Michael Jackson dead.

[Space Patroller]

I am so very happy that a Leonard Peikoff spoke up so strongly and appropriately in regards to Michael Jackson's death. I was really getting sick to my stomache at many of the remarks here on this forum, and was beginning to think that the atmosphere here was quite non-objective.

Three Cheers for a REAL Objectivist!

C!

I just took in the Peikoff 'cast. I wonder if we could get him to do radio episodes of Dr. Who? He'd be outtasite in that part.

As a huge Doors fan (not Morrison's antics, the music) I said the same thing back in '69. My biggest disappoint ment was KISS. They looked so exotic but their music was so banal. I knew they had the talent, it showed in their individual albums and Ace Fraley's explanation of his guitar work got pretty high level, but like all heavy metal, you couldnt appreciate it because the fuzz box was so oppressive that it overwhelmed the pitch.

From my understanding. Jackson did not create the material himself as did the bands of the '60's, he hired it and it was a bit too slick, so I don't know how much greatenss there was.

As to Jackson being "screwed up" Well how would you describe sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber with no medical basis and saying that his crotch-grabbing was uncontrollable when this behavior came hot on the heels of charges of being effeminate? And I won't go through all the surgical gyrations and the jokes that came out of them.

As a vocalist, I thought most of his singing style was artificially emotional. I liked the music to Beat It , Human Nature and Want You Back, but felt that the antics outweighed the positive.

Overall I rate Jackson as a net minus.

Now. let's talk about Rush, the Goo Goo Dolls, Gin Blossoms, Green Day, Matchbox 20, 3 Doors Down and Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young.

However there is a point that Peikoff really didn't address. Most of these acts are entertainment. What they espouse is often pure evil. Is there a point, like with Streisand where the evil outweighs the good? In her case, it's supporting the looters and bitching about "greed" while inking a $USM60 contract. and altering the words to one of her songs to play up to Bill Clinton.

[Charles Lester]

"From my understanding. Jackson did not create the material himself as did the bands of the '60's, he hired it and it was a bit too slick, so I don't know how much greatenss there was."

Your "understanding" is pretty bad. Michael Jackson created almost all of the music he performed. He was also the creative master in the conceptualization of all of his most awesome videos. So essentially, there was "lots" of greatness.

"As to Jackson being "screwed up" Well how would you describe sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber with no medical basis and saying that his crotch-grabbing was uncontrollable when this behavior came hot on the heels of charges of being effeminate?"

It's funny to me how you can learn from an interview that his crotch-grabbing was uncontrollable, but not understand that he didn't sleep in a hyperbaric chamber; when, both items were addressed in the same interview of him. Is this a function of selective memory, or did you not see the entire thing? As for Michael being effeminate, well, no argument from me there. But, so?

"And I won't go through all the surgical gyrations and the jokes that came out of them."

So, if someone (as many do) cracks jokes about Elvis, and his "dancing," or his pretentious voice, does that invalidate him in some way, and mean then, that there was no value to his contributions within his musical genre? Personally, I can see a lot more ability in Michael's Dance than Elvis' or any other popular music artist with the possible exception of Usher... Well, Usher really is the Michael killer as far as dance is concerned.

"As a vocalist, I thought most of his singing style was artificially emotional. I liked the music to Beat It , Human Nature and Want You Back, but felt that the antics outweighed the positive."

What were the antics that you mentioned? His "artificially emotional" voice?

"Overall I rate Jackson as a net minus."

Well, you have a right to. I don't even have to net out my negative opinion of the Doors or KISS. They are minuses without any positives in my view. Come on baby light my fire is crap compared to The way you make me feel, by any objective standard. Capitalism--when left alone--kinda has a way of bringing issues like this into their proper perspective don't they?

[Jake_Ellison]

...sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber with no medical basis and saying that his crotch-grabbing was uncontrollable when this behavior came hot on the heels of charges of being effeminate...his singing style was artificially emotional...the antics outweighed the positive.

Overall I rate Jackson as a net minus.

Of course you do. But then again, you are a collectivist, specifically a right wing extremist. You see the World as a zero sum game, where Michael's antics have somehow harmed it and you in it.

There's no reason to rate someone you never met or dealt with as a net minus.

