A Great Story

From Crackle: A Jewish Man's First Bacon

Like A Begging Dog

On a similar note to my previous post, there is this student in one of my classes who constantly interrupts the teacher to contribute here own information and anecdotes. To be fair, she does sometimes raise here hand. However, every four minutes she tries to add something. Most of the time, it is not really information pertinent to the course. Granted, the course is not very specific about what is pertinent information. The class is essentially about transitioning from college life to real life, so it covers topics like resumes, cover letters, apartment leases, bills, health insurance, etc. However, personal anecdotes acting as a superfluous examples are a problem. Here are some paraphrased examples of her contributions:

"Hey, that's the name of my mom's law firm."

"That happens to my dad a lot. He tries to avoid it by doing this, but that doesn't help."

"At the hospital I work at (insert name here) the other nurses talk about that all the time."

"My brother is the number two goalie on the east coast. It's kind of a big deal."

Though the constant interruptions are certainly annoying, the real problem here is that the individual is trying to have her life affirmed. She is like a begging dog. Asking the teacher to call on her, and praise her for her examples. In some cases, she is not even seeking praise for an example. She is just seeking praise for a quality about another member of her family.

The problems here are one, she is dependent upon the reactions from the other class members and the teachers to make her happy. As I stated in the previous post, happiness is only achieved independently. The actions of others cannot make one happy, for it requires dependence, which requires one to violate his nature as an independent reasonable individual.

The second problem is that she is using the qualities of her family members to gain affirmation of her life. She is not even stating her own accomplishments. It is about her brother's "big deal" accomplishment as the number two goalie on the east coast. The prestigious law firm her mother works with. The wit and intelligence of her father. However, there is nothing about her own accomplishments. Therefore, she is not only dependent on reactions, but also dependent on the accomplishments of people she knows. Just as one is not guilty by association, one is not successful by association. She is only violating the independent quality of her nature two fold.

Politicians Are Like Jesus

No, that is not a compliment. However, maybe the more appropriate title would have been "Politicians' Supporters Like Jesus' Disciples." Unfortunately, it just doesn't have the same ring.

Anyway, I began thinking about this, while on the myface. I am a visual person. I like images. Therefore, most of my time on the myface is spent looking at other people's pictures. Most of them aren't very good. Sometimes its like someone gave a crack baby a camera. Everything is all out of photos, the shots are diagonal, people's nostrils are up against the lens. Whoever has the camera has to use some common sense. Furthermore, they should not read this and hide behind the nonsense that it is abstract art or something. No. That is not the case. The case is you are trigger happy with a camera, and since you have a digital camera, with a million image limit on the number of photographs, you lack any motivation to stop, frame up a shot, and click.

As anyone can tell. I am not in a very good mood. College has been driving me insane; however, that is a topic for another day.

As I was saying. I was looking through some myface pictures, and since the election just occured most of them were reaction shots. Additionally, I believe all of them were reaction shots of supporters of Barack Obama. The shots show individuals out on the quad, jumping up and down, hugging, high fiving, waving the peace sign, and worst of all, crying with joy.

This is incredibly disturbing and overwhelmingly gross. Regardless of what these individuals claim to be their religious beliefs, even if they claim they are atheist, they have selected a new God, a Jesus equivalent.

First, I want to make it clear I am not singling out Obama supporters. Nonsense like this happens for all sorts of political elections throughout history and across the globe. The only connection to Barack Obama this really has, is that the images were of Obama supporters. However, in another time they could have been John F. Kennedy supporters, Ronald Reagan supporters, really the supporters of any politician. The problem here is not necessarily the candidate (though politicians and political candidates do have a wide array of problems) the problem here is the disturbing reaction as if they are worshiping a God.

This situation reminds me of a quote from Ayn Rand's We The Living.

"Well, if I asked people whether they believed in life, they'd never understand what I meant. It's a bad question. It can mean so much that it really means nothing. So I ask them if they believe in God. And if they say they do -- then, I know they don't believe in life.... Because, you see, God -- whatever anyone chooses to call God -- is one's highest conception of the highest possible. And whoever places his highest conception above his own possibility thinks very little of himself and his life. It's a rare gift, you know, to feel reverence for your own life and to want the best, the greatest, the highest possible, here, now, for your very own."

