Posts Tagged ‘rhetoric’

Moderate Extremists

Thursday, August 15th, 2013

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, what is called moderate today is actually extreme, and what is called extreme is actually moderate, that most people don’t intrinsically understand this is cause for concern. That progressives claim their stances on every issue no matter how out of the mainstream, moderate and the libertarian argument as extreme, is their modus operandi and has been since their inception. It is the monopoly on the flow of information that progressives have that makes their perversion of the terms moderate and extreme so dangerous, especially since so few in our society recognize it. The results for our republic is that it will inevitably rot into a despotism. To be sure, it is our duty and responsibility, to protect the republic and point our united fingers at threats to it’s very existence, in this case overt, to enlighten our fellow citizens to the threat.

 

Language is the transmitter of information. Language has it’s flaws however. Kung Sung Lung wrote his famous treatise on, a white horse is not really a horse, to prove the weakness of language as a transmitter of truth. This has been known for millennia among the learned of society but the people have remained ignorant of it. We rely on language every day and in every possible way. Therefore the truth that language has fundamental flaws is lost on most of us. This ignorance is used against us by the elite.

 

Those who control the language therefore control the transmission of all information. Since language has inherent flaws it can be manipulated to change meanings, and the main reason for transmitting information is to convey meaning, this power can be exploited to control everything. The elite don’t have to change the wording of our Constitution, they simply change the meaning of the words. In the case of moderate verses extreme, the elite don’t change the meaning of the words, but the context of them.

 

Take the debate between conservatives/libertarians and progressives regarding “Death Panels.” Sara Palin was excoriated in the unbiased press for her characterization, of what are now widely recognized as… death panels. She was called extreme for her opinion. There was no corner of the unbiased media that didn’t pillory her for it. Yet today, only a few years later, everyone knows that those panels will decide who lives and who dies… and progressives even admit it. But Sara Palin was labeled an extremist for her stance, while those that disemboweled her for it, were, and still are, called moderate. History clearly shows that she was the moderate and her detractors were the extremists… and the theater goes on.

 

Now President Obama claims republicans are out of touch and extreme in their positions. His rhetoric is as vicious as it is prevarication. One example is that Obama maintains he has the power to arbitrarily enforce the laws as he sees fit. While some in the republican party, (the non progressives), disagree. They claim Obama must follow the Constitution, enforcing every law Congress passes, to the best of his ability. The position that the President has the arbitrary power to enforce law as he sees fit, is called, but more importantly considered, moderate, while the Constitutional argument is called extreme.

 

We are not quibbling about the meaning of a few words here, we are discussing the future of liberty in our country, and the World. If we allow the language to be controlled by a single faction in our society, we already have tyranny, in fact if not in name. Absurdity, like the switching of moderate and extreme, needs to be pointed out, else those who are lazy thinkers will accept the false label and act accordingly. Once that happens, we have no one to blame but ourselves, we are condemned by our silence.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

Our Culture’s Dehumanization, and Elevation to Godhood, of Mankind

Sunday, September 9th, 2012

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, our culture reduces us to less than human, while at the same time inflating us to the status of gods. The seemingly irreconcilable duality of this concept is actually quite intuitive if you think about it. Our scientists have, since the age of enlightenment, told us science can accomplish anything… even create life. Meanwhile academia redefines the human being into a mere automaton. Culture has taken these two concepts, of the nature and ability of Man, and amalgamated them into a pernicious whole. They lower Men and women to no better than a salamander, in fact the environmentalists claim the salamander is higher than Man, because it doesn’t pollute, while making Mankind out to be virtual gods, creates a people who are callus to the plight of our fellow man and inflates our egos. If an indifferent and egoistic people is the best ethos our modern society can come up with, we can reliably say that our culture, academia and science… do us great disservice.

The dehumanization of Man is rampant today. Our culture tells us, in many subtle and not so subtle ways, that Man is no better than an animal. Environmentalists, as I pointed out previously, claim that animals are more virtuous than Man. Whenever their regulations destroy jobs and economic growth, due to an owl that, as it turns out, is being pushed out by it’s own cousins, not logging, is more important than us feeding our families, they lower our worth to less than that of a wild animal.

