Objectivism Online Recent Forum Posts

Applications of Philosophy -- Objectivism in Daily Life

Sun, 20 May 2012 02:04:01 +0000

Applications of Philosophy
Objectivism in one’s daily life
By Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.
04/27/2012

There is a disturbing trend among the younger generation of those interested in Objectivism, and that is to reject some of the applications of philosophy in Dr. Peikoff’s podcasts on the grounds that Objectivism – and philosophy in general – ought not to have anything to say about certain topics. Among those topics discussed have been whether or not the New York City Mosque ought to be built after the atrocities of 911, transgenderism and whether or not a sex change is moral, and the best way of fighting terrorism, among others.  I don’t know where these disagreements are coming from. I don’t know if it is from Diana Hsieh, the Kelleyites, or some other influence, but it does seem to be widespread considering the conflicts I have had with quite a few people on forum.objectivismonline.net forums. Some would say just to leave them alone and find a better forum, but I don’t think it is just that forum as the attitude also extends to some of my FaceBook friends and a general hatred of checkingpremises.org. A few have gone so far as to imply that Dr. Peikoff “has lost it”, or that he is being dishonest in applying Objectivism to areas where it shouldn’t have anything to say about a topic, or that he is an Objectivist in name only because they disagree with him.

Philosophy is a wide set of integrated principles guiding a man’s thoughts about the nature of existence and man’s place in it. As such, it gives a man a special intellectual frame-work with which to guide his thinking. For many philosophies, a practical guide to living on earth is not given. These philosophies give wide principles or pseudo-principles in a mind / body dichotomy way – philosophy is for intellectualizing divorced from living one’s life practically. But Objectivism is certainly different. Ayn Rand identified Objectivism as a philosophy of living on earth; which means that it gives more practical guidance explicitly versus most any other philosophy. And since Objectivism is based on the facts of reality in a wider and wider integration of those facts, applications based on Objectivism can get down to many more specific areas than most any other philosophy. Basically, anytime there is a need for broad principles to guide one’s thoughts and actions, an Objectivist philosopher or even a long-term Objectivist can  give one the principles to guide one in how to think about the facts prevalent to the more specific issues.

Philosophy as such cannot tell you what to have for breakfast, but it can tell you that given the nature of man and the fact that he needs to eat certain things in order to remain alive, that one ought to have a nutritious meal for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Similarly, given the nature of egoism – the morality of Objectivism --  philosophy can tell you that when you are confronted by an enemy who seeks to destroy you and your country that you ought to defend yourself in the most efficient manner possible. It cannot tell you to use either guns or knives or karate to defend yourself in those specifics, but it can tell you that egoism requires also acknowledging the necessity of self-defense if one values one’s own life. So, in broad principles, it can tell you to destroy the enemy – no holds barred. Similarly, since morality stems from a rational understanding of the nature of man and the requirements of sustaining one’s own life, that certain medical procedures that go to the root of what it is to be that particular individual ought to be avoided. For example, a frontal lobotomy might make you more manageable, but it is not recommended as this would take away one’s ability to reason and possibly one’s free will. Since one’s sex or gender is fully integrated down to the individual cells and molecular structure of one’s body, then just making a physical change to one’s genitals is not recommended, since such a change would not be integrated into the rest of one’s body – at least not with modern technology. So, a sex change is not recommended, and is certainly immoral if one claims to want one with no reason behind it and just going by one’s will and introspection as to one’s gender.

I’m not here trying to imply that if you disagree with Dr. Peikoff on a particular topic, that he is necessarily right because he is a long-term Objectivist and an Objectivist philosopher. The issue is not agreement or disagreement, but rather following the proper objective methodology and applying broad philosophical principles to one’s daily life and the issues confronting oneself. If you can show that you can apply objectivity to the issues and come up with a better solution, that’s great, and I encourage you to think it through. But if a man has shown himself to be a great philosopher in his own right, in his lectures and books based on Objectivism, then I think one ought to really think it through before stating that he has lost it or that he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

Philosophy in Action: Sunday Webcast

Sun, 20 May 2012 00:17:24 +0000

The Rationally Selfish Webcast has a new name and new web site: Philosophy in Action! (The web site won't be available until the morning of the webcast.) Here's this week's announcement. I hope to see you on Sunday morning! — DMH

In my live "Philosophy in Action" Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer questions on the morality of working for a minister, giving away unhealthy food, voting for horrible politicians, celebrating holidays, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we'll apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives!

What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
When: Sunday, 6 November 2011 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com

Here are this week's questions:

Question 1: The Morality of Working for a Minister: Is working for a minister giving religion moral sanction? As an atheist, I once worked for an ordained minster who was the owner of a gallery. I became his manager when I made it clear that I was an atheist, but that I was a good framing manager. I don't think I gave him a moral sanction for his irrationality by working for him under those terms. What do you think?
Question 2: Giving Away Unhealthy Food: Is it immoral to give away food that you regard as unhealthy? Assuming that one believes (as I do) that candy and sweets are harmful to health (especially in quantity), is it immoral to participate in trick-or-treat by giving children candy when they come to your door? Or, is it immoral to "dispose" of an unwanted gift of, say, a rich chocolate cake by leaving it by the coffee machine at work to be quickly scarfed up by one's co-workers (as an alternative to simply discarding it)? Is the morality of these two cases different because in one case the recipients are children while in the other case they are adults?
Question 3: Voting for Horrible Politicians: All the candidates are nearly perfectly horrid, just in different ways. Why should I even bother to vote?
Question 4: Celebrating Holidays: What is the value of celebrating holidays? How do you think holidays should or should not be celebrated? Also, what is your favorite holiday and how do you like to celebrate it?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions."