These individuals do not love life. For, they believe in a Jesus equivalent. They believe the politician is the greatest thing since sliced bread, that the politician makes life worth living. Politicians do not make life better. Government does not make life better. One makes his life better. Improving one's life, achieving happiness, is a personal pursuit. It is not something achieved through government handouts, or politicians' careers.

Unfortunately, this is how these individuals are behaving. They believe this particular politician has infinitely improved their lives. This is a sick dependence comparable to the disciples of Jesus. These individuals have ground themselves down into human fodder to prop up the careers of individuals who will orchestrate thievery, murder, and the initiation of force behind a governmental-guise that at a distance appears as legitimacy. These individuals have destroyed themselves. Made themselves nothing more than support beams. Therefore, if their candidate fails, they collapse, for they believe they have no purpose.

It is true that a support beam without a platform is useless; however, men are not support beams. Men are never fodder, holding up a creature as a God. Men make their own purpose, by living their own lives, for their own happiness. Reducing one's self to a resource for others, is a complete contradiction of one's nature as an independent reasonable individual; therefore, it can only assure misery.

Obviously, these individuals are not as happy as they could be. Relying on other's successes to make one happy, to affirm one's own exist, never achieves happiness. However, they think they are happy now because they think all the promises of their God will come true. Unfortunately, over time, they will become disillusioned. They will see their Jesus is just another power seeking politician caring only for government's existence, not the individuals at all. Consequently, they will become unhappy. Obviously, the opponents supporters are now unhappy, once again because they relied on his success and not their personal accomplishments for happiness. Of course, this process will continue to repeat itself as it has in the passed until individuals' improve their philosophy.

However, those that realize this, realize how vicious government is regardless of what color and mascot it is dressed in, will be happy, or have a better potential to be happy than these individuals. The ones who realize this are not relying on any politician to succeed to affirm their own existence. They honestly could not care, or care very little. Instead, they solely care about their own lives, their own happiness. Therefore, they will not seek happiness from others success, from the ascent of a Jesus like others. Instead, they will go out and achieve happiness themselves.

World War II: A War Amongst Capitalists?

Yeah, it does not make any sense. However, this is what my Arabic professor argued last week. If not obvious by his argument, he has extreme leftist/Marxist leanings. Therefore, there are already a host of other problems with moral warping, which I will not address here.

My specific problem with this argument was the skewing of definitions, specifically the definition of capitalism. He maintained that most of the states involved in World War II supported capitalism, while I maintained that few if none supported capitalism. The obvious exclusion is the Soviet Union; however, I think he even agreed with this. Furthermore, he may see the Soviet Union as the victim since it did not participate in the war until Nazi Germany attacked it. However, this should not be construed to imply that my professor supports the Soviet Union. Undoubtedly, he finds its practices atrocious. He specifically brought up the fact that Stalin murdered 20 million of his own people.

With the Soviet Union out of the way, obviously Nazi Germany would be the next exception we could both agree upon. Unfortunately, this is not the case. He continued to maintain that Nazi Germany was capitalistic. In response, I pointed out that capitalism was based on voluntary exchanges between individuals; therefore, Nazi Germany, which used government force to maintain corporations could not be capitalistic. He then attempted to make a distinction between capitalisms, as if there are multiple categories. He said I was speaking about the idealist Adam Smith capitalism. I do not remember that much about Adam Smith from history school, I am sure my thought and his share some similarities; however, I understand the definition of capitalism as a wall between state and economy. I am not sure if Adam Smith understood this. In any regard, my professor then stated he was talking about real capitalism, which Nazi Germany is. In reality, he was still wrong. There is no separations between capitalism. There are degrees of capitalism; however, a state that is even just one degree below capitalism is not capitalistic. There is either the free voluntary exchange of materials amongst individuals, or there is not for there may be just one exception. Nazi Germany was rife with exceptions. The United States was also rife with exceptions because of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. I am sure Britain was similar. Italy also had a mix between socialism and capitalism; thus, making it not capitalism. Japan probably also had some exceptions. Of course, I only read small sections of the wikipedia articles for Japan, Germany, and Italy, so I could be wrong about some of them if not all. However, I am pretty sure I am right that World War II was not a war between capitalists.

