You're Welcome

Rush Limbaugh was blathering on, the other day, about how Republicans are afraid of backlash when talking about immigration. It occurred to me that Republican political opponents are right to lambast Republicans about the immigration "issue". It further seemed to me that socialists were right to insult Republicans on every "issue" and they are right to do so because Republican pundits and politicians continue to concede the intellectual point. On immigration for instance, Republicans have conceded that the system is "broken". Once this intellectual barrier has been breached the Republicans must eventually accept amnesty for those people that came here illegally. A broken immigration system means not only that it should be overhauled/reformed but that the people who came here illegally are not criminals but victims. If Republicans agree that the system should be revolutionized in order to avoid victimizing migrants then why are the Republicans so slow in...

I read an article in The Objective Standard (TOS) blog yesterday about assisted suicide. The article, written by Ari Armstrong, concluded that conservatives, by opposing assisted suicide, were imposing conservative values on those people in this country that are not conservative. Unfortunately for Mr. Armstrong he fails to understand that there is no such thing as "assisted" suicide. Only euthanasia. The articles in TOS and the TOS blog have a tendency to be shallow and when I read about any issue in the TOS or the TOS blog I look for deeper cultural and philosophical foundations. As I was thinking about the article in question the phrase "assisted suicide" struck me as odd. Upon further reflection I realized that it was the word "assisted" that bothered me. When I thought about it I realized that there is no such thing as "assisted" suicide. Suicide is the taking of one's own life. Homicide is the taking of another's life. If ...

President Obama has signed and will continue to sign executive orders to "fix" our "broken" immigration system. The Republicans in congress have declared that they will fight the executive order "tooth and nail". Of course the Republicans are screwed. All efforts to resist the president will be seen as petulant and rightfully so. Many years ago the Republicans conceded the intellectual point by admitting that our immigration system is broken. As a consequence President Obama's actions look reasonable and rational by default. You're welcome.

A couple of days ago another coworker surprised me with a statement about firearms. I was surprised because this person is an armed security guard and uses his weapon to defend himself on a regular basis. He told me that "If guns had never been invented we wouldn't have all of this violence." Upon reflection I realized what I should have said: "I concede your point. If there were no firearms there would be no firearm violence. If there were no automobiles there would be no auto accidents. If there was no alcohol there would be no alcoholism but so what?"

At work the other day I characterized, to a coworker, an individual that we both knew, as a "nut". Her immediate response was: "You can't judge!". As General Schwartzkopf would put it: "Bovine scatology!" It is B.S for two reasons: 1. Viewed as an expression of power "you can't judge" is false. My coworker is not a leader or change agent. I can (have the ability to) judge anyone at anytime for any reason and my coworker is powerless to stop it. 2. Viewed as an expression of ethics/morals my coworker's admonishment is false. It is ethical/moral for me to judge this person because existence is primary. Reality is the same for everyone. If I acted the way this "nut" acted I too would be rightfully judged as a "nut". "You can't judge" is exactly the kind of counter-culture nonsense, that if allowed to stand, incorrectly emphasizes the presumption for change and the presumption for change puts in...

A friend of mine commented the other day: "The weather! Isn't it weird?" At the time it was sunny and about 85 degrees...perfect! So why would she say that the weather is weird? Skepticism. She pretends that nothing can be known with certainty and therefore anything is possible. If certainty of knowledge is impossible then superstition reigns. We should put our confidence and trust not in science or god, but in people. As Ayn Rand put it "Attilas" and "witchdoctors" that will shield us from the terrifying and unknowable universe around us. Skepticism however, is self-contradictory. The declaration that "nothing can be known with certainty" is in itself a statement of certainty. I ignored the statement/question that my friend confronted me with but I could have just as easily handled it a different way. By asking her "Are you sure?" - You're welcome.

In my post about honesty and the SS I erroneously reported that there were only two issues with the Philosophy Now article. Actually there are three. The third one is the fiction that one has a duty to be loyal to society instead of "a moral code". Since morals properly defined are universal rights and wrongs; therefore, there can be no division between loyalty to society and loyalty to a moral code - You're welcome.