The History of Philosophy by Peikoff

Sat, 19 May 2012 23:18:42 +0000

I will pay nearly anything to get my hands on these lecture courses. Please let me know if you have them. I would be willing to buy them, borrow them, or come up with an arrangement that is most favorable to you.

thanks.

Group Theory and Physics

Sat, 19 May 2012 21:39:02 +0000

.

Neutral Xi-sub-b baryon has been found.

About that red triangle: ∆

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Standard Model

SU₃ Symmetry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Group Theory and Physics
Shlomo Sternberg
(Cambridge 1994)

Related at Objectivism Online

The ethics of poisoning my cat and the abortion dilemma

Sat, 19 May 2012 19:38:36 +0000

This thread is not just another thread on abortion.
It is different because I share the Objectivist notion that the unborn has no rights.  Women who choose abortion and their doctors and nurses should not be considered criminals and put under retaliatory force by the State.

My approach here is to show how abortion can be judged as moral or immoral, based on an Objectivist ethics, beyond the usual discussion of rights.

I'll start by telling you about Misha, my cat.
She was adopted by my family about two years ago. She was very young and lonely, an alley cat.  This is a pic of her

La gata (5) por Hotu Matua, en Flickr

We knew very little about cats. We imagined it would be a matter of getting for her a place for she to defecate, cat food and vaccines from the vet.
Soon we realized she was destroying our furniture. We could not cope with cutting her nails frequently enough.
Yesterday we sent our sofa and chairs to be upholstered. We know this will not stop here.
We have thought in getting rid of  Misha.  We have looked for months for families that would adopt her. No success.
I have thought in abandoning her on a hill nearby, where I have seen some feral cats. A feral cat is a descendant of a domesticated cat that has gone back to the wild.
My wife and I have even engaged in fantasies on how to kill her.
In the end, we always discard abandoning her or killing her... and we keep looking for other "foster parents".

Would it be immoral if I posion Misha?
I think it would.
I think that keeping her alive and losing my furniture is more valuable to me than killing her and keeping my furniture.
But is this thinking rational? and how does it relate to the abortion issue?
More to come...

My first digital sound recorder

Sat, 19 May 2012 17:42:41 +0000

A Digital Voice Recorder

Digital voice recorders are much better than old tape recorders. About a week ago I finally bought one, for $50. It was Sony ICD-312. Frustrated by learning from the little booklet (which came with the device) I decided to write my own very short introduction. The draft has just been posted at:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/sony-voice.html

Comments and suggestions will be appreciated.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.
.

If Socialist Campaigning Feels Good...?

Sat, 19 May 2012 17:28:30 +0000

If semi-socialist campaigning is a satisfying, healthy, and fulfilling way to live life and have fun, should one campaign for semi-socialism? Is it ethical because it is in an individual's self-interest?

Obama's Birth Certificate

Sat, 19 May 2012 15:13:14 +0000

Don't know if there is another thread on this or not, since I couldn't find it, but as it turns out, Obama's birth certificate **was** faked, as testified by his lawyer when he was denied being put on the Presidential ballot because he couldn't prove he was a natural born citizen. I mean, if that don't beat all...he lied about it being his real birth certificate in front of the entire world, and sent the fake document all of the world via the internet.When it was rumored and nearly proven that it was a fake, he continued to lie about that! And now that he has been caught dead out in the lie, he's asserting that he was completely innocent since he didn't create the fake document. He needs to be impeached and thrown in jail for creating a fake legal document, but the only people that can do anything about it are Congress; and so long as the Senate is controlled by Democrats -- who are in favor of his policies -- they will not take action to impeach him or to throw out his bills due to him being an invalid President.

The issue of whether or not a President must be a natural born citizen may well be open to debate, but it is in the Constitution and it was a way the Founders had of protecting the American people by having Presidents who would understand American freedom by having been born and raised in the USA.

I am so angry at this total lie perpetrated onto the American people that really, when you come right down to it would require a string of curse words that would curl the hair of a sailor -- but I have decided to be polite to the readers of this forum.

I just blew the opportunity of a lifetime

Sat, 19 May 2012 15:05:47 +0000

I was recently offered a job. This was a truly unique and exciting opportunity to do something special and potentially make a lot of money. It was also an intimidating proposition, and I was uncertain about whether I would be able to succeed at it. On top of that, I have serious personal problems that are beyond my control that wreck havoc on my morale and make me prone to changes in sentiment. Even though I orally committed to the job, I never overcame the issues that were holding me back, and remained in state of chronic indecision the entire time that I was supposed to be preparing. As a result, I blew everything. I wavered on the date that I was supposed to start, was given extra time to prepare, then wavered again on my second chance, at which point the offer was rescinded. Now I realize what a great opportunity it was, am full of remorse and want to die. What should I do?