In any event, I was addressing the problem with definitions. The problem with my argument with my professor was that we had completely different definitions of capitalism. I have no idea what he was defining, but it certainly was not capitalism. Unfortunately, he did not realize that what he was explaining was not capitalism. Of course, he did not make a mistake. It was not as if he thought one was supposed to take a left to get to the grocery store, when the grocery store was really on the right. The problem was that he really truly believed capitalism was something else. I am not sure how he defines it, but from what I gather he believes that capitalism is solely based on profit earnings. Therefore, if one gathers more profits with fascism and practices that, then that is capitalism. However, that is not capitalism at all. Capitalism has a completely different definition my professor apparently does not understand. Unfortunately, my professor will continue to stand by this false definition even if I provide him with the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition:

An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Individuals must understand that words have exact definitions. There are, of course, several definitions to multiple words depending on how the word is used in a particular context. However, the word dog can not refer to an animal that is a cat. The word capitalism can not refer to an economic system that has socialist elements. If any word could identify any person, place, thing, action, description, concept, etc. then words would have no meaning at all. Additionally, individuals must also admit to the possibility that they can be wrong. They must also demand conclusive evidence proving their falsehood in order to realize it. Granted, I did not provide conclusive evidence. I did not show my professor this definition. However, from his stand point, he can never be wrong because capitalism is always what is in his mind despite what dictionaries say. This was evidently conveyed when he stated that I was talking about idealist Adam Smith capitalism. The objective in saying this was to maintain that he was correct, not to understand the truth. He maintains correctness on the definition of capitalism because he talks about real capitalism not fake idealist Adam Smith capitalism. I always admit I could be wrong. For example, I stated earlier that I could probably be wrong about how capitalistic each state during World War II was. However, if someone is going to prove me wrong, they must supply conclusive evidence. Obviously, that would not require too much since I only briefly read the wikipedia pages. However, I am sufficiently sure I am correct about the definition of capitalism, since I just retrieved it from a dictionary and it pretty much said what I had argued.

Environmental Studies Response 8

Here is my eighth reading response for my Environmental Studies class.

In The Omnivore’s Dilemma, author Michael Pollan describes how hybrid corn seed has doubled crop yields twice since 1930. This illustrates science’s incredible value, especially in regards to food production; however, part of Richard Levins’ Science and Progress: Seven Developmentalist Myths in Agriculture appears to favor “folk knowledge” over science.

The hybrid seed’s results are astounding. In 1920, the average corn yield was twenty bushels per acre. When hybrid seed was introduced in 1930, corn yields climbed and leveled out in the 1950’s around eighty bushels per acre. Presently, improved hybrid seed has increased corn yields to between 160 and 200 bushels per acre. Such an achievement displays science’s greatness and necessity. Furthermore, it indicates that in the future, science will accomplish more challenging feats, such as genetically altering seed so crops can grow in unbearable climates.

However, despite science’s clear extraordinary value within this sphere, Levins argues that scientific knowledge is not superior to folk knowledge. According to Levins, assuming “that science is the only way to knowledge” is “a chauvinist, class-based, and sexist contempt for the intellectual achievements of third world peoples, workers, and women of all countries” (Levins 437). Levins continues, arguing that modern science is not the only way to gather knowledge because “all peoples learn, experiment, and analyze” (Levins 437). However, that is not folk knowledge, but science without lab coats and gloves. When a farmer controls variables like fertilizer and water, and determines that his crops require more water, he has used science not folk knowledge. Whether on a personal level, like this example, or in a lab making hybrid seeds, science not folk knowledge has improved farming.

Levins needs to clarify his argument, specifically by defining folk knowledge differently from science. Otherwise, on this point it appears, Levins is backward, “scientific knowledge is modern” (Levins 437)

Levins, Richard. “Science and Progress: Seven Developmentalist Myths in Agriculture.”

