(sigh)

[tahnan]

I'm still in a lousy mood. But Jon Carroll usually helps, and Jon Carroll simultaneously skewering objectivism and supporting people with disabilities definitely does.

Comments

[littleowl.livejournal.com]

Yes. Jon Carroll is one of my favorite parts of The Chronicle.

[fuldu.livejournal.com]

I believe I've probably put more effort than anyone into forcing stellavision to defend her ideals, at least as far as her LJ is concerned, but I'd be hard-pressed to agree with you that objectivism is what Carroll is skewering here. I associate the attitudes he's presenting much more with "God helps those who help themselves" providentialism than with hard-nosed economic libertarianism or objectivism. Doesn't make it any less fun to read, though.

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

Certainly he's attacking heartless conservatives (as opposed to, say, "compassionate conservatives"). But phrases like "They believe that God blesses people unequally, that life is not fair and that any other view is just 'politically correct,'...We should stop whining and strive, or accept our role among the worthy poor" certainly sounds like objectivism, as I understand it.

[fuldu.livejournal.com]

I don't think many objectivists would use the phrase "God blesses people unequally," even metaphorically. God tends to be anathema to the tenets of objectivism. I associate talk like that more with the sorts of Christians who write books like God Wants You to be Rich and who suggest that divine providence isn't spread evenly or randomly, but collects upon those who strive to earn it. Objectivism's view (at least for the purposes of creating an analogy to this particular statement) would be more that life isn't fair, but that intervening would be even more unfair, as it's not an action supported by reason. The end results end up sounding very similar, but the path taken to get there is very different.

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

Ultimatly, though, Carroll is arguing against the end result. I can't imagine him being any happier with an objectivist argument that ends with "We should stop whining and strive, or accept our role among the worthy poor" than he is with a conservative nutcase-Christian^* argument that ends that way. Or any happier with an objectivist argument that ends with "If you're not capable of taking the test without a calculator, we shouldn't intervene and give you one; instead, we should let everyone do the best they can with exactly the same tools, and if you fail, well, then you fail", which is the result here.

^*Note that "nutcase-" is a modifier here, and not some indication of redundancy. Carroll, I believe, quite likes Christians, as do I; but neither he nor I is a fan of nutcases in general, and the "nutcase Christians" are no exception.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

IME, kids taking standardized tests are permitted calculators these days. Certainly the SAT permits calculators, and the NJ tests permit calculators, so I'm not entirely sure where Jon Carroll gets his assertion that calculators aren't permitted.

[tablesaw]

He got his assertion from an article printed two days earlier.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

That's just frigging bizarre. Of course, I suppose I should expect as much from the Bush administration. Differentiating between math and arithmetic is too much to expect from these idiots.