Re-blogged post: Review: Living Proof

Sat, 19 May 2012 14:23:54 +0000

Review: Living Proof:

by Jason Stotts

As a writer myself trying to get my first book published, I know how hard it is to get a book in front of a publisher, let alone get them to read it. To actually take it all the way to publication is quite the achievement today, when publishers would much rather go with established writers, even if their work is trite, than to try something new. So, my cynical side thought that this was going to be one of those books that was crap, but that got published anyway because Leonard Peikoff is Kira’s father and the publisher thought they could leverage that fact.

I was, thankfully, very wrong.

Living Proof is an excellent book and an amazing book for a first time author. The writing is tight, the plot is motivated, and the story is gripping. Living Proof is one of those books that you don’t want to put down until you’re finished.

The story is set in a dystopian future (is it dystopian if it’s nearly real now?) where the christian religion has taken control of much of government and has declared all fertilized eggs to be full legal persons and their death to be murder. This complicates everything from miscarriage to in vitro fertilization. The heroine, of course, is not happy with that state of affairs and has a very selfish reason to motivate her to want to work against the laws. I dare not say too much more lest I give away interesting plot points, but if you’re looking for a good book and you want to support a great up and coming Objectivist author, go buy Living Proof!

Original entry: See link at top of this post

Happiness by a Proper Standard

Sat, 19 May 2012 09:43:19 +0000

http://www.appliedph...er_standard.htm

Happiness by a Proper Standard

By Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.

05/15/2012

Many people seem to vacillate between  “doing what is right” and “pursuing their happiness”, which, largely due to their religious upbringing, puts them in a bind either way. To do what is right generally means to do one’s duty or to follow principles not connected to living a joyful life on earth.  A joyful life is considered “selfish” and is to be avoided by most moralities, so in order to pursue their happiness, many people eschew morality and just do what they feel like doing, acting on feeling in an effort to satisfy themselves. The trouble is, either stance is not in favor of one’s joyful life – religious morality because it says to avoid happiness on earth, and following one’s feelings because it doesn’t generally end up being good for oneself.  Suffering, by most moralities is considered a virtue, and no reasonable man would want to suffer his whole life through; so they cheat every once in a while and do what they feel like doing.

But feelings (or one’s emotions) are not tools of cognition (thinking) and are not pre-programmed to do those things which are in-fact good for oneself. Take a drug addiction (say cocaine): It may very well make you feel good while the hit lasts, but at the cost of disconnecting one’s mind from reality. Trouble is, reality is still there, and believing one can jump off a tall roof while high is not going to be good for one’s own life. So, if a morality of duty will make one miserable, and following feelings can be dangerous to one’s health, what’s the alternative to really pursuing a happiness that is both good for you and moral?

Ayn Rand came up with the solution by coming up with a standard of morality that is based upon man’s factual nature. One doesn’t follow one’s duty nor one’s feelings, but rather pre-decides, before acting , what is in one’s best interest taking all the relevant facts into account. And since happiness is the result of successful living, acting according to what is good for oneself will lead to a happiness based on man’s nature – it will be good for oneself and one will experience joy due to the accomplishment of living a fact-based successful life. An example of this is to eat nutritious meals; these are good for oneself, so it is moral to eat well, and by eating well one will achieve an overall feeling-good about oneself on the biological level.  On a more consciousness level, it is moral to think about the facts relative to one’s own life – those facts influencing one’s life – and to think it through before taking an action with regard to those facts. Thinking is a joyful process;  the ability to reason is a natural aspect of being human, and a rational man gains psychological pleasure when he is thinking something through. Consequently,  one does things in one’s life – both physically (biologically) and in tuned with one’s consciousness – that lead to a successful state of joy in accomplishing goals that are beneficial to oneself.

The heroes of Ayn Rand’s two most popular novels – The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged – contain many such examples of her moral characters gaining through rational action those values which sustain their own individual lives – to show what it means to be moral by a rational standard – and enjoying their lives greatly in the process. Howard Roark goes on to gain a great, uncompromising career;  and John Galt goes on to gain his freedom to live his own life in a world run-amuck with irrational philosophy that seeks to enslave him. Their struggle was not easy, in either novel, but by following the principles of a fact-based, man-centered morality, they were able to be successful, in the long-run, because they put the facts on their side by using reason as a guide. The same can happen in any man’s life, so long as he is rational and going by the facts according to what those facts mean towards his own life by a rational standard. By acting on those goals which are in fact beneficial to his life – on all levels – his happiness can be achieved in a moral state of living well. As Tara Smith put it in her book on egoism (Viable Values), to be moral by a rational standard means gaining more life to live and to be happy about it – one gains a more joyful life, because one is not fighting either the reality of man’s nature or reality in general, attaining a harmony between both.

http://www.amazon.co...ostRecentReview

Natural Monopoly Question

Sat, 19 May 2012 03:06:22 +0000

Help me respond to this econ professor:

His claim: There are "natural monopolies". For example, electric utilities (owners of the power lines at least) can not all run wires to your house. It is reasonable for only one utility to run the wires and therefore they hold a natural monopoly over the delivery of electricity. The production of electricity can therefore be competitive, but not the delivery. You can't have ten sets of wires strung across the city and sticking out of your house.