Environment an Interdisciplinary Anthology. Ed. Glenn Adelson, James Engell,

Brent Ranalli, and K.P. Van Anglen. 1^st ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

434-439.

Why I Did Not Vote

Since last semester, I have been considering whether or not I would vote in this election. Though I had decided not to vote month ago, the decision was official yesterday when I let the election pass by without paying it the slightest bit of attention. My reasons for not voting in this election, and probably for future elections include the similarity of the two candidates, my unwillingness to consent to government violation of my natural rights, and the fact that democracy does not make sense.

Obviously, most individuals will argue that Barack Obama and John McCain are completely dissimilar. However, this is false, simply because each candidate wanted more government and more war. Obama wants a larger government for social programs. McCain wants a larger government for security. Though Obama does want to withdraw troops from Iraq, he does want them to participate in more peace keeping operations. McCain wants troops to remain in Iraq, and participate in operations throughout the Middle East. Expanding the government whether for social programs or security violates individuals natural rights. Social programs relies on government robbery of individuals' property. Security relies on government restrictions on individuals' life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Expanding war in both cases does not achieve government's purpose. Government is supposed to protect the natural rights of the individuals residing within its boundaries. Peace keeping missions does not accomplish this. Peace keeping missions attempts to protect other individuals' natural rights. That is not the American military's responsibility. The American military's responsibility is to sit on America's borders, aim its guns outwards, and shoot those trying to shoot at those residing in America. This should not be construed as meaning that immigrants should be shot. Immigrants are not shooting at those residing in America, they are trying to become other individuals residing within America, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Finally, American military operations in the Middle East, specifically in Iraq, is also not protecting the natural rights of individuals' residing within America. The American military should indeed kill terrorists trying to kill those residing in America, and if they are in the Middle East, then special operations soldiers should go there and resolve the problem. However, toppling foreign governments and attempting to build democracies is completely contrary to the American miltiary's purpose. Instead of protecting the natural rights of those residing within America, it is just violating the natural rights of those living within another country. Even if the American military removes a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein and allegedly liberates Iraqi individuals the entire occupation results in breaking and entering, murder, robbery, imprisonment, and restrictions on Iraqi individuals who have initiated no force. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of Iraqi individuals to alter their government through force or more peaceful political change. That is not the purpose of the American government.

Secondly, a vote constitutes consent to a candidates entire platform. Therefore, by voting for either Obama or McCain I would be consenting to larger government and more war. I would be consenting to everything I listed above. I refuse to consent to that. I do not recognize any of their positions as legitimate. This is probably why I will continue to abstain from voting in the future. Even if there was a candidate I completely agreed with, his paycheck still comes from government robbery of individuals natural right to property via taxes. I will not consent to being robbed at gun point so someone else can earn a paycheck.

Finally, democracy does not make sense. There seems to be this assumption that democracy results in virtuous decisions. This is false. Democracy guarantees no virtue. Democracy is not constructed to guarantee any level of moral quality whether negative or positive. Democracy only guarantees agreement. Therefore, democracy is an incredibly poor decision making method. It is designed to make a decision, it is not designed to make the best decisions. I do not wish to participate in a faulty process, especially in one that is ultimately allowed to decide whether my natural rights will be protected or violated. Democracy only guarantees that one will be decided on, it does not guarantee that the best decision will be made, that it will be decided individuals' natural rights are to be protected.

I have tried to consider if there was ever an election I would participate in. Thus far, I think I may participate in an election if Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. were revived, Hitler was running for president, and the others were in his cabinet, and a liberal was running against them. That liberal could be McCain, Obama, a reincarnated Reagan, even George W. Bush. I may consider voting for the liberal, to make sure I would not have an even more psychotic and vicious government. However, this, of course, will never happen. Furthermore, if it was happening, I may just decide to move. Additionally, this situation only changes the first premise. Now the candidates are dissimilar. However, I would still be consenting to the violation of my natural rights. I would just either consent to a whole bunch of them being violated, or just a few. Also, the decision is still being left up to majority rule. This decision is too damn important to leave it to majority rule, to democracy. The best decision must be made, not just any decision. Thus, if I am to participate in any future election, I must discover that I am mistaken. Obviously, that is a possibility, I acknowledge I could be completely and utterly wrong. Furthermore, I will admit I am wrong, if I discover how.