The National Academy of Health has recently come out with a paper that explicitly claims that “after birth abortion” is a viable way to kill babies that don’t meet their standards or have parents that are unfit. They argue that babies who have not been born, and babies that are less than a year old, do not have the “moral” standing of an adult! How can someone, as evil as the person who wrote that, use the term moral!?!? I cannot think of anything else that lowers us to less than human… more than that. To say that some people should be murdered, in a humane way, is the least humane thing anyone can say or believe… especially a doctor!

Academia makes itself out to be the equivalent of god. They delve into the sciences with gusto and behold the workings of God. Then they have the ultimate hubris to think they are capable of godly acts. Nothing could be further from the truth. The eggheads in our institutions of higher learning almost universally have great disdain for God. They preach atheism from their highly paid “teaching” positions and aver that Man is unlimited in our ability. They laugh scornfully at the righteous man and speak derisively about the role of divinity in the lives of men. The same people who diminish us to mere automatons and animals, consider themselves, God’s equal.

Perhaps the best example of the dehumanization of Man, coupled with the notion we are the godhead, is abortion. Nothing lowers human beings more than the slaughter of babies. To change their status, simply by changing their title, is a sophist rhetorical tool. Mensheviks, Untermensch, and Jews were dehumanized this way, to allow for their massacre, by the Nazis and communists in ages past. As if a moniker justifies crimes against humanity. We know the results of those evil philosophies. The mass slaughter of swaths of humanity. But, at the same time, abortion elevates us to the role of God. Deciding, for whatever selfish reason that touches our fancy, who should live and who should die, puts us in the place of God. It is self evidently true, abortion is the epitome of this idea… that we are both subhuman, and gods.

But only a fool believes that the ability to kill bestows godhood. Since Cain killed his brother Abel, the ability to murder our fellow man in cold blood, has not raised us, it has lowered us… not to subhuman but to a fallen people. A bacterium has the ability to kill, but germs are not gods, and only a half-wit would argue they are. To deny our humanity is the argument of egoist. A person that believes in personal self interest above all. For, if he or she can lower us to mere animals, we can be yoked and herded, like oxen… and put to his bidding.

The thoughtlessness and hubris of the Elite, that promulgate such nonsense will lead, inevitably as it has in the past, to inhumanities visited on Mankind. This is as certain as fall comes after summer and winter after fall. The reality is, we are human beings and each of us has intrinsic worth… regardless of our age. We are not gods, and we should keep that in mind, lest we become evil in the most vile sense of the word. Loosing our souls and actually becoming animals, with delusions of godhood. It is prudence to keep this in mind as we engage in the affairs of Man.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Hate, Envy and Intolerance

Monday, August 6th, 2012

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the progressive’s passion for power has reduced them to embracing hate, intolerance and envy, as the entirety of their being. This is the preferred bait the progressives, in both the democrat and republican parties, use to ensnare us. Most people don’t think these are very attractive attributes, but the American left is so full of anger and loathing, they cannot see themselves with any perspective whatsoever. The application of hate to politics, while eschewing love and tolerance, and calling the tolerant, hatemongers, is the highest form of hypocrisy. This bodes poorly for the US and the World if the hate filled, intolerant and envious progressives hold power much longer.

Intolerance was on display in Chick Fil A. The progressives can not tolerate a different perspective. When the owner of the franchise said he is in favor of traditional marriage the progressives went into an intolerant hate filled rage. To accept traditional marriage is a reasonable stance to take but is unacceptable to the progressive politicians and media. They called for boycotts of the stores and their rhetoric became as vitriolic as it was irrational. Their intolerance of other points of view oozed to the surface like algal slime from the bottom of an anaerobic pond.

The American left show their hatred for the American Constitution daily. From Obama claiming the Constitution is flawed because it is a charter of negative liberties, to Diane Feinstein’s assertion that Our Constitution gives government unlimited power, they show their loathing for Our Constitution in their words, actions and rhetoric. But their hate doesn’t stop there.

The American left despises Christianity, limited government, freedom to become wealthy, unborn children, traditional marriage, capitalism, SUVs, freedom of thought, freedom of moral expression, the list goes on and on. They are happy to describe their hatred for you… just ask. What is it about a cross on a hill, the progressives find so obnoxious that they spend so much time, money and political capital eliminating? If you are that intolerant of a silent reminder, far from the beaten path, to those that died in the First World War, protecting your right to say and believe what you want, maybe you should do a little introspection and find out why you are so filled with hate and intolerance.

