logicalpath

But if you utilize it regarding the "man-made" then are you not evading that something could be done about "it"?

When it is used in relation to the "man-made" it would be improper correct?

This saying has been bothering me recently and after starting "Philosophy Who Needs It" I began to research several different expressions. At any rate I first began hearing this from coaches and players of sporting teams and slowly but surely it has begun to spread to friends and family members. My initial analysis of "it is what it is" has been that it is almost always used to evade responsibility for one's failure or short-comings. Furthermore, it is something that gives off a sense of hopelessness because seriously what could you do.... This lead to a little research and it would appear that a poetic mystic was the first to use this expression. LINK HERE. His name was Rumi(or Fihi Ma Fihi) and he was a Muslim that apparently believed that all religions were "right" and an individual that believed in relative truth over absolute truth. Knowing the above I felt even stronger about what that term implies but then I came across something that caused me to pause. In an effort to remain contradiction free I would like to get some of "your" thoughts on this. What caused me to pause was "A is A", which struct me as the same. I contemplated the similarities and came to context, the context is what differentiates these two terms. Is my position on this correct or am I missing something here?

I just purchased it, thanks for the hard work.

In the event that you're serious you may want to read THIS thread. Never mind I had not realized that you were the OP, I also took the time to read some of your other posts.

I agree but the reality is a little more discouraging even from what you've described.(read below) I'm not so sure you're right about that, most of the teachers I've spoken with only went to work out of fear of reprisal or because they "didn't care one way or another". The ones(I have spoken with) that did opt-out ended up at South Beach and have cited it as a "day off". According to my wife, she was the only teacher in the school to actually read the bill, what does that say about all the other teachers position on this matter? Two teachers from her school were not even sure what was going on and in a massive contradiction a teacher in her school that is infamous for being a socialist or at least defending those views, went to work. These are the people teaching the future adults of this country! What I explained to her over dinner is that while he may have contradicted everything he preaches in the teachers lounge, she was guilty of the same thing for having not gone to work. That said, I recognize her concern but in my opinion the stakes are just too high to ever end up on the wrong side of this kind of argument. Now more than ever I see how awful the public school system is, I could go on and on with the things I've seen when I was in the system but it would get really old, really fast. Ayn Rand was 100% correct when she said that the first place we have to win is in the educational institutions.

I'm still learning and "developing" however another concept is that of voluntary contribution to the Gov't. For example without taxes a rational man would likely contribute to his local police station to ensure his neighborhoods safety. Something similar occurs in wealthy areas currently in our society. For example public schools in high income areas receive large donations throughout the year which have a profound difference on the quality of education in an otherwise bankrupt public educational system. It is only logical that man would opt to contribute to the U.S. Military, police, judicial system, etc. *I only provide this as an example and it should not be taken as advocating for public education.*

Are you referring to the Census?

Correct me if I'm wrong but is the oldest article on that site from 2002? If so Mr. Stossel has repeatedly acknowledged that he was on the wrong side of the argument just a few years ago. Don't quote me on the exact amount but he has even cited 10 Emmy's awarded to him in those years for reporting against "big business"(the wrong side). IMO he is one of the better reporters to watch, however his premise is incomplete at times which has led to one or two contradictions that I've witnessed. Does anyone know what his political affiliation is. Based on his show I can't imagine that he is an Objectivist(philosophically) because of where he seems to get "stalled" at times.

I think the "frustration" aspect which you refer to and the author appears to be critical of as it relates to being result orientated is something that varies from person to person. In my opinion the real issue is the individuals commitment to finding the correct solution. Rarely if ever do I give up and I think that has a lot to do with my success in life. However I have several family members that give up very quickly after their initial attempt fails. It's this defeatist attitude that stifles them, they rather avoid the frustration you refer to. It is no coincidence that these same family members always attempt to deny reality in some way. Similar to "out of sight - out of mind", they exhibit a behavior after failure which supposes that if their initial attempt failed then it is impossible. As a result I would disagree with the author that ROS is negative or something to be critical of.

Touché my friend...touché.

Who says they don't take it from us at the point of a gun?

Unfortunately she elected to opt out of work on that day. I did my best to explain that she was on the wrong side but being that I myself was a bit unsure of what was proper under the circumstances which I explained in my previous post, my overall position was not very strong. Ultimately in my opinion she made the wrong choice but overall the teachers union did not perform as well as they had hoped, with less than 30% of teachers opting out. Gov. Christ vetoed the bill so all the slackers got what they wanted...unfortunately.

In Florida the legislator has recently passed F.S.B 6 which changes several aspects of the public education system, one of which is accountability for public school teachers in this State. Prior to this bill it was virtually impossible for bad teachers to be fired and there was no incentive for good teachers to excel. The above is more than likely the case, in all public education systems across this country and so the notion of accountability based on performance is something that I agree with completely. As a former public school teacher I know first hand how defective this system was and is.(which is part of why I no longer am a teacher) As you can imagine the teachers union and other groups are up in arms, so they have announced a "sick-out" which union teachers & non-union teachers are going to execute on Monday. Basically the majority of all Miami-Dade public school teachers will call in sick for at least one day as a form of protest. My wife(a public school teacher) wants accountability standards and would benefit from them, unfortunately like most legislation it lacks details, like how they will determine the standards and how teachers performance will be measured in certain cases. Because of that my wife is considering calling in sick but I'm just not clear that this is proper. We both recognize that the notion of public education is not proper, which is why her and I had decided prior to this year that she should try to get a job in a private-non-religious school.(which may prove difficult as a result of this bill) In the meantime however, by calling out tomorrow she essentially is supporting all the individuals that only seek to impose the will of the union and stop any movement that threatens the "entitlement" element within this particular sector of Gov't run X. She agrees with what the bill is attempting but since we take nothing on faith, then unless we see it in black and white we're not taking a politicians word for it. So if she is out tomorrow then that action puts us on the wrong side of the issue... Here are the questions: 1. Being that we do not believe public education to be the proper solution to education, should we reject attempts like these because it is contrary to what we believe to be proper? 2. If we agree with what the bill is attempting but not the fact that it does not explain how they will execute "it" and she was to follow through with the "sick-out" then does that put us on the side of evil(ultimately the wrong side) because this will undoubtedly have some affect on the outcome? *I have attached a copy of the bill to this post.* SB6.pdf

I'm actually really surprised, from the commercials I have seen I would have thought it was the complete opposite. I guess I will have to go see it, thanks for the info.

You can listen to it HERE.