My Thoughts

Rate your Real Estate Agent

2008-08-15T19:49:00.001-07:00

Check out my new site

ratemyrealestateagent.blogspot.com

I look forward to hearing from you!

Teachers helping Teachers

2007-08-30T11:38:00.000-07:00

Teachers, especially all of you newbies, I am in the process of putting together a site (it will be up in the next day or two) where teachers can exchange lessons, strategies, and tips.

If you are interested send an email to ideaexchange@yahoo.com or visit
the web site.

Please provide a user name, an email (I will not share with anyone or send you spam), and a specific request for a lesson, strategy, or tip. For example, I need a lesson on the World War I. Or I need a group activity that will teach the concept of capitalism. You could even request a tip, such as "what are three ways you differentiate instruction?" or "how can I get my students to participate more frequently?".

I am really excited about this concept and look forward to hearing from you :)

The Power of Incentives

2007-08-29T20:39:00.001-07:00

I’m currently reading “Naked Economics,” a well written, easy to follow articulation of fundamental economic concepts and principles.

The last few days I’ve been reading an early section of the book that discusses incentives.
An incentive is a reason for doing something- think motivation, a topic which I am very familiar with from the many education courses I’ve taken.

Economists assume that each of us attempts to maximize our utility, which is similar but not identical to happiness. In economics, utility means doing what you desire, what you believe you benefit or gain satisfaction. You may derive utility from walking in a park, or shooting deer, or driving an SUV. It really doesn’t matter how you achieve utility, the principle applies to all people. There is a joke in the book: Why did the chicken cross the road? To maximize its utility.

How do incentives relate to utility?

People respond to incentives. This is as much a concept of psychology as it is economics.
Any time you ask questions such as “what’s in it for me?” or “how do I benefit from this?” you are analyzing the incentives of a situation.

If a one hundred dollar bill was for the taking on the ground across a busy street, you would have to decide if it was worth taking the risk to get the money. If your chances of surviving the trip across the street were 10% or even 50%, most people wouldn’t bother risking their lives to get the money. In this example there is a disincentive, a reason for not acting, that influences your decision making. Your desire to live outweighs your desire for one hundred dollars.

Because people strive to maximize utility, they have interests, desires, or goals. Use whatever word you want. The point is the same. These interests or goals provide the framework through which we determine how to respond to a situation.

In economics, if you can align your goals with the interests of others, you are going to have success. If my goal is to have someone cut my lawn, I have to think of a way to get someone to find it worth his while to expend the time and energy to do a job that is not very appealing in 95 degree weather. I have to align my goal, having a nice lawn, with someone else’s goal. In this case, as in most cases, assume people want money. How much I do I have to pay to get someone to cut my lawn?

The concepts of utility and incentives are at the heart of human nature.

Federal Budget Issues

2007-08-28T19:38:00.000-07:00

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_517348.html

Congress authorized the talking books program in 1931. After three decades of using phonographic players and records, the program switched to audiotape cassette players in 1971. Today, the program has more than 750,000 subscribers who share use of 23 million copies of nearly 500,000 titles.

SNIP

The National Federation of the Blind -- the nation's largest organization for the blind, with 50,000 members -- passed a resolution at its convention two weeks ago urging Congress to approve $19.1 million a year from 2008 through 2011 to update talking books technology to digital equipment and recordings.

SNIP

Congressional budget writers have agreed to funding next year of $12.5 million -- almost $7 million short of what is needed to keep the transition on schedule.

SNIP

"For us, there is only one public library. By in effect closing this library -- even for a short period of time -- it's equivalent to closing every public library, every bookstore and every newsstand in the country for sighted people. In short, it is devastating," Pare said.

I am not trying to pick on the blind, but if the money is that important each of the 750,000 members could donate $10 and the fiscal goal is met.

What issues does this article raise?

Notice how a significant amount of money is allocated to this program, yet because the full amount was not approved people are up in arms.

There is nothing wrong with people speaking up when they don’t get what they want politically, but it is important to examine the assumptions that are being made by a disgruntled group. If every group received the funds they requested our taxes would surely be much higher.

In the Philadelphia Inquirer’s editorial on this topic (see link below), the following point is made:

In the budget wars in Washington, where billions usually are at stake, an amount less than $7 million would almost never draw any notice.

The author is correct, the federal budget is huge. Many people assert that government spending is out of control. One huge difference of opinion politically involves the role of government. What is the proper role of the federal government? The US government is involved in our lives in so many ways. This is a fact, but should it be. Why does the federal government have so much power? Should it?

For any issue the following question ought to be asked:

What is the basis for the federal government’s involvement in this issue?

(http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20070825_Editorial___Talking-Books_Budget_Cuts.htmlon this topic)

RATE MY REAL ESTATE AGENT.BLOGSPOT.COM

2007-08-28T04:10:00.000-07:00

send me your real estate agent rating @ ratemyrealestateagent@yahoo.com

The Site
http://ratemyrealestateagent.blogspot.com/

Company

Rating- out of 5

Agent

Company/Office Location

Strengths

Needs Improvement

Would you use this agent again?

Morals are Human Creations (incomplete.)

2007-08-27T16:51:00.000-07:00

Morals are standards of behavior that help people to make decisions. People create them; they do not exist out there, independent of human beings, like the laws of physics, which have been explained by scientists. Moral laws cannot be ascertained and then explained. They need to be created.

We are not born with morals, but we are equipped with the capacity to develop them. There are facts about our species that make moral reasoning possible and that allow us to compare moral beliefs. The degree to which a moral system avoids or contradicts certain facts is the extent to which that system can be called unreasonable.

Moral thinking involves the ability to think about other people’s interests, to define and weigh values, and to formulate goals and means. Right and wrong simply means we should do this or we shouldn’t do that. Anybody can walk around saying “do this” and “don’t do that,” but until reasons are provided to support a particular course of action a person is not engaged in moral reasoning; instead, they are moralizing.

What are some of the facts that a moral system ought to account for?

Each person has one life and one life only. This gives value to human life.

People are similar in their capacity to feel pain and happiness.

People have interests, an interest in staying alive, in avoiding pain, and achieving happiness, however they may define it.

Are there other facts that I am ignoring?

How do these facts help me to think about a moral situation?

“Not praying to god is wrong.”

Is this a moral issue? Is this an issue involving other people? No, this issue involves god, a super human being whose existence or desires is far from self evident. What if someone claims your lack of prayer is leading to bad things for the rest of the community? Does this now become a moral issue, since your lack of prayer is now claimed to affect people? If they can prove your actions are impacting other people. You could try to prove to these people that there views are false, but many people hold views that are irrational, not based on verifiable evidence.

Anybody who makes claims about superhuman gods or spiritual beings ought to be viewed with significant skepticism. Ask them to provide evidence of the entities’ existence. I am not aware of anyone being able to do this.

Let’s take a look at a more complicated issue.

“The death penalty is wrong”

Is this a moral issue? Is this