Well, you have a right to. I don't even have to net out my negative opinion of the Doors or KISS. They are minuses without any positives in my view. Come on baby light my fire is crap compared to The way you make me feel, by any objective standard. Capitalism--when left alone--kinda has a way of bringing issues like this into their proper perspective don't they?

I don't think amount of sales is the main criteria for judging art, if that is what you mean.

Come on baby light my fire is crap compared to The way you make me feel, by any objective standard.

Alright. Describe one such "objective standard", please.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Charles Lester]

"What did he say that contradicts what specific contents of this thread?"

Well, for one, you said: "Well, unlike Elvis, this guy was a pedophile."

Peikoff says in contradiction: "what inclines me to be favorable of him is the flimsiness of the accusations that were hurled at him about child molestation."

You also said: "I'm not sure I can agree that's always the case. Convicting someone requires evidence beyond reasonable doubt, presented during that one trial, by a competent prosecutor, and heard by a competent judge and jury. Criminals don't always get caught, prosecutors aren't always perfect, jurors can be irrational and stupid, etc."

Peikoff went on to say that in talking with a prosecutor he knew, and I would assume respected, that the prosecutor said "I would never have brought charges based on the evidence that was presented."

In other words, you have no basis for your contention that the "guy was a pedophile," unless, you know of some evidence that the prosecution was too retarded to bring to court when they had the chance, or have knowledge of evidence that the prosecution couldn't find. I am open to the possibility, so please let me in on the "secret evidence" that you withheld from the prosecutors; which, would be an awful thing to do--if you didn't let the prosecutors know about evidence that would have saved their case, and thus, punish a pedophile.

"What I got out of it is that Peikoff is not interested in the slightes in MJ's brand of music, so there's nothing for him to care about."

I disagree that there was "nothing for him to care about," since, he obviously sought the opinions of other people that he thought intelligent or knowledgeable enough, because, he himself hadn't "followed that field for a long time, except for sporadic performance here and there."

"As for Michael's character, that is defined by his life and actions, not by his music, and it was quite twisted."

How do you define "twisted?" What were the actions that he took within his life; that you know of to be true; that, are congruent with this definition of yours?

"The only thing Peikoff said that was favorable to your position is that you should separate an artist's work from his life or actions, and mourn the loss of that work, if it meant something to you."

Based on what, do you know my "position?"

My position is that people like you are disgusting, in that you require so little evidence when making decisions about a person's guilt of heinous crimes. I actually was inaccurate; people like you require no evidence, you only need an accusation. You are no different from the crowd in Salem, MA during their famous witch trials, or any mob of southern racists when hearing a black man "raped" a white woman. At least that's how one could build a case that you are; since, you haven't presented the evidence that you kept secret from the prosecution, here, in the discussion thread.

Is that what you meant by my "position?"

I don't think anyone here told you you can't do that, all I said is that I personally don't care, because I wasn't into his music, and that you can't judge his character by dismissing his actual life, based on music.

No. Again, what my issue--with you in particular--is, is that it is repugnant that so-called objectivists don't require much more in the area of proof, and then reduce themselves to slander; where, the slander is against the greatness within our species.

[Charles Lester]

"Alright. Describe one such "objective standard", please."

I already know that you will try a "cop out," but I will still cite a perfectly objective standard: $.

The way you make me feel definitely has a much higher objective commercial value than Come on baby light my fire.

[Jake_Ellison]

In other words, you have no basis for your contention that the "guy was a pedophile,"

"Michael Jackson is a pedophile." was never my contention. My contention is that there are reasons to think he may have been a pedophile, such as evince from that case, previous accusations, a 15.3 mil. dollar settlement with an accuser, that accuser' sworn declaration, etc.

How do you define "twisted?" What were the actions that he took within his life; that you know of to be true; that, are congruent with this definition of yours?

By twisted I meant self-destructive and immoral. My evidence consists of facts such as:

-he bleached his entire body white

-had so much plastic surgery that his nose was detachable from his face

-had in the past dangled one of his children off a balcony, in full view of journalists' cameras

-was a drug addict

-had an anesthesiologist follow him around the World, who pumped drugs that would keep him unconscious, for long periods of time

-he died of a drug overdose

-he paid 15.3 million dollars to settle the case with a family who accused him of molesting their son (I did provide details, which you presumably haven't read, in this thread)

You are no different from the crowd in Salem, MA during their famous witch trials, or any mob of southern racists when hearing a black man "raped" a white woman.