Envy is a powerful emotion and it is used daily by the progressives. Their constant drumbeat of class warfare shows, not only their attachment to envy, but also highlights their intolerance and hate. The Elite progressives are universally richer than rich, but they vilify wealth, as though every wealthy person got his or her money from genetics, political corruption or gambling/prostitution… like they did. They call people who have met some need of their customers and society evil and call for confiscatory tax rates be applied to others. But… when a rich guy stands in front of me, and claims he wants to hurt the rich, I know I am being lied to. To do that he or she must injure themselves and they are far too selfish to ever do that.

They achieve the highest reaches of insanity when they make baseless attacks on Romney’s taxes. Harry Reid made the libelous statement on the floor of the Senate that Romney hadn’t paid any taxes for ten years! This kind of personal baseless attack, is the epitome of hatred… and envy. Reid sought, by his libelous attack, to make the American people envious and hate Romney… like Reid does. But the truth is, Romney did something productive to get his wealth, Reid made his fortune from political corruption, gambling and prostitution… like the mafia. If anyone should be wary of casting dispersions it should be Harry Reid. They claim it is openness that the progressives seek, if that is so, then what about Obama’s college records? Who paid for those expensive universities? What were the grades of the smartest man in history? But, it is plain that openness is not what the left seeks, they seek hatred of their foes, envy of the wealth of producers, and entrenched intolerance of any view they do not hold.

These are just a very few examples of how the American left show their profound hate, intolerance and envy. They attack that which has made the US the most productive and wealthy nation in World history. The human race is far better off that free market capitalism has been allowed to flourish here. They would allow their hatred to get in the way of future human progress, in fact, the progressives actually seek to return us to the days of serfdom. They seek the destruction of the freedoms the US Constitution provide, not only to American citizens, but by providing an example to the World, humanity as a whole. The progressives intolerance displays the true weakness of their arguments. Hatred, intolerance and envy are powerful emotions and have the ability to motivate mankind to do profound damage to our self interests. The real question is, will we take the bait and be fried for supper, or, being rational maximizers, will we spit out the hook, and keep swimming in the waters of freedom for a little longer? I guess it depends if we have love and tolerance in our hearts, or seethe with hate, envy and intolerance like them.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Morality

Thursday, March 29th, 2012

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that, for a statement of a moral character to be true, it must be universally applicable. By universally applicable I mean that the actors must be replaceable without changing the moral character of the situation. Since moral statements always regard situations there are necessarilly actors. If, however, a moral statement is, actor dependent, it is not a moral statement but rhetoric. This is a very important point to make. Morality is not a tool, to be used for a faction to gain political power over the masses, it is a means of determining right action in any given circumstance. When morality is used as an implement it is inevitably a pry bar. To pry liberty from the witless. Unless you wish to be witless…

Moral statements are about situational actions. It is wrong to do this in that situation or it is polite to do this action in that situation. Moral statements are always about situations. The situation determines if a given action is moral or not. The actors are just that, actors, they play parts in a situation and they have input into the evolving of the situation. This is the basis of human morality. What is wrong, is wrong, no matter who does it.

The actor in a situation is able to effect change in that situation. One person may be driving the scenario to the point that the other actor or actors have no ability to change the situation. In the case of a rape the woman is certainly an actor, but has very limited ability to change the situation, to one more favorable to her. The rapist has the initiative, possibly due to superior strength, or maybe he has a weapon, but regardless, he is the driver of the scenario.

We can all agree that rape is a moral outrage. It is a patently immoral act. We know this because no matter who the rapist is it remains an immoral act. If Fred rapes Eggberdina it is as immoral as if Tom raped Wilhelmina. The actor is not relevant to the morality of the act, only the act itself within the framework of the situation, is relevant. This is why we can say that for a statement about morality to be true it must be universally applicable. Just as Rape is morally wrong no matter who engages in it.

Moral statements have great power to sway public sentiment. They have great power because they have great emotional appeal. Often when people are told of a moral situation our emotions take hold and our sense of disbelief is suspended. We lower our logic guards and are moved by the story. This fact is not lost on those who seek power by whatever means. Sophist moral statements have had utility since prehistory. It was taught in the Academy as rhetoric and sophistry.