As a consequence, the monopolist can charge as high rates as they like within the range where substitutes would become practical (ie. where you would buy your own generator).

Therefore, natural monopolies must have their prices set by the state/ closely regulated.

I have all Ayn Rand's fiction and non-fiction if you'd just like to point me to where this has already been addressed by her. Thanks.

The Law of Identity and God

Fri, 18 May 2012 21:39:06 +0000

Does the Law of Identity contradict the existence of God?

Gender as an anti-concept

Fri, 18 May 2012 18:20:54 +0000

I've been having a discussion with a friend of a friend, and the course of this discussion has led me to think that 'gender' is an anti-concept or something very like one. I would be very interested in what you think.

Quoting Rand:

Quote

An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The use of anti-concepts gives the listeners a sense of approximate understanding. But in the realm of cognition, nothing is as bad as the approximate.

And:

Quote

Observe the technique involved . . . . It consists of creating an artificial, unnecessary, and (rationally) unusable term, designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concepts—a term which sounds like a concept, but stands for a “package-deal” of disparate, incongruous, contradictory elements taken out of any logical conceptual order or context, a “package-deal” whose (approximately) defining characteristic is always a non-essential. This last is the essence of the trick.
Let me remind you that the purpose of a definition is to distinguish the things subsumed under a single concept from all other things in existence; and, therefore, their defining characteristic must always be that essential characteristic which distinguishes them from everything else.
So long as men use language, that is the way they will use it. There is no other way to communicate. And if a man accepts a term with a definition by non-essentials, his mind will substitute for it the essential characteristic of the objects he is trying to designate . . . . Thus the real meaning of the term will automatically replace the alleged meaning.

[The second quote is less relevant than the first, but I include it for completeness.]

The discussion went as follows:

My friend observed a news article about a man who is currently/was previously a man, and his decision to live 'as a woman' from now on. He has not had surgery to alter his sex. The article referred to the subject throughout as 'she' and 'her', and my friend commented that it was great to see an article that used the correct pronouns throughout.

I said that surely it would be correct to use either male or female pronouns since he/she can refer both to gender, and also sex. Since he is of the male sex but (self-identified as being) of the female gender, both pronouns are valid, it merely depends on the usage i.e. if we want talk about his sex, we say 'he', if we want to talk about his gender, we say 'she'.

Her response was that this is strictly correct but that it is polite to refer to people how they wish to be referred to. Her friend (the friend of the friend) made a more interesting response though. Her argument is not merely that referring to this person as female (leaving out their male sex) is polite, but that they actually are female and are not male. That is to say that either gender and sex are synonymous, relating to the mind not the body, or that gender is a valid concept while sex is not (I am not sure which precisely she believes). My original position was that he is both male (sex) and female (gender), but she argued that there is no duality, he is simply female and nothing else.

We do have working definitions of 'male' and 'female' that are based around the presence of different reproductive organs and the makeup of genes. A simple set of definitions would be:

A male is a human with a penis
A female is a human with a vagina

Or:

A male is a human with XY chromosomes
A female is a human with XX chromosomes

These specific terms are variations of what we call 'sex' e.g. "His sex is male because he has a penis." They are not individually exhaustive or mutually exclusive, however; one may meet neither definition and therefore be sexless, or meet both definitions and therefore be of both the male and female sexes.

These definitions meet Rand's requirements: They take all of the things subsumed under the term (all men, all women) and differentiate them from all other things in existence by way of a defining characteristic (particular reproductive organs or chromosomes). To say "He is male," is to convey the information that the person in question has a penis, XY chromosomes, and so on, while to say "She is not male," conveys that they do not have a penis or XY chromosomes. Therefore the concept is useful. Its usefulness is increased because we can also draw certain likelihoods from this information e.g. If we know he has a penis and XY chromosomes, we can be 90-98% sure he has a sexual preference for females, we know it is likely he will be physically larger and stronger than the average person with a vagina, we know he is likely to cut his hair short, and so on. These are not defining characteristics of the male sex, but they are tendencies of those who meet its definition so the word goes beyond conveying merely the information contained within its definition, to a whole range of likelihoods associated with those meeting it.

I had initially simply accepted that the person in the article is of the female gender since they say so, but her argument that gender = sex (or that gender is a valid concept but sex is not) got me thinking. We can define sex, it is a valid and useful concept, but what about gender? Thinking about this, and her alleged definition in particular, has lead me to believe that gender is in fact an anti-concept.

