

Donald Trump will speak on behalf of Delta House

This was picked up from Steve Hayward at Powerline: TRUMP VERSUS DEAN WORMER. He writes:

Trump as head of Delta House is actually a lot more accurate than the people who did this parody may realize. And I expect his second inaugural parade might resemble the Animal House version, too, as he ramrods the Deep State lined up on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue.

A bit too premature for me to be picking the result of the election in November, but why not be an optimist? And if you are not familiar with this scene from the greatest movie of my generation (well not quite), here it is.

Irving Fisher on Utility

Posted on the Shoe list on 27 January 2020.

Is “Utility” the Most Suitable Term for the Concept It is Used to Denote?

by Irving Fisher

American Economic Review, volume 8 (1918), pp. 335-7.

In all sciences, and particularly in one like economics, which appeals to the general public and which uses concepts and terms already at least partially familiar, it is a matter of some practical importance to select a suitable terminology.

The concept called “final degree of utility” by Jevon’s, “effective utility”, “specific utility”, and “marginal efficiency” by J. B. Clark, “marginal utility” and “marginal desirability” by Marshall, Gide and others, “Grenznutzen” by the Austrians, “Werth der letzten Atome” by Gossen, “rareté” by Walras, and “ophélimité” by Pareto, seem still in need of really satisfactory terms by which to express it.

Marshall improved greatly upon Jevons’ phrase when he substituted the term “marginal” for “final degree of”, and this improvement has been very generally recognized and accepted.

But, as yet, no generally accepted substitute for “utility” has been found. The term is a heritage of Bentham and his utilitarian philosophy. It is misleading to every beginner in economics and to the great untutored and naïve public who find it hard to call an overcoat no more truly useful than a necklace, or a grindstone than a roulette wheel. Economists cannot with impunity override the popular distinction between useful and ornamental, much less that between useful and useless, without confusing and repelling the man in the street.

In the last few years a new source of confusion has arisen from the use, in a special sense, of the phrase “public utilities.” This phrase must itself be used by economists who now find themselves discussing the marginal utility of a public utility! — and distinguishing between the marginal utility “in the economic sense” representing the esteem of the political ring or other powers that be for that public utility (which marginal utility imparts economic value to said public utility), and utility “in the popular sense” representing the real social serviceableness of that public utility!

Genuine utility for social service must, as Pareto says, be more and more studied by economists as they fulfill their task of working out plans for economic and social betterments. He therefore suggested that we should not abandon the term utility but reserve it to express the genuine article and employ in its place in price analysis the term “ophelimity” — as it has been anglicised — to express the value-making quality.

It is true that coined words have the great advantage of breaking away from the misleading associations which cling to terms already in popular use. But the difficulty has been with “ophelimity” as with most coined words, that, just because it has no association to introduce it, it would not and could not dispossess the old term.

The term “desirability” comes very near the required mark and I have used it in most of my books; but, unfortunately, like utility it carries with it to some extent an ethical connotation. Usage seems to imply that a desirable object is one which ought to be desired, rather than one which simply has the potentiality of being desired. We are force to call the most undesirable articles and services, such as whiskey and prostitution, economically “desirable” in price analysis.

It has occurred to me that the term really needed may be built on the good old economic term “want”. Long before the days of “marginal utility” economists spoke of “human wants”. Wants include wants for purposes of ornamentation as well as for purposes of real utility; wants for what is trivial or useless as well as for what s important, useful and desirable; wants for evil as well as for good purposes. So far as the influence on price is concerned the essential fact is that an object is actually wanted, or rather that it is capable of being actually wanted under stated circumstances. Whether it ought to be wanted, or whether it is wanted for a proper purpose is immaterial. It must merely have the capacity for being wanted, it must be wantable, it must have wantability. Ordinarily the short term “want” will suffice. We can speak of a marginal want for whiskey, and if we prefer a phrase in which “of” replaces the “for”, we can speak of the marginal “wantability” of whiskey. The two terms “want” and “wantability” might well be used alternatively, affording welcome variety in expression.

The more technical term of the two, “wantability”, is only half coined. It is sufficiently coined to serve notice on the reader that he must learn, not assume, its meaning; while the association of ideas it carries, leads the mind along the right path without paradox, contradiction or confusion. It is readily recognized when seen and easily recalled when wanted. In short, it bears its meaning on its face. As hinted above, it could be piloted into use by speaking of “the marginal want for” as an alternative to “the marginal wantability of.”

Another advantage is that these terms afford the means for coining an expression, to me at least much needed, for a unit of “wantability”. Such a unit might be called a “wantab”. In this case we have a free field for a coined word and no term in use to dispute possession. If, as I anticipate, the science of measuring human wants is to be developed in the future a convenient term for this unit will be needed.

No equally suitable term for a unit of “desirability” or “utility” or “ophelimity” seems available; although in my doctor’s thesis of 1891 on “mathematical investigations in the theory of value and prices” I made an attempt. The appearance last year of a French translation of this little essay has renewed my interest in a better terminology and, together with the opportunity to secure the necessary data which the war seems to promise, has led me to hope for a statistical measurement of marginal “wantability”.

Before attempting to launch any new terms for this concept, I should be glad to receive expressions of approval or disapproval from other economists.

This was David Colander’s comment on posting the article:


Many early neoclassical economists followed classical thought and distinguished between theoretical discussions and ethical policy discussion. Policy involved ethical judgements, which they were quite willing to make, and scientific theory related to what they could potentially measure. This led them to distinguish the measurable desirableness of a product (along revealed preference lines–a concept Pareto called ophelimity and which Fisher wanted to call “wantabes”) from a different and broader concept of utility in which value judgements entered in. Individuals maximized wantabes, not the utility that was relevant for public policy. The goal of public policy was to maximize utility, not to maximize ophelimity, which was what was potentially measurable. The distinction was never fully developed, but I think it sheds some light on Colin’s question.

Below is a short piece the Fisher wrote to drum up support for his concept of utility. It demonstrates how he uses the distinction to blend his social policy into his scientific analysis. That distinguish between ophelimity and utility approach lost favor in part because the ethical judgements Fisher made were questionable, as they involved support of eugenics among other things. In my book with Craig Freedman on Where Economics Went Wrong, I argued it should be brought back, and policy analysis should be distinguished from scientific analysis more than it currently is.