The pernicious use of feigned moral outrage lowers the effect of actual moral outrage. Just like the Boy who cried wolf, people become inured to moral outrage, when we hear it constantly, and especially, when it is mere feigned outrage. The saturation of feigned moral outrage in the unbiased media today is, more often than not, used as a means to gain the upper hand in the political battles of our day,and is morally reprehensible. No matter who engages in it…

lately the unbiased media have been surrounding us with “moral outrages” but where there are actual moral outrages the unbiased media is silent. Take a look at what the unbiased media shriek about and apply this little scale. By this metric, are they really moral outrages, or are they merely rhetoric? If they call a thing morally outrageous and apply skin color, change the color and ponder if that would change the moral outrage, felt by outraged people. If, by that metric they would not find it a moral outrage then they are engaging in rhetoric. If that is the case, they are morally reprehensible egoists, who only seek their own good above the good of society. If that is the case they should loose any and all credibility. No matter who pursues it…

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Sophist Rhetoric Spanning Logical Chasms

Monday, January 16th, 2012

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the adage, “Government is responsible for the welfare of it’s citizens,” is based on a false premise, that we the people, are incompetent to care for our own welfare. This type of sophist rhetoric is a major factor in why the economies of the Western World are declining. This pernicious notion has pervaded the zeitgeist, to such an extreme, that it is accepted without question. This leads to the Elite gaining power, and us, loosing liberty. If you are comfortable, loosing your liberty so the Elite can have more power, then you should stop reading now.

Our adage is an example of framing the subject. A question can be framed in many ways. The language that is used is the rhetoric the presumptions are the sophistry. Control of the rhetoric is a large portion of any argument in the public arena. Most of the audience to the debate, have lives to live, and have no time to look into every item independently, so we often go with out hearts. In this case framing the question is of paramount importance because it can bypass logic by appealing to emotion.

This gets a position accepted without argument. By framing the question in a manner that makes a logical leap has been known since the time of Socrates. It was the topic of Plato‘s book about Protagoras. The most well known modern example is the trial question, “when did you stop beating your wife?” This question has been framed such that it has been accepted, that the person questioned, beats his wife. In the case of the sophist argument, Government is responsible for the welfare of it’s citizens, the premise that the citizens are too incompetent to care for themselves is implicit in the assertion.

This conveniently omits, government is dependant on those incompetent’s, for everything and in every way. Government can only exist, as long as those governed, have sufficient funds for the Elite to take, to fund their operations. Once the Elite have spent the populace into poverty and destitution the government necessarily topples. But, until it topples, the more destitute the people become the more the government is required… to help. Look at Greece. How much longer will it hold out? It is now entirely supported by other governments.

The argument itself opens a whole avenue of potential government interventions in it’s citizens lives. The truly pernicious element, is that the argument makes intervention in the lives of it’s citizens, not only acceptable but a necessary part of governmental functions. Anti smoking regulations, anti obesity regulations, making the weight of a family’s children a matter of legal entanglement, monitoring of it’s citizens, as well as giant overarching laws like, Obama care, the Consumer protection agency, the EPA, and the FED, among others. More and more interference in our lives is justified by this, and other, sophistry.

Welfare is inextricably tied to a country’s economy. What else is more tied to the welfare of a people than their economic well being? This is an opening for the Elite to tinker with a country’s economy. Tinkering, that can only lead to the lowering of the general welfare, not increasing it. Because the Elite, have at the core of their ethos, a theory of power that matches Thrasymachus. They blindly follow Bastiat’s false concept of government. The concept that Bastiat gives in his book “The Law“, namely, that government is a means to loot the money of other factions, and protect the money of your faction, from being looted.

This is but one example, of how the progressives change the debate, to make their positions seem logical without there being any actual logic to them. Unfortunately, most people never look at the premise of an argument, we mostly look at the topic. The progressives always frame the debate with the help of the unbiased media. The two have gone hand in hand, getting the citizens of the World past giant logical chasms, with the use of this sophist bridge. Then, the Elite can ride their rhetorical limonene across, to the promised land of total government.

But don’t worry. This time our overlords will be benevolent… As long as we behave!

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

Logic and Justice

Thursday, September 15th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that just as logic, to be logic, must be consistent else it is spurious, justice, to be justice, must be consistently applied, else it is injustice. This may seem obvious on the surface but is not practiced by the Elite and the unbiased media. In fact the exact opposite of this maxim is true of the actions of these people. The real question is, whether or not you and I want to live in a just society, or an unjust one.