When I asked her what the definition of female was, she replied that a female is someone who identifies as female. This is circular. You cannot define something with reference to itself. To demonstrate this, replace the term 'female' in her definition with its own definition and you end up with:

"A female is someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who identifies as someone who........ [ad infinitum]"

Therefore this definition is logically impossible. This internal bankruptcy renders the term useless. Using this definition, when one says "I am female," no information is conveyed. The point may be clearer if we imagine we are proposing a new word with the exact definition she uses for female:

The new word will be called 'frammastan'
A frammastan is someone who identifies as a frammastan

There is no point in introducing this word. It is merely a jumble of letters, which is what 'female' is reduced to under her definition.

This would be bad enough by itself, but her argument is specifically to obliterate the concept of sex as independent of gender (defined as 'whatever one identifies as'). Not only is it meaningless, it is destructive of another, valid concept i.e. it is an anti-concept.

This is only one person's attempt at a definition though, so perhaps we can arrive at an objective definition of gender that actually has some meaning. We know what makes someone of the female sex, but what makes someone of the female gender? We do have a set of characteristics that we expect to find in females and not males, a fondness for the color pink, for example. But then is anyone who likes pink a female? And anyone who does not like pink excluded from the female gender? We might say that one is female if one is more feminine (see below) than the average human, and that one is male if one is more masculine than the average human. This kind of definition I think works adequately with something like 'tall'. Even if we cannot specifically name the average height of a human, we have a pretty good idea of when someone is taller or shorter than the average. But how do we know what the average degree of femininity/masculinity is? How do we objectively weight different feminine/masculine traits in this calculation? Do liking pink and liking shopping both weigh equally? Does any fondness for the color pink in any way lead to one additional unit of femininity, or does it matter how much one likes pink? I cannot think of any way to define genders in this way that is not arbitrary, does not lead to absurdity, or that serves any useful purpose.

Now, I do think it is possible to define 'feminine' and 'masculine' in non-biological terms (which is something like gender). These are matters of degree, everyone falls somewhere on a scale of femininity/masculinity. We can say that liking the color pink is a feminine trait and contributes to one's femininity, but that does not make one 'a female'. Precisely what traits to consider masculine/feminine is probably simply a matter of what is commonplace among those of the male sex (corresponding to masculine) and of the female sex (corresponding to feminine), perhaps there is a more sophisticated formulation but I don't think that is important here.

'Male' and 'female' genders, however, are discrete concepts - one is either, or both, or neither, but we must be able to determine if someone does or does not fall under those terms. Some people must be excluded (not everyone is of both genders or there would be no need for two terms) and we do not talk about being more or less male/female than someone else. Since there is no rational way to categorize people into these two camps, and since the above definition ("your gender is whatever you identify as") is meaningless, and since the concept is (I believe) used to destroy the concept of sex (which has meaning and use), gender is an anti-concept.

It is also, I think, a worrying example of a kind of anti-reality thinking that can be described as "Wishing will make it so."

Reblogged: Good Advice is Like a Mirror

Fri, 18 May 2012 02:12:53 +0000

Good Advice is Like a Mirror: This past week, over at Hacker News (where links are promoted based on popularity among its user group), I've noticed a couple of interesting posts regarding etiquette bubble up to the front page. They make similar points, but I was somewhat bemused by them at first: I found myself initially wondering why either post was written at all.

One writer, upset with the ... communication style ... of several prominent software developers, makes the following valid point:

As I grow older, I am starting to realize the people who were idiots when you were younger are likely idiots later in life, just more set in their ways. These people are out there, learn how to deal with them.

That being said, I don't go screaming you are a moron and what you are doing is insanely stupid. That is purely a reflection on me and how I choose to handle those situations.

But then he titles his post, "Stop Calling People Morons". Whom does he address? If being gratuitously insulting reflects badly on someone, why not let such people go on doing it, as a sort of warning sign to everyone else?

Likewise, another author explains why he thinks that "Smart People Don't Think Others Are Stupid". He, too, makes a good point:

So when someone says "They are so stupid!" - it means they've stopped thinking. They say it to feel finished with that subject, because there's nothing they can do about that. It's appealing and satisfying to jump to that conclusion. [bold in original]

(Of course, I think it is possible to very carefully consider what someone is saying or doing and conclude on better-than-kneejerk grounds that that person is foolish. Perhaps the author would agree.) But again, if someone in the habit of calling others stupid has indeed quit thinking, he won't learn anything from hearing this.

I think each post serves as a way of reaching people (usually young or inexperienced) who might absorb (or continue) the bad behavior because it seems acceptable, but without realizing that it is to their own detriment. That is, appearances to the contrary, neither author is wasting his time offering advice that will not be heard.

-- CAV

Original entry: See link at top of this post

Reblogged: Alias Marx and Alinsky

Thu, 17 May 2012 21:39:32 +0000

Alias Marx and Alinsky: Calling socialists liberals is as deceptive as calling goose gizzards foie gras. It fools no one but the epistemologically blinkered. The term liberal allows liberals to pose as concerned, generous and forward-thinking individuals and to act under what was once an honorable term for anyone who advocated or endorsed liberty. And as any well-read American knows, liberals do not advocate liberty. Quite the opposite.

The subject here is the devolution of the term liberal, not its evolution.