I am different in many quite easily demonstrable ways. For one, I've never been to Salem or bellow the Mississippi, so I'm definitely not from Salem or "southern", I haven't even mentioned race, so you definitely have no reason to call me racist, I don't believe in witches, etc. In fact, apart from being human like those people, I don't see that many commonalities: perhaps you should research the difference between speech and action, or opinion and judgment.

If anything, you're a racist, for claiming that Southerners are, as a rule, mindless brutes who mob together in blaming innocent blacks of rape.

P.S. If you want to continue the conversation tone it down with the name calling. I also won't be acknowledging any analogies, such as that "I'm like a mob of racists".

Edited July 13, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Thales]

I am different in many quite easily demonstrable ways. For one, I've never been to Salem or bellow the Mississippi, so I'm definitely not from Salem or "southern", I haven't even mentioned race, so you definitely have no reason to call me racist, I don't believe in witches, etc. In fact, apart from being human like those people, I don't see that many commonalities: perhaps you should research the difference between speech and action, or opinion and judgment.

If anything, you're a racist, for claiming that Southerners are, as a rule, mindless brutes who mob together in blaming innocent blacks of rape.

P.S. If you want to continue the conversation tone it down with the name calling. I also won't be acknowledging any analogies, such as that "I'm like a mob of racists".

I agree that these accusations against you are absurd. Charles, you clearly have no idea how irrational the people who engaged in the Salem witch hunts were, ditto mobs of racists. Ellison thinks his ideas through rationally and presents arguments.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Thales

[Maximus]

As a Southerner, I am highly offended by being equated to a mob of racists. I demand a retraction, Sir, or we shall have to meet at the dueling oaks so that honor may be restored!

[Tyco]

i don't understand why anyone persists in throwing about the child abuse allegations (because you have not read up on the matter is not a good excuse, because in that case you shouldn't comment on an issue like this)

any objective look at the situation is pretty exonerating

here is a good break-down of the facts

http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/g...-jackson-framed

there is some speculation (a somewhat farfetched hypothesis about a hypnotic drug at one point) but if you just look at the facts, you'd be hard pressed to believe there was an ounce of truth to the allegations

Jackson's life has been subject to constant media sensationalism - just the other day a british tabloid ran the headline 'It was murder' - in italics

a lot of things are easily explained

his skin was white - he had lupus and that other disease (begins with v)

he had plastic surgery on his nose - he broke his nose in an accident on stage, when he had plastic surgery to fix it, the first job was botched. on top of that, his abusive father constantly teased him about his facial features

he used drugs - he sustained a number of bad injuries and used painkillers to get over them

those things do not explain away his volition/rationality, but they make the man much easier to understand

what was that thing Rand wrote about the talented being the most vulnerable and the quickest to perish in a collectivist world? you could compare him to the alcoholic sculptor in The Fountainhead

whatever else you think of him, Jackson had enormous productive ability and was a great philanthropist. we should respect that at least

but also, given the mistreatment afforded to him by the public, his family, the media, the state, his beneficiaries - he's possibly history's no.1 argument against altruism

[Charles Lester]

As a Southerner, I am highly offended by being equated to a mob of racists. I demand a retraction, Sir, or we shall have to meet at the dueling oaks so that honor may be restored!

HAW! ROFLAO!

[SapereAude]

I have nothing to say for him as I hated his music and have nothing to say against him really as any abuse allegations against him weren't proven.

But what I do take exception to is a city (meaning the taxpayers of a city) paying for a $1.4 million dollar memorial service.

[Trebor]

But what I do take exception to is a city (meaning the taxpayers of a city) paying for a $1.4 million dollar memorial service.

I wonder how much was taken from him through the years in taxes.

[D'kian]

I wonder how much was taken from him through the years in taxes.

Right now he's too dead to care if he got a small refund.

[Charles Lester]

If anything, you're a racist, for claiming that Southerners are, as a rule, mindless brutes who mob together in blaming innocent blacks of rape.

Well, since at least couple of people here seem to a bit challenged when it comes to critical thinking, I will have to help out in this area, so that perhaps in the future, we can be on the same page when having adult discussions.