Lets say that an arguer observes that person A is bad because of action D, then it is brought up that person C is also guilty of action D, the original arguer claims however that it doesn’t apply to person C. The original arguer is not using logic but rhetoric or sophistry. If action D is bad it is bad no matter who does it. Logic does not broach transgressions in application else it ceases to be logic.

In the same way, justice must be evenly applied else it ceases to be justice and becomes instead, injustice. Another example in Aristotelian language is; Person A commit’s a crime. The crime costs society 17 million dollars, (to grab a number from the air). The State prosecutor decides that it is not in the public interest to prosecute person A. Person B commit’s a crime that costs society $20.00. That person is then tried and punished to the full extent of the law.

Can we honestly say that it was form justice, to not even prosecute person A, when his or her crime was so much more costly to society than person B‘s? What if, person A is politically favored, is it ok then? What about if person B is from a politically disfavored group? Now lets say that person C is observed trespassing but he or she is in a politically favored group. The police arrest the trespasser and are attacked in the unbiased media and their jobs are endangered by the State governor and the charges dropped. While person B is serving probation for petty larceny. To take the point further, lets say that in a hypothetical society, politically favored people or groups were held to a much different standard than the masses. Can we honestly say that this is justice? Or is it a case of injustice? Moreover is society well served thusly?

Lets also consider why a group of people are allowed to break certain laws that make them second class non citizens. They are tacitly protected, but still illegal, making them subject to all sorts of deprivations. Akin to the old practice of indentured servitude… or slavery. Would that be a just state of affairs? Or an unjust one?

So this illegal group, that are protected in some ways but always in fear of government punishment, is even more afraid of having to follow the law, because of the consequences. These people would be perfect to undermine the capitalist system in a country. They would work for peanuts, no labor law would apply to them, they could be sexually harassed with near impunity, they could be worked at too early an age for societal norms, and they could be murdered with far less risk of punishment. The introduction of such unjust labor practices would totally undermine the wages and employment of those citizens that are held to the labor laws. Would this be a just system or an unjust one? Moreover what would be the motivation for the Elite in a society to do this?

What if a certain group within a society were subject to a totally different set of laws than the rest of the society? There are many cases of this in history. Slavery is one such example, the old dark age laws where Christians prohibited Jews from most business except money lending… many countries in the World today. They all have one thing in common; they are all a form of societal injustice.

You cannot have a group within a society held to different laws than the rest of society. Was it right to have a totally different set of rules that Black people were held to in America? Was that time in US history a just time for Blacks or an unjust one? Would it be just to introduce such a system now? But what if the group effected wasn’t African Americans? Would it be just then? Of course not! The laws of a society MUST apply to EVERYONE uniformly. There can be no exceptions.

Exceptions break the rule. Any society that holds more than one set of laws under its jurisdiction is unjust. Unjust and illogical is not a way to have a healthy society, it is a means to destroy a healthy society, turning it cancerous. The overt injustice poisoning any society, that trips down this primrose path, eventually ending in a gut wrenching death. To argue otherwise is to argue sophically with spurious logic as your lance. It is like saying, “You can’t arrest him for taking a bribe, he is a Congressman!”

Logic and Emotion

Monday, June 20th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the minds of anti capitalists are made up and there is no argument that can ever reach their ears that would, or could, remove the scales from their eyes. The romantic anti capitalist is vehement that he or she sit in their cave and only watch the shadows on the wall, their back to the opening, while professing to know reality. Always feeling instead of thinking they sit in judgment of every facet of their neighbor’s lives. Never understanding the irony of a person who is at once the absolute judgementalist while demanding not only no judgment of their lives but approbation, no matter the action, if it is theirs.

We all make snap emotional judgments it is in our nature. There is no one among us who is not afflicted with this trait. Our ancestors lived in a world where snap judgments meant the difference between life and death. It is ingrained in us. But it is also ingrained in us to consider our reaction afterward. That is one of the traits of civilization in Mankind. The ability and attribute of assessing our actions and the outcome of them to garner better outcomes in the future.

This ability to look at the past and understand, intellectually, how our actions and the actions of others, even those of historical figures, have effected the World. It is our intellect that allows us to make these considered judgments. It is our intellect hat Socrates held as the primary difference between Man and beast. It was Emotion that Thrasymachus begged in his argument. By the last days of the Republic Rome had totally devolved into emotional decisions backed by sophist arguments to justify emotional actions. Sulla was no less guilty in this than Marius.