Even out-and-out communists are called liberals. President Barack Obama is called a "liberal." The late Senator Ted Kennedy was called a "liberal." Barney Frank is a liberal. Obama's cabinet is largely staffed by liberals (unless outed, as self-confessed communist Van Jones was). Communism and socialism still carry a bad reputation, so everyone, including the Main Stream Media, and even well-intentioned pundits and commentators friendly to liberty, use the term liberal. The MSM, however, does it to dodge the reputation. Others use it from habit or ignorance, or because calling liberals socialists or communists in drag might open a can of worms they couldn't handle. This is courtesy carried to a fault. Underlying the fault is a fear of the inevitable clash between those who advocate freedom, and those who do not.

Obama's campaign slogan, "Forward," is simply a Progressive marching order. "Forward" to what? To socialism. To communism. To a command economy and a slave state, one half governed by bureaucrats, the other half by an alliance of Islam and quivering religionists of various stripes, willing to pay jizya to Islam in order to be granted their "religious freedom."

The Washington Post trumpeted "Forward" with no reservations or even curiosity about its Communist and Nazi origins. But then the Washington Post has been in the Saul Alinsky camp for over a generation.

One Alinsky benefactor was Wall Street investment banker Eugene Meyer, who served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1930 to 1933. Meyer and his wife Agnes co-owned The Washington Post. They used their newspaper to promote Alinsky.

Agnes Meyer personally wrote a six-part series in 1945, praising Alinsky's work in Chicago slums. Her series, called "The Orderly Revolution," made Alinsky famous. President Truman ordered 100 reprints of it.

In 1989, The New York Times waxed poetic about Alinsky's powerful friends, and also provided some important information in the course of a review of a biography of Alinsky by Sanford D. Horwitt:

By the end of World War II Alinsky had won a measure of national renown. His ''Reveille for Radicals'' (1945) hit the best-seller list, and he secured the fervent support of important liberals like Agnes E. Meyer of The Washington Post and the retail magnate Marshall Field 3d. Though it undercuts his larger portrait, Mr. Horwitt shows that much of Alinsky's acclaim rested upon his promise that social reform and a democratic revival could take place through what Meyer called an ''orderly revolution,'' which would bypass the new power of the unions and reject the growth of an intrusive New Deal state. Thus ''Reveille for Radicals,'' which ostensibly celebrated social conflict, was panned by most of the left but acclaimed by Time, The New York Times and other mass circulation publications.

Neither Time, nor the Washington Post, nor the New York Times has changed its tune. If anything, they have grown more shrill from the standpoint of endorsing not just Alinsky but socialism. But they repress that term socialism, and deny they are of the Left. They'll admit only that they're "progressive" because, you see, they're "humanitarians." Well, so were Pol Pot, and Mao, and Stalin, and Lenin, and Hitler. So are Robert Mugabe, and Hugo Chavez, and Ahmadinejad, and all the Kings of Saudi Arabia.

But, what are uncountable millions of dead of humanitarianism, when "progress" has been made, and man has been nudged "forward" into impoverished, straight-jacketed societies?

Let's set the record straight. Liberals are fundamentally collectivists. Specifically, either socialists or communists. Their policies and programs are demonstrably socialist or communist, whether one is speaking of Social Security, Medicare, the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and innumerable regulatory and confiscatory programs and policies, practically every bit of legislation that has been entered into The Congressional Record and The Federal Register for the last one hundred years. The term liberal should be retired, put out to pasture, and substituted with the appropriate and correct terms.

Here is a sampling of definitions of the term liberal:

1. Having, expressing, or following political views or policies that favor civil liberties, democratic reforms, and the use of government power to promote social progress….3. Of, designating, or belonging to a political party that advocates liberal social or political views, esp. in the United States, Great Britain, and Canada. The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company) 1985. (This is the first definition. Root meanings connected with generosity, open-mindedness, tolerance, etc., follow it. This is a significant order.)

6a. Of, favoring, or based on the principles of liberalism. 6b. Of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; esp. of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideas of individual esp. economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reform designed to secure those objectives. Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (G. & C. Merriam Company) 1967. (Meanings connected with generosity, tolerance, etc. precede the political meanings.)

II. 1. Any person who advocates liberty of thought, speech, or action; one who is opposed to conservatism: distinguished from radical. 2. Liberal Party, a party in English politics formed by the coalition of the Whigs and Radicals about 1830: opposed to Tory. The Practical Standard Dictionary of the English Language (Funk & Wagnalls Company) 1939. (Meanings connected with generosity, etc. precede the political ones.)

And finally:

3. (Polit.) Favorable to democratic reform and individual liberty, (moderately) progressive (the Liberal Party). The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1976. (Here, too, meanings connected with generosity, etc., precede the political definition. This is an acceptable condensation of the term from the two-volume Compact edition of the OED, 1971, whose entry is about half a foot in length in very tiny print, most of whose information is not relevant to my purpose here.)

Notice that the older the dictionary, the more liberty-linked the definition is. The American Heritage definition marks the end of the road for the term liberal, stressing the use of government power to promote social progress. Social progress is a catch-all euphemism for the collectivization of society and the assumption of more and more power by the government. It does not mean the liberation of men from other men's alleged needs or claimed "rights," but the forced or legislated chaining of all men to each other's alleged needs or alleged, government sanctioned "entitlements." It is the devious and misleading byword for incremental socialism, or Progressivism.