Environmental Studies Response 7

Here is another reading response for my Environmental Studies class.

Environment an Interdisciplinary Anthology’s biodiversity chapter implies that nature is inherently valuable. However, the articles With Mouth Wide Open and Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems inadvertently disprove this claim, for to justify it they rely on man’s existence.

Value presupposes a valuer. If an item is unvalued, it is worthless. For example, if Product A is developed and sold, it clearly has value because developers use it to earn profits, and consumers purchase it. However, if everyone including the developers dispose of Product A, it becomes worthless. Product A is not worth $3 because it costs $3 to produce; Product A is only worth $3 if individuals are willing to buy and sell it for $3. If no one wants Product A, it is worthless.

The same is true for nature; it is worthless unless it is valued. Fortunately, nature is valued by man. This is evidenced by With Mouth Wide Open’s and Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystem’s attempts to scare and shame readers. The articles state, “Man is destroying the cod, and once it is gone, he can no longer eat it,” and “Man is destroying ecosystems and species, once they are gone, he can no longer see them and use their resources.” Essentially, nature has value because man exists. Therefore, man should not preserve nature for the sake of preserving it, but for the sake of preserving something he values.

Of course, some argue man should preserve nature even if he does not value it because animals value it. However, that must be proven. Just because Animal A eats Plant B does not mean Animal A values Plant B. Animal A’s instinct programs it to eat Plant B. Is that value, or is that distinctly different from man, who derives happiness from what he values?

Environmental Studies Response 6

Below is the sixth reading response for my Environmental Studies class.

Several environmental mediums, such as Annie Leonard’s The Story of Stuff depict corporations as ignorant, voracious, and obese top-hat-wearing instigators and perpetuators of environmental problems. However, corporations have serious motives to solve environmental issues.

Leonard argues that in the past, present, and future corporations destroy nature to earn profits. However, corporations’ profit motive ensures that they will not continue to destroy nature. Corporations desire to create the cheapest and most effective products because individuals want them and they are inexpensive to make. Essentially, profit motivates corporations to create ideal products, but ideal products cannot be constructed before inferior ones. Furthermore, ideal products are environmentally friendly, for they use inexpensive renewable fuels, produce clean and harmless unobtrusive waste work as well as their predecessors, and cost the same. Simply imagine a car with these attributes. Any corporation that created it would become exceedingly wealthier.

Since most environmentalists blame corporations for instigating and perpetuating environmental destruction, they turn to the government to provide solutions. However, the government has no motivation to do so. If the government was motivated, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recommendations to develop water conservation techniques and efficient farming would already be accomplished, for the state subsidizes water utilities and farmers. However, these subsidies eliminate any motivation to develop, for they remove all fear of bankruptcy caused by a competitor’s superior product. Water utilities and farmers never worry about profits because they are always guaranteed money from the government.

Environmentalists must remember that corporations’ environmentally harmful past is not vicious. Attacking corporations for their former inferior environmentally harmful products is like attacking the man who invented fire because he did not invent the light bulb. The light bulb is the ideal; however, man has no idea how to make it unless he makes fire first.

Collective Punishment

Last week in my Environmental Studies class one student argued that there need to be global regulations on birth. That is correct, some super-state, as if there is not enough government already, needs to pass a law governing all the people of the world, which would restrict the number of children each individual can give birth to.

This statement immediately reminded me of collective punishments. Through my experience I find that they are most prevalent where children are involved like elementary schools or youth organizations like the Boy Scouts. These bullshit punishments penalize an entire group for the prohibited actions of specific individuals. Simply, individuals who have not violated any rules are disciplined because someone they are next to did. This does not teach individuals to stop committing certain acts. The only thing individuals learn from these punishments is that they are not individuals; that their lives have been forcibly tied to other men. Thus, they also learn that since all lives are tied to one another any individual can force another individual to stop committing an act for the sake of preserving the virtue of a human knot. Of course, this is completely false, and is just another source of the prevalence of warped morality.