If I were to say that "Western men who wear cowboy hats, have pretty good protection from the sun.", such a statement would not mean that all men out west, as a rule, wear cowboy hats. What this statement does mean, is that there are men in the west, and of those, the ones that wear cowboy hats have better protection from the sun than the ones who don't.

Now, let's take this lesson and apply it to what I said.

My position is that people like you are disgusting, in that you require so little evidence when making decisions about a person's guilt of heinous crimes. I actually was inaccurate; people like you require no evidence, you only need an accusation. You are no different from the crowd in Salem, MA during their famous witch trials, or any mob of southern racists when hearing a black man "raped" a white woman. At least that's how one could build a case that you are; since, you haven't presented the evidence that you kept secret from the prosecution, here, in the discussion thread.

As before, I am saying that there are, or at least were, people in the south, and of those, some were/are racist. But the statement is even more qualified than that. My statement does not mean that all racists were lynchers either!

But let's not get too much more diverted from salient issues. The essential thing in what I am saying about you, is that like the mob of southern racists, you don't require proof; ALL YOU NEED IS AN ALLEGATION.

Again, you said:

Well, unlike Elvis, this guy was a pedophile.

My analogy was/is perfect. If you want to back peddle, and quibble about whether or not you would take the law into your own hands is really irrelevant. The point I am making is that like the mob and the witch hunters, for you there is no burden or proof. Your mind is swayed by flimsy or non-existent evidence. You may as well be a Christian... if you aren't.

I believe (or at least hope for your sake) that you aren't this silly, and really did understand such basic language and critical thinking. If it is the case that you really weren't silly enough to believe that I was placing all southerners in a "racist bucket," you should be ashamed of yourself for such a pathetic attempt at diversion and evasion.

I agree that these accusations against you are absurd. Charles, you clearly have no idea how irrational the people who engaged in the Salem witch hunts were, ditto mobs of racists. Ellison thinks his ideas through rationally and presents arguments.

Thales, if you need it, I refer you to the critical thinking lesson that I gave Jake in the above paragraphs.

As to your allegation of Jake's rational thinking, and that he "presents arguments," I will simply say: bah, humbug!

Among rational and civilized people, there are conditions or rules with respect to arguments. The most basic condition or rules is:

An argument is sound if the premises are valid and that they lead to the conclusion.

Now with that being said, let's take a look at Jake's "argument"

We already know his conclusion:

Well, unlike Elvis, this guy was a pedophile.

What are his premises?

(1)Why the sworn declaration of a thirteen year old boy, containing the phrase "During our relationship Michael Jackson had sexual contact with me many times." would be dismissed as not enough evidence for someone to form a mildly informed opinion on the issue, and rant about it on youtube, is beyond me.

(2)I admit, I'm not exactly read up on Michael Jackson's court cases, but I can't help but overhear accounts of plenty of evidence against him.

In other words:

If a sworn statement exists, then the sworn statement must be true.

If there exists a rumor of evidence, then there must be evidence, and that evidence must be true.

Michael Jackson is accused of being a pedophile and there is a sworn statement that supports this claim.

There are rumors of plenty of evidence against Michael Jackson.

Therefore:

this guy was a pedophile.

Thales, is this what you mean when you say:

Ellison thinks his ideas through rationally and presents arguments.

?

You guys are something special. Truly.

But what I do take exception to is a city (meaning the taxpayers of a city) paying for a $1.4 million dollar memorial service.

Now THAT is something I was pissed about too! I am angry though that with me replying to all this BS on the thread, that I didn't get to say it first!

QuoVadis, you da man! Let's have a LA tea party, and dump the body into the ocean!

Just kiddin', but the city spending money on a memorial is ridiculous.

[Jake_Ellison]

Well, since at least couple of people here seem to a bit challenged when it comes to critical thinking,

Way to persist. I guess you're not interested in having this conversation, so I won't be reading your posts anymore.

[Charles Lester]

Way to persist. I guess you're not interested in having this conversation, so I won't be reading your posts anymore.

Which won't change the fact one bit that you got spanked.

Step your game up, and stop being such a cry baby.

[gags]

I wonder how much was taken from him through the years in taxes.