I was thrilled to hear that Mr. Scully has decided to return to the Dodgers for another season as the announcer. I was however disappointed with the reasoning behind the decision:  Feelings. Mr. Scully said that he would continue to return as long as he was excited about the game. He should have based his decision on something objective:  Talent. In Mr. Scully's case - voice quality. The reason that Mr. Scully has been an announcer for as long as he has is not enthusiasm, but talent. His ability to clearly announce the game. Mr. Scully should base his decision to return on whether or not his voice, not his heart, is still up to it.

I just heard on the radio the old canard that there are jobs Americans won't do. Bullshit. I work at Los Angeles Jobs Corps which provides vocational training to low income individuals from 16 to 24 years old. The jobs are labor intensive: certified nursing assistant, auto mechanic, and home building to name but three. There are not only students to fill these classes but there are frequently waiting lists. Also, look at the military. There are no shortage of men and women joining the military and the military branches frequently ask their members to do dirty, unpopular and ugly tasks. If you want a culprit to point a finger at regarding jobs that are going unfilled look no further than the minimum wage. The minimum wage means that a company must hire experienced workers because they can't pay a training wage. If companies can't find experienced workers in America they have no other choice but to look overseas.

I am listening to redeye radio. The hosts are discussing an article they read on Facebook. In the article a woman describes her experiences picking up food stamps in a Mercedes Benz. The woman portrays herself as a victim and she praises the Democrats for their support of "safety nets". This is a classic case of a person who erroneously believes that the universe is malevolent and that failure is to be expected. She believes that diligence is therefore a waste of time.

I have heard several people say that Bill Ayers, the former member of The Weather Underground, is dangerous. Baloney. Mr. Ayers is bourgeois. He lives in a comfortable middle class suburb of Chicago right across the street from the president of the United States. He and his wife are school teachers. Stars and stripes forever! - You're welcome.

In Philosophy Now magazine I came across an article about ethics. It claimed that honesty cannot be absolute because of a thought experiment that goes like this: The SS comes to the door and inquiries about the Jews you are hiding in the attic. Should you be honest and turn over your fugitives? The author says no because, according to the author, one has a larger moral duty to humanity than to a moral code. The thought experiment is invalid for at least two reasons. One - the SS is dead and there are no Jews hiding in attics anymore and two - the SS was not in the habit of respecting property rights or being polite. If they wanted to know what was going on in a person's home they would kick in the door and search the house. The relevant thought experiment is gang territory. In a gang area (maybe Mafia) the gang has made it clear that anyone who cooperates with the authorities will be severely punished and maybe even killed. A crime has been committed in the territory and witnesse...

I saw the news about the Hobby Lobby decision on television today (7-1). ABC news reported that conservatives/the right wing scored a victory today when the supreme court ruled that a corporation can have religious convictions and that those beliefs are protected under the constitution. The supreme court is not in the business of picking winners and losers but in deciding what is or isn't constitutional. Along with describing the result as a 5 to 4 decision, ABC news erroneously paints a subjectivistic picture where reality is decided by majority vote. Truth is real, certain, and moral. The supreme court's job is to discover the truth. - You're welcome

I find the statement "it won't happen" When describing man-made realities very frustrating. People throw that phrase around like it's smart. It's not. It's stupid. Metaphysical realities lend themselves to predictions. Man-made realities, by-and-large, don't. The point when dealing with man-made realities is ethical. The point  is whether something "should" happen. "It won't happen" is stupid for two reasons: It's a prediction about a man-made reality (gambling, superstition) and it misses the point (anti-ethical). - You're welcome.

Republicans and other living things have a problem confronting and defeating Democrat socio/political proposals because they miss the trick. The trick is "socializing" the issue. "The poor", "The elderly", "The environment" are just a few of the examples of socializing the issue. Socialized issues invariably lend themselves to socialized solutions. The key is to privatize the issue because a privatized issue lends itself invariably to a privatized solution. - You're welcome

It seems to me that liberals behave an awful lot like Adult Children of Alcoholics (ACA): 1. We became afraid of angry people, authority figures and personal criticism. 2. We became approval seekers and lost our identity in the process. 3. We live life from the standpoint of victims and we are attracted by that weakness in our love and our friendship relationships. 4. We have an over-developed sense of responsibility and it is easier for us to be concerned with others rather than ourselves; this enables us to avoid looking too closely at our own faults etc. 5. We get guilt feelings when we stand up for ourselves instead of giving in to others. 6. We became addicted to excitement. 7. We confuse love with pity and tend to love those we can pity and rescue. 8. We judged ourselves harshly and have low self-esteem. 9. We are reactors rather than actors. 10. You're welcome.