These false teachings were indeed the root of the student's comment. He was acting like an individual who had been punished this way numerous times. He now assumes all human lives are latched; thus, it is his responsibility, as one of the shackled, to punish all the shackled for some of them are having too many children. First, I am not sure if this is even a vice, and it certainly does not violate any individuals' natural rights; therefore, there can be no government regulation of the act. However, that individual is not thinking like this. He is thinking like the child punished with collectivism, punished for the vices and rule breaking of individuals next to him. Thus, he now acts and thinks as if that system of punishment is just. Clearly, it is not for it punishes those who have done nothing wrong. It punishes those who happen to be similar to others or near others at the time of the prohibited act. Subsequently, he now propagates that thinking. He is a teacher of this warped philosophy through his punishment of others. He is now a fountain of moral corruption.

Additionally, collective punishment is also somewhat like racism. In fact, racism is a form of collective punishment. In my post on racism I pointed out that it identifying an individual negatively based on the actions of his ancestors. That is partially it. There is also negative identification based on arbitrary physical factors shared by a group of individuals. In any event, they are both very similar because it judging all similar individuals based on the actions of a few individuals. However, since men are independent individuals, using this collective judgment is irrational. Man's liberty separates him from other men. Therefore, if he is disconnected from a particular action, he cannot be associated with it, for his liberty allowed him to choose not to participate in the acts of other men.

This also holds true for attaching positive qualities to similar individuals based on the actions of some of them, or having pride in positive actions based on the fact that one is similar to the actual actors. Specifically, one should not have pride in his culture. He may admire the actions of particular individuals; however, he cannot say he has personal pride in them as if he participated in some collective act. In fact, there was no collective act. In fact, the individual is just riding on the coattails of another individual who happens to be similar to him in some way. One must be proud of his own accomplishments, not partake is a false collective pride that he earned only because he was born with similar physical characteristics as the actors. Once again, the fact that he has liberty, the fact that his mind is disconnected from the actor, the fact that he may have the choice to participate with the actor or not, indicates that he cannot seek merit for actions he did not commit. Essentially, collective punishment, judgment, merit, any form of collectivism is impossible without a collective mind; liberty, meaning independent minds protect individuals from collective punishment or judgment and bar individuals from stealing the merits of other actors.

Environmental Studies Response 5

Another reading response for my Environmental Studies class.

The scientific evidence presented in Environment an Interdisciplinary Anthology and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2007 synthesis report was certainly impressive and difficult to challenge. However, physical science does not direct government policy; that is philosophy’s purpose.

The science presented in these readings is most admirable, even to those who do not understand all the specifics, such as how CO2’s interaction with the atmosphere causes global warming. Science in general is admirable because it illustrates man’s desire and passion to understand physical reality, and that his mind has an almost infinite potential to comprehend and solve problems. One example of science’s admirability is displayed in the readings’ description of using an ice column to analyze and compare past CO2 levels to the present.

However, a problem arises when scientific discoveries are used to justify governmental policies. Governance is not science’s responsibility, for no amount of digging, exploring, drilling, or chemical testing will reveal virtues. Virtues are uncovered via morality not physical facts. Therefore, proper governance is solely philosophy’s responsibility, for it unearths morality.

Unfortunately, environmentalism appears to only be focusing on science when it is actually a two-step process also requiring philosophy. First, scientific evidence must be accumulated and confirmed; the environmental issue and its potential harm to man are solely answerable by science. Second, philosophy must determine the virtuous resolution. For example, philosophy determines if violating individuals’ property rights for the sake of lowering CO2 emissions to resolve the environmental issue is virtuous or vicious. Obviously, vice is to always be avoid, while virtue is to always be pursued. However, simply following the first-step and jumping to moral conclusions undoubtedly results in an unacceptable and avoidable mix of virtue and vice.