You will never hear Brian Williams of NBC or Bob Schieffer of CBS counter George Will or Charles Krauthammer with a statement, "But, we the Left don't think that's a good policy…." You will never hear them admit that they are of and for the Left. That would be "telling," as a con artist's "tell" is a warning that he's about to scam you.

One could say that today's liberals are the true conservatives, that is, those who wish to preserve the status quo of the welfare state and government power over individuals and their property, and any and all socialist programs and policies now in force.

And what do the designated "conservatives," or the "right wing," stand for today, that is, those who identify themselves as Republicans? Nothing, except for a watered-down version of what Progressives, socialists and communists have created over the course of a century, most often accompanied by an appeal to "tradition" and religious faith. All Progressive legislation is altruist and collectivist in nature. Conservatives have never challenged the moral foundations of Progressivism. They can't, because they subscribe to the same morality. They will never confess that Progressives have elevated the state to take the place of a deity, and that men should live for the secular deity's moral code of self-sacrifice and obedience to the state's commands. Also known as The Ten Thousand Commandments.

Social progress implies there are social problems to be solved and overcome. What are the problems? In the beginning, it was a concern – and not an actual problem – of working conditions at the start of the Industrial Revolution. Reformers wailed over the fact that factories employed children and women, neglecting the fact that children and women would otherwise have perished in poverty and disease at the outset of the Revolution, and in fact did perish in the centuries preceding the Revolution. By the millions.

The Abolitionist Movement identified slavery as a major social problem. The result was the Civil War. But the "problems" were numerous, and continue to be numerous and otherwise fictive or imaginary. In search of the City on the Hill, or Utopia, or a "just and fair" society, problems are naturally endless. The sole alternatives as the means to correct or ameliorate them have been: voluntarism or force. Progressivism chose force, because too many people thought the problems were not problems at all. Force bypasses volition or voluntary action.

Successes were many, beginning with the Interstate Commerce Act (1887), and the Sherman Antitrust Act 1890). Progressives never spoke with one mind and differed sharply over the most effective means to deal with the ills generated by the trusts; some favored an activist approach to trust-busting, others preferred a regulatory approach.

A vocal minority supported socialism with government ownership of the means of production. Other progressive reforms followed in the form of a conservation movement, railroad legislation, and food and drug laws.

More recent social "problems" led to the endless "war on poverty," and the "war on drugs." Having nearly exhausted the major "social problems," Progressives or socialists are reaching deeper into the bottomless pit of "problems" and coming up with concerns with "wars" on obesity, salt, sugar, smoking, gender inequality in the workplace, in insurance, in the military, on incandescent light bulbs, sexism, ageism, and so on. Name a norm established by men without government supervision or guidance, and Progressives are against it. They immediately wish to abolish the liberty, or subject it to controls, regulation, and licensing. All for the sake of one's "fellow men," in the name of that prettified version of mob rule, "democracy."

All this goes on, and has been going on, more obviously, since the late 19th century. But Progressivism, a.k.a. socialism, has been advanced by intellectuals and writers ever since, say, Rousseau and his contemporaries in the 18th century. It has been disparate in means and ends ever since, but during the 19th century coalesced into a behemoth of an ideology posing as a love for the poor and other alleged victims of freedom. It no longer asks men to "love their neighbors"; it commands that they fetter themselves to each other in the name of "social progress."

Progressivism inculcates in its minions an obsessive-compulsive psychology. Just as Muslim men are obsessed with sex because Islam, on the one hand, hates women, and on the other, targets them for unrestrained and permissible abuse in the way of ownership, rape, enslavement, beating, and "honor-killing," Progressivism requires that all men answer to and be accountable to the state. The state establishes criteria of what is good and what is bad when addressing men's actions and values. It is a prescription for ownership and enslavement, as well. The key to the success of Progressivism is to ensure that a habit of dependency on statism is bred in men.

As the narrator of "If I Wanted America to Fail" notes:

…I'd demonize prosperity itself, so that they will not miss what they will never have.

But first, demonize individualism, independence, and living one's own life, so that men will not miss what they once had, because submission to government controls is so much easier.

This has been, briefly, an account of the devolution of "liberalism." Progressive, liberal or socialist rhetoric is tailored for public consumption, usually innocuous and goose-feather pillow soft, so as not to alarm the public. The title of this column is frankly a parody of that successful TV Western, "Alias Smith & Jones," about a couple of outlaws promised amnesty if they "reformed." I could just as well have parodied the films, "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" or "Bonnie and Clyde," for all three "entertainments" portray outlaws as basically nice people who mean well and just happen to commit crimes and who otherwise might have been your next-door neighbors, ready for a barbeque and a round of poker.

In a 1971 book called Rules for Radicals, Alinsky scolded the Sixties Left for scaring off potential converts in Middle America. True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits, and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.