Look at the unquestionable evil that anti capitalists have visited on Mankind. From Stalin’s imposed famines through the Killing fields of Cambodia to Osama Bin Laden’s attack on the World Trade Center. Anti capitalists use logic, as a means only, to justify emotional reactions. Like arguing it would be a good thing to put sterilants in other people’s drinking water. No one argues that they personally should be fed sterilants against their will. It is others that have too many children and should be treated thusly.

As soon as the argument is won logically the anti capitalist flies into a rage. Then the personal attacks come out. No level of vitriol is too low to be leveled at a person arguing for liberty and the market system to cog and the sprocket of the machine of Mankind‘s advancement. The US Constitution is often at the point of attack. The anti capitalist faction seeks to undermine capitalism by gutting the Constitution. They make absurd arguments like the bill of Rights is there to protect the government’s rights to disarm the people. One of the most contemptible things anti capitalists do is redefine the Constitution. Take the redefinition of freedom of religion to separation of church and State.

Separation of church and state is a means to destroy freedom of religion for those anti capitalists that hate God. They believe that they can destroy their creator with rhetoric. Then when confronted with the question, what if there is a God they respond, well he must be a good guy and will forgive me… Presuming there will be no consequences no matter what. A very poor presumption to make; one that will possibly lead to ruination.

The anti capitalist will march all day to call for action in the face of Global Warming. Cite all the fabricated and out of context data the alarmists at the IPCC pull from their butts… and eat every bit. But any reasoning person must consider the fact that there is incontrovertible proof that Mars has warmed in the same time frame as Earth and about the same amount. This is far too coincidental to fluff off as a change in the color. I suppose a planet going from 2/3s ice cap in 1959 to 1/8th ice cap today would change the color from white to red. But the color change is an effect not a cause. It is possible human activity may have a slight effect on planetary climate, but the total effect must be solar system wide, if it is experienced solar system wide.

But the anti capitalist sees red when this argument is presented to them. No! It must be humans! No critical thinking at all. Because the theory fits well within the anti capitalist’s world view. That other people are bad and need to be controlled. Not only their property but their persons even down to their personal reproductive rights. There is no facet of human existence the anti capitalist does not consider himself entitled to control.

How a person can share every philosophical point with the National Socialist party, but call them evil and toss their common name around as an epithet to their political enemies, is amazing to me. But when a person is tied to the world with bindings of emotion, eschewing logical argumentation, it is not only possible but is a necessity. So keep arguing 5.5% unemployment is a jobless recovery but today we are living large at almost 90% employment.

Politics and the Nature of Government

Monday, May 9th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that there are a lot of people who are ignorant of the fact that everything that happens in government is politics. Politics is the nature of government and all governments over all time have been afflicted thus. Human nature and the nature of power precludes any exception.

Take the example of Xerxes king of Persia. As related by Herodotus, Xerxes had no interest in attacking Greece. He was content to luxuriate in his palaces and party. But politics got in the way of his will. He had to invade Greece to save face in a political power match. So he did…

So if even a king with absolute power must bend to politics can it reasonably be argued that politics is not the warp and the woof of government? The be all and all of every government action is politics. But politics is not moral despite all the calls for morality in political rhetoric. Rhetoric that is as empty of human heartedness as a piranha swimming in the Amazon.

Politics is an animal that is at it’s nature a carnivore. Eating anything it can and pretending to express that which it has consumed. No more than the shark is the whale that it has taken a bite from, is politics moral, because it has chomped down on some aspect of morality for it’s own ends… Power.

Because power is why politics exists. Power over other human beings. As Thrasymachus said in Plato’s Republic, Most people only wish ‘not’ to be tyrannized, so they consider a system of ‘justice,’ to hold those that would abuse them at bay. But as we all know Thrasymachus didn’t have the best interests of humanity in mind, he had power politics as a valid end.

Adam Smith said that most people, (or maybe all people I forget), would prefer the labor of a slave to negotiating with a free man for his free labor. Because people like to have power over others. This is self evident through out history. This is what politics is, the extension of Man’s ability to have power over his fellow man. For no end, other than that power itself, and how it serve‘s his ego.

So given the nature of politics and the fundamental drives that make it work… why would people think it would be a good idea to distribute the goods of society by it? How could that ever work out well? What could possibly be a worse means of distributive justice?