Being pragmatic is the pretense that ideas should be judged by their results. In other words "the ends justify the means". Also, pragmatic activity is always aimed at idealistic (unrealistic) outcomes. Ethics is principled and based on acknowledging reality. Being pragmatic is inherently unethical.

The hallmarks of American counter culture are: 1. Informality and false intimacy. 2. Publicity/nosiness (divulging personal information to people one barely knows and expecting others to do the same). 3. Subversion (stupidity is smart, cowardice is courageous, ugliness is beautiful). 4. Being jaded. 3. Impulsivity and improvisation. 4. Immediacy (no yesterday or tomorrow just successive moments of now). 5. Anti-conceptuality (expressing ideas via pictures and stories instead of concepts and abstractions). 6. Being idealistic (overreaching). 7. Expecting to get something for nothing. 8. Psycholgizing. - You're welcome

I just finished a new "great course" titled: "The Philosopher's Toolkit - How to be the most rational person in the room". It should have been titled: The Psychologistic's Toolkit - How to be the most manipulative person in the room". At the end of the last lecture the professor listed the people he thinks were great thinkers giving the reason or reasons why he included each person in the group after he named them. If the professor wanted to be rational (realistic) he would have defined his terms (in this case - great thinkers) before creating the list. What constitutes a great thinker? How many great ideas must one have had? As it is the professor makes one of the most basic logical fallacies. He simply demands that the viewer take his word for it. - You're welcome

But not for the reasons one might think. Mr. Cuban claimed that everyone is prejudiced. He then went on to give a couple of controversial examples. His error was not in his examples, but in his claim of universal prejudice and his faulty logic in arriving at this conclusion. Mr. Cuban's thinking goes like this: I'm prejudiced so therefore prejudice must be a metaphysical reality and therefore everyone is prejudiced. He is wrong. Prejudice is a man-made reality. Mark Cuban may be prejudiced but that doesn't automatically mean that anyone else is. You're welcome

Several decades ago the idea of public employee unions was universally rejected but now those same ideas are now reality. Why? The reason is because of what Ayn Rand referred to as "anti-concepts". Anti-concepts are concepts that are used to obliterate other concepts. In this case the concept in need of obliterating was "conflict of interest" and the concept used to obliterate it was "stakeholders". As things stand today everyone is a stakeholder and if stakeholders have a right to be involved in all debates then there is no such thing as "conflict of interest". If there is no such thing as conflict of interest then there is no longer any intellectual barrier to public employee unions. You're welcome

I work at a vocational school in Los Angeles. Part of my job is to enforce standards of conduct. The other day while I was confronting the non-compliant, I realized that many students believe relationships are fundamentally about power. They argue, question and complain. They, of course, are wrong. Relationships are fundamentally about conduct and conduct is fundamentally about ethics. Life is not about winning but about right and wrong. You're welcome.

Carbon dioxide is not, has not been, and never will be, a green-house gas. The green-house effect takes place eight to twelve miles high in the troposphere. Carbon dioxide is one-and-a-half times heavier than oxygen and travels along the ground.

The ultimate universal truth is reality. Reality exists for everyone, everywhere at all times. This is the truth. All other "truths" should be judged by this standard. Is murder universally wrong? Is murder real? If so, then it is universal. Is murder desirable? No. Then murder is wrong. Universally wrong. - You're welcome

As I was listening to the radio I heard a caller express concern about the use of the word "fair" instead of the word "right". Ayn Rand was correct about a lot of things. And one of those things is the use of words as anti-concepts. In this case the anti-concept is the word "fair". The Anti-concept fair is designed to obliterate the concept "right". If one is subjectivistic and pretends that reality doesn't exist and therefore that nothing can be known with certainty and therefore there are no universal rights and wrongs then one cannot use the words "right" and "wrong" if one wishes to remain consistent. - You're welcome