So, the radicals cut their hair, donned suits, hunkered down to win those Ph.D's, and infiltrated academia, for one thing. And here's the tip-off about the altruist nature of Progressivism and socialism, and their link to government force:

In his native Chicago, Alinsky courted power wherever he found it. His alliance with prominent Catholic clerics, such as Bishop Bernard Sheil, gave him respectability. His friendship with crime bosses such as Frank Nitti – Al Capone's second-in-command – gave Alinsky clout on the street.

Just as Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky have wielded clout in political thought and in "practical politics." They, too, "meant well" and were otherwise forgettable souls whom one might pass on a street.

It's time for liberals to "man up," drop the demure veil, or take off the smiley mask, or come out of the totalitarian closet. It's time for them to stop the charade and confess their collectivist allegiances, and for their opponents to call them what they are.

Then we'll see some sparks fly, instead of the dissembling back-and-forth rhetoric between the Republicans and Democrats.

Gunfights, anyone?

Original entry: See link at top of this post

The Life Of Julia

Thu, 17 May 2012 06:54:48 +0000

In the Obama campaign's latest propaganda piece a life narrative is created for a fictional woman named Julia touting the glories of cradle to grave dependency on the state.

http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia

Right after noting that there is a government program for every situation in this woman's life the thing that seemed most off putting was that this narrative has Obama as president for 67 years.

Freudian slip?

Reblogged: An Educational Revolution is Starting “At Our House”

Thu, 17 May 2012 01:33:27 +0000

An Educational Revolution is Starting “At Our House”:
As many PHR readers know, I created HistoryAtOurHouse–the ultimate history resource for homeschoolers–over five years ago. It has grown by leaps and bounds in that time, and even spawned two (and soon more) associated product lines. Here are some relevant links to explore, for those of you interested in the potential for an educational revolution through sound pedagogy and the distance learning paradigm:
HistoryAtOurHouse Links

http//www.historyatourhouse.com (Program home page)
https://twitter.com/#!/haoh_daily (Find out what students around the world are studying today!)
http://www.facebook.com/HistoryAtOurHouse (Frequent program updates and history trivia!)
http://historyatourhouse.podbean.com (Weekly Samples from the ongoing live Ancient history classes)
http://historyatourhouse.pbworks.com (Our Wiki: Great Book Recommendations, Pathfinders resources, and more!)

ScienceAtOurHouse Links

http//www.scienceatourhouse.com (Program home page)
http://www.facebook.com/ScienceAtOurHouse (Head on over and give us a “like”!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omshjuyeS9U (SAOH Youtube intro and channel videos)

MusicAtOurHouse Links

http//www.musicatourhouse.com (Program home page)
http://www.mzacharyjohnson.com/home.cfm (Composer M. Zachary Johnson’s home page)
https://twitter.com/#!/mzacharyjohnson (Mr. Johnson’s Twitter feed)
MAOH Program news for 2012-13!

Original entry: See link at top of this post

Reblogged: Hiding and Other Writing Tactics

Thu, 17 May 2012 01:32:15 +0000

Hiding and Other Writing Tactics: People who know me well -- an introvert with a mostly academic work background -- might be surprised to hear that I am about to purchase a book on project management. Why? Because the happy coincidence of time pressure and rediscovering Scott Berkun's blog (after recently encountering his very good essay on "How to Detect Bullshit") have helped me realize how many similarities there are between management and the mostly solitary pursuit of writing.

Berkun's blog recently featured an excerpt from his book How to Make Things Happenthat offers the following advice on being firm about priorities:

One side effect of having priorities is how often you have to say no. It's one of the smallest words in the English language, yet many people have trouble saying it. The problem is that if you can't say no, you can't have priorities. The universe is a large place, but your priority 1 list should be very small. Therefore, most of what people in the world (or on your team) might think are great ideas will end up not matching the goals of the project. It doesn't mean their ideas are bad; it just means their ideas won't contribute to this particular project. So, a fundamental law of the PM universe is this: if you can't say no, you can't manage a project. [bold added]

I barely consider myself a writer and can already think of at least three occasions that not using that word has come back to haunt me. The excerpt is long, but well worth reading, and contains other advice. One tip that made me smile, because it's already a favorite time management tactic of mine is the following:

Hide. If you are behind on work and need blocks of time to get caught up, become invisible. On occasion, I've staked out a conference room (in a neighboring building) and told only the people who really might need me where I was. I caught up on email, specs, employee evaluations, or anything important that wasn't getting done, without being interrupted. For smaller orgs, working from home or a coffee shop can have the same effect (wireless makes this easy these days). I always encouraged my reports to do this whenever they felt it necessary. Uninterrupted time can be hard for PMs to find, so if you can't find it, you have to make it. [bold in original]

Both the new tactic and the old, as applied to writing, fall under a more general standing order I have, of protecting my writing time. I am grateful to Berkun for teaching me what I have learned so far already, and look forward to reading the rest of his book.

-- CAV

Original entry: See link at top of this post

Online community for the affluent: Danconiaclub.com

Wed, 16 May 2012 16:41:22 +0000

I and a team of web developers, are building an online members-only club for the affluent called: The D'Anconia Club. Please visit the site to check it out and spread the word! http://www.danconiaclub.com