However much they took from him while he was alive, they're going to take quite a bit more now that he is dead. The estate taxes owed could be pretty substantial:

"Creditors and heirs of Michael Jackson hoping for a cut of his musical empire will have to line up with the Internal Revenue Service, which could lay claim to $80 million or more in federal estate taxes."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/10/...in5151555.shtml

[D'kian]

Let's try to get one thing straight. There are two kind of people in this world in regards to Michael jackson.

1) Those who think jackson was a great singer, who sang to good or great music. This group either sees nothing wrong in his personal life (that is his life offstage) or don't care about it. Naturally they are sad at his death.

2) Those who think Jackson was a good singer but who sang to music most charitably described as shallow and mediocre (and really annoying uncharitably). This group also regards Jackson's personal life, what is known of it, as creepy and disturbing. They're not glad he's dead, they just dont' want to keep hearing about him anymore. Also they may be anoyed at the massive media whitewash of Jackson.

What I mean by creepy and distrubing is:

1) Jackson shared his bed with boys. Now, even if nothing sexual was going on, what kind of man makes it a point to sleep in the same bed as a child? It's one thing to let your son crawl into your bed when he's having trouble sleeping, it's another to invite boys to sleep with you.

2) Whenever he showed his children in public they all wore masks.

3) Often Jackson walked around in public either holding his nose or wearing a surgical mask

4) There was the crotch-grabbing era.

5) The baby-dangling episode was overblown. I don't think it was that dangerous to dangle the baby over the balcony, but why were the baby's head and face covered?

6) Not entirely his doing, but he got more exposure than most other celebrities put together, with the possible exception fo Diana Spencer (who, BTW, was neither creepy nor disturbing, and whose appearance was easier on the eyes)

[Thales]

Thales, if you need it, I refer you to the critical thinking lesson that I gave Jake in the above paragraphs.

As to your allegation of Jake's rational thinking, and that he "presents arguments," I will simply say: bah, humbug!

Among rational and civilized people, there are conditions or rules with respect to arguments. The most basic condition or rules is:

An argument is sound if the premises are valid and that they lead to the conclusion.

Now with that being said, let's take a look at Jake's "argument"

We already know his conclusion:

What are his premises?

What you said was that Jake was the equivalent of people who accuse someone of being a witch. That's an argument completely without merit. Making errors in thinking -- and I haven't broken down his process to the extent you have -- is not the same thing as straight up dogma.

Jake is clearly very much interested in evidence and rational argument.

[Charles Lester]

What you said was that Jake was the equivalent of people who accuse someone of being a witch. That's an argument completely without merit.

I made no such argument or statement that in any way can be construed to mean that Jake was the same as people who make accusations of witchcraft. To the contrary, the argument that I made was that in essential terms, Jake was the same as the residents of Salem that participated in the hunting down, and/or conviction of said accused heretics; not those who made the accusations. If what you think I said were true, then, Jake would have to be one of the accusing parents or children in the Michael Jackson molestation case. Now that I have dealt with your straw man, I will get along to point two:

Making errors in thinking -- and I haven't broken down his process to the extent you have -- is not the same thing as straight up dogma.

What you describe is not a simple error in "thinking." As you yourself stated, you simply haven't digested for yourself his process of alleged "thinking." I suggest you do so, or simply read mine again. My statement on the matter in clear and concise terms is: In regards to him on this issue, he is either 1). not too bright, or 2). Dogmatic, but offering flimsy rationalizations of his dogma. Again I offer "his process" as proof, not evidence of what I say:

If a sworn statement exists, then the sworn statement must be true.

If there exists a rumor of evidence, then there must be evidence, and that evidence must be true.

Michael Jackson is accused of being a pedophile and there is a sworn statement that supports this claim.

There are rumors of plenty of evidence against Michael Jackson.

These are his stated premises (if you can call 'em that), which are all--I'll be nice here--less than profound; wouldn't you agree? Just as a Christian who offers: "Well, how did all this get here?" as "evidence" or a "premise" to the existence of god, is being dogmatic, so too is Jake. It matters not that you like and/or admire him, if you do.

And like dogmatic individuals tend to do, when called to task, and justify his "arguments" on rational grounds, he deserted and crawled away; pouting as a spoiled child, caught at doing something wrong.

Way to persist. I guess you're not interested in having this conversation, so I won't be reading your posts anymore.