History shows that usually when politics has been the primary means of determining who gets the goods of society, society as a whole, has stagnated and declined. Those few examples of societies that used merit as the primary means of distributive justice, quickly rose to eminence and declined as quickly in decadence, when they turned back to politics as the means of distributive justice.

Just like a LC circuit (inductive/capacitive). The system oscillates from one state to another with reasonably discernable amplitude and frequency given the known input values. Do societies rise and fall. All due to the pernicious reality that once a society has become “wealthy,” by local standards, it becomes decadent by changing it’s societal myth to include political distributive justice, then turns the incentives that the original societal myth created, they are perverted to become disincentives and that society collapses.

The larger the amplitude the larger the eventual fall (if the path is followed). Historically, when societies have become more and more decadent but retain sufficient military power, they conquer other states and plunder their wealth into their decadent system of political distributive justice. This can stave of the collapse but increases the amplitude. Another way to stave off the collapse, but it still increases the amplitude, is to borrow money from other states. Then plow that money into the corrupt politically driven system of distributive justice and call it “social justice“.

This is one of the biggest reasons there should not be a “World Government.” Such a government, primarily made up of tyrants, would quickly succumb to political mishandling the World’s economy, by implementing political distributive justice (or social justice), world wide. No economy or people would have their property and persons safe from the naked power of political justice. To our mutual detriment…

Unbiased Journalists

Sunday, October 25th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the modern definition of media bias depends on your perspective.

What is media bias? There seem to be several definitions. Everyone who finds a media story that portrays them in a negative light believes it is slanted. Some people believe that media stories that include certain information to be slanted. Others believe that media stories that allow certain points of view to see the light of day are slanted.

Every definition depends mostly on the point of perspective of the opiner’s. The merits of this or that argument is superfluous. The perspective of the viewer is paramount. An example is the Chris Mathews Show today.

Chris Mathews emphasizes he is a journalist and had three other journalists on his show today. They all had the exact point of view regarding Obama’s attack on Fox News. They all agreed that it was Fox News that is being unfair to the President. They also chortled at the unbiased journalist Chris Mathews calling everyone on his right and those at Fox News “wing nuts.” Chris was also incensed that Palin would use a teleprompter! (Apparently no other presidential candidate has ever used one before). Chris’s unbiased reporting went on, when Palin’s book was brought up as a best seller, he mentioned that it was ghost written. Apparently from his demeanor Chris Mathews finds ghost writing a book extremely distasteful.

Andrew Sullivan (who claimed to be a conservative… but has absolutely no conservative viewpoints) claimed Mitt Romney will say anything… To what end? He didn‘t elaborate. Andrews the conservative also claimed that McCain picking Sara Palin was wrong, because it was caving to the right wing. (of which he claims to be part of). But Mostly he purports that Obama’s best forte is his ability to let the right wing destroy themselves. By giving them enough rope.

Kathleen Parker said that, in the republican party, publicly, the belief is that Sara Palin could win the Whitehouse, But privately…(Read Elite), the belief is, she cannot.

The most interesting point was by Helena, (they didn’t put her name or credentials on the screen), when she said that right wing media makes republicans look more centrist. I wonder if she even gets a whiff of the irony in what she was saying as an unbiased journalist?

Unfortunately Dan Rather was incoherent. He came out with sophist statements like “The megaphone of right wing media outweighs them.” Of course he is the only one on the panel who has been caught fabricating evidence, then reported it as fact, just before an election… So he can be certified an unbiased journalist.

So… if this is the case, how can we ever rectify the term media bias?

Like a carpenter uses a chalk line to find a straight line we need to use, find or develop tools to find the straight in “news” as well. Many tools exist now but are only selectively used. Ad Homonym attacks like wing nuts show a perspective that is not in keeping with actually being unbiased.

Rhetoric is effective at moving a crowd but appeals to emotion… not to logic. Political philosophers have made the determination that government must run on logic not emotion. To do otherwise is folly. Every mischief will follow. So empty rhetoric is not a fair tool to use to make a point. Phrases like “The megaphone of right wing media outweighs them.” are good examples of this sophistry.

Changing the subject is another sophist means of redirecting a discussion away from a loosing point. Things like when a book is on the best seller list the author is denigrated instead of pointing out some flaw in the logic of the book.

Many other rules exist regarding just discussion of a subject… Regrettably the unbiased media demonstrates knowledge of none of them.