Television news companies used to be non-profit. They provided news to the people as a public service. Because of this, news organizations valued their integrity and credibility. Today the value is profit. - You're welcome

American counter culture has for decades promoted a materialistic outlook. More specifically, the theory that nothing exists except that which one can feel. Gary McNamara of red eye radio has said that the majority of Americans don't care about the national debt. Further, that Americans don't want to deal with the debt because they love the programs promoted by the political parties. Mr. McNamara is wrong. The reason that Americans turn a blind eye to the mounting national debt is because the materialistic have successfully promoted the fiction that the debt is merely a concept and doesn't really exist. - You're welcome

"You should treat everyone the same". It's a refrain I hear constantly. But taking the equality "mandate" to its logical extreme what happens to respect? Why should a student respect a teacher? Why should a younger person treat a senior with respect? Why should a subordinate treat a supervisor with any respect? Everyone should be treated equally? Obviously not! - You're welcome.

Impeachment is a trial not necessarily a conviction. President Clinton was impeached but found not guilty. - You're welcome

The murders at Ft. Hood put the lie to the statement that America is awash in guns. - You're welcome

I'm currently taking a course from The Teaching Company about how to be the most rational person in the room. The course focuses on rhetoric, debate and argumentation. What's really interesting about the course so far is the use of studies by the professor to make his points. The studies are psychologically intimidating but of little or no intellectual value. Their value is limited because of the small sample sizes. You're welcome.

There are only two qualifications to run for President of the United States:  Be over 35 years old and be born in the USA.  Everything else about presidential elections is irrational.

The socio/political movement known popularly as "environmentalism" is based on at least two faulty foundations:  The epistemological error called "skepticism" and the metaphysical error called "the environment". There is no such thing as "the environment".  Everything is property.  "Public" property or "private" property. The skeptical pretend that nothing can be known with certainty.  That statement however, is self-negating. "Environmentalism" is a conceit.  It is intellectually vacant and unworthy of any serious discussion.  You're welcome.

If the political parties in DC want to increase employment they should cut the minimum wage.  You're welcome.

I was listening to a podcast of "Leo Laporte, The Tech Guy" ( www.techguylabs.com )yesterday. During the show Mr. Laporte told his audience to contact their political representatives and encourage those representatives to pressure the FCC to disapprove the proposed merger between Commcast and Time Warner Cable. Mr. Laporte! Mind your own business! Just because you are knowledgeable about technical issues doesn't make you a leader or a change agent! If the companies merge and fail to satisfy you as a  customer you can go somewhere else to get your entertainment needs met!

At work the other day I noticed a document on a desk. At the top of the document in bold and underlining read: Ten Strategies for Conflict Resolution. Following that were ten bullet points, each one a tool or technique for "resolving conflict." At the bottom of the page on the right hand side in subscript read: Developed by Wholistic Stress Control Institute, Inc. Distributed by the State Wellness Program, a program of the Employee's Benefit Council. (I have never heard of any of these entities) As I looked over the document something bothered me. It wasn't so much what the document communicated as what it failed to communicate - ethics. No where in the document are the words "right" or "wrong" used. It did use the words - "situation", "compliment", "feelings", "issue", "opinions", "compliance", "agreement", "competition", "opposition", "conclu...

I had an experience at work yesterday that I think illustrates very clearly the clash between culture and counter-culture as it relates to ethics. Yesterday was payday and our paychecks/statements are in sealed envelopes with the employee's name and address on them. I carelessly selected the wrong envelope and opened it up. I immediately realized that I had accidentally opened the envelope of a coworker and informed my supervisor who told me to inform the coworker. When I explained what had happened to my coworker she became indignant insisting that "this is unacceptable". She informed the human resources department and eventually my coworker and I had a meeting with our supervisor and the department manager. At the conclusion of the meeting my coworker's feelings had been soothed and we all went on with our work. What is obvious to me when I look back on the situation is that psychology (feelings) was the driver here. I come to that conclusion because no in...