Jake committed an act--and a rather charlatan one at that--of rationalization and posturing as if he had valid or sound reasons for his conclusion. If I were to speculate as to why he would do such a thing, I would guess that he is jealous or envious of Michael, or some sort of closet red-neck. I don't know, but if I were forced to wage a bet on the matter, these would be where I placed my money; knowing that I just might loose my money.

Jake is clearly very much interested in evidence and rational argument.

Again sir, you make statements in the wind. Where is there evidence and argument on Jake's part? Perhaps in the past Jake made valid or sound arguments on other topics; I seriously doubt this, however, in this thread, such was non-existent.

If what you say is true, then you should easily be able to quote him and with great illumination make such a demonstration, since, "clearly" he did what you assert. Are you serious?

Concede. It's better to be wrong and admit it, than to be stubborn and exposed as foolish. I am not saying that you would be such a person, but just in case you would, I had to say that little bit.

In the name of John Gault,

Amen!

[Trebor]

Who is John Gault?

[by the way, touché.]

Edited July 14, 2009 by Trebor

[Thales]

I made no such argument or statement that in any way can be construed to mean that Jake was the same as people who make accusations of witchcraft. To the contrary, the argument that I made was that in essential terms, Jake was the same as the residents of Salem that participated in the hunting down, and/or conviction of said accused heretics; not those who made the accusations. If what you think I said were true, then, Jake would have to be one of the accusing parents or children in the Michael Jackson molestation case. Now that I have dealt with your straw man, I will get along to point two:

Come now ... you are parsing it too thin here. The crowds were driven by the same dogma. We are living the 21st century, there are more rational standards for legal cases. There are rules of evidence. The context is completely different in essential ways.

Anyway, it's not my job to defend Jake. I disagree with your assessment of him, even while I've disagreed with some of his arguments in this thread.

[Charles Lester]

Come now ... you are parsing it too thin here. The crowds were driven by the same dogma. We are living the 21st century, there are more rational standards for legal cases. There are rules of evidence. The context is completely different in essential ways.

Anyway, it's not my job to defend Jake. I disagree with your assessment of him, even while I've disagreed with some of his arguments in this thread.

Obstinate one; aren't you?

"parsing it too thin?" First you lie about what my argument was, and now you accuse me of context dropping. Obstinate and desperate, is what I should have said. You should be ashamed of yourself. How are "rules of evidence" relevant in my analogy? I was never speaking of the legal system, at that time or now. Again, as stated before, the mobs of people believed that the people they hunted down and tortured to death were guilty of heracy, where, they had no evidence. In the case of Salem, there was no evidence possible, since witches don't exist. At best, you are splitting hairs trying to justify your assessment of me and my argument, instead of being a big enough person to admit when you are mistaken or flat out wrong. There is no "essential difference" in the two things I analogized.

You are starting to seem kinda' immature to me; how old are you anyway?

As far as your alleged disagreement with my "assessment of him," under normal circumstances I would ask you why. But the truth of the matter is I already have on more than one occasion asked you to demonstrate Jake's "argument," and how he is "rational" about the allegations, that he so freely--and armed only with allegation--hurls about like a person hunting down a witch.

Copy and paste are easy to do when there exists something to copy and paste. The fact remains, that you haven't done so, and I checked the thread myself. There exists no reason for your disagreement with my assessment of him; but, there does exist a ton of proof otherwise. I know, and so does anyone interested. It's listed by me all along the way.

You funny!

[Jake_Ellison]

Anyway, it's not my job to defend Jake. I disagree with your assessment of him, even while I've disagreed with some of his arguments in this thread.

There's nothing to gain from arguing with someone hellbent on name calling and ad hominems, Thales. So far, every one of his posts contains insults, so I see a very short career for him on this board. Until then, you should just note that not everyone in the World can control their anger, block his posts from appearing on your screen, and avoid the bad taste they leave in your mouth.

[kainscalia]

I am seeing, however, quite a few people who not only are offering critical opinions but also tinging them with a very heavy emotional background. Both for and against- Jake, you must admit that you have passed from expressing an objective point to rather charged vituperation.

It seems to me a lot of Objectivists make a practice of disliking everything, and to make it a badge of pride. Whatever his errors, the Jesuit scholar Balthasar Gracián had it right when he said "do not affect to be dissatisfied with everything: It is the extreme of folly, and more odious if from affectation than if from Quixotry."