I wad listening to Rush Limbaugh's opening monologue this morning. He was commenting on the Democrats claim that global warming will inevitably lead to the extinction of the human species. Mr. Limbaugh expressed amazement that the television commentators were serious about this. He said that the reason they were taking the claim seriously is because they are liberals, as though that explains everything. Wrong! It explains nothing. The actual reason is irony. The commentators simply pretend to take the extinction claim seriously. They use a sales technique:  they "assume the close" in trying to "sell" the world on global warming. - You're welcome

I was reading a chapter in Ayn Rand's book The Virtue of Selfishness. The chapter was named The Cult of Moral Greyness. In the chapter Ms. Rand claims that our culture is dominated by people who refuse to judge others claiming that there are no absolutes only approximations. Ms. Rand then goes on to show that absolutes do exist and should be acknowledged. What Ms. Rand and the "cultists" fail to grasp is the distinction between morals/ethics and Justice . Two people may commit the same crime but do they both deserve the same fate? If one man steals to feed his family and another steals for profit, both are guilty of theft (absolute), but the penalty for each should be very different (approximation). - You're welcome

I was listening to Gary McNamara on red eye radio ( www.redeyeradio.com ). Mr. McNamara repeatedly expresses bewilderment about the motives of a feminist blogger (Amy Glass) who disparaged marriage and child rearing in her blog. If Mr. McNamara knew anything about post-Marxism then the aim of this blogger would be clear to him: World-wide socialist revolution ushering in socialist "paradise". Marxism claims that the revolution will occur when the workers rise-up and throw off their capitalist masters. Post Marxism posits that any organization/movement can start the revolution. Feminism is one such movement. Miss Glass expresses contempt for domesticity because domestic bliss is counter revolutionary. - You're welcome

I just heard Glen Beck on the radio say that greed is okay as long wait doesn't make you do something immoral(!) What? Greed is immoral! Greed is ambition taken to its illogical extreme. If Mr. Beck had taken the time to define his terms he would not have made this mistake. - You're welcome

In the current issue of The Objective Standard ( www.theobjectivestandard.com ) Mr. Craig Biddle wrote an article about what the government has done to fight terrorism. He concludes that it has done precious little if anything at all. He blaims relativism and religion for the government's reluctance to go after the real perpetrators of terrorsim: Iran and Saudia Arabia. The article shows more depth than other Objective Standard articles. However, I take issue with two things Mr. Biddle included in his article (government and relativism) and one thing he didn't (worldwide revolution). Since it is key to his article Mr. Biddle should have defined the word "government". Government is the apparatus that political parties use to wield power. It is the political parties and more specifically the people in those parties that make the policies to which Mr. Biddle objects. Mr. Biddle needs to identify specific individuals that are culpable (the president? the speaker ...

If the idealistic, particularly those of the political left, refuse to acknowledge reality how can they be politically effective? How can they effect change? I contend that the idealistic maintain political relevance with the assistance however unwittingly of the realistic (politically speaking - anti-socialists). The idealistic contend that reality, in order to be mastered, must be ignored. Whereas the truth is that change only occurs when reality is consulted. Since the realistic are so oriented the idealistic must psychologistically manipulate and intimidate the realistic to support their socio-political aims. - You're welcome

When analyzing current socio-political events I look deeper than just the surface issues. I look for what Marx referred to as the "superstructure". I look for psycho-social/cultural influences on the trends and ideas of today. I recognize two fundamental approaches to life: Idealistic and Realistic. Being idealistic means denying reality and recognizing only the psychologistic. It further means being epistemologically skeptical (nothing can be known with certainty) and ethically relative (the denial of universal rights and wrongs). Politically the idealistic pretend that the universe is malevolent (scary and unpredictable) which gives rise to the presumption for change (success can only be had by luck and/or cheating) and therefore the revolutionary drive for the perfect society. The idealistic are found mainly on the left but I contend that many conservatives are in fact idealistic as are Libertarians and Objectivists ( www.theobjectivestandard.com ). All of this is importan...

"The natural endowment of the intellect is not acutal knowledge but the power of acquiring knowledge. The mind is in the beginning without ideas, it is like a smooth tablet on which nothing is written. All our knowledge, therefore, is acquired by a process of elaboration or development of sense-knowledge." - Nichomachean Ethics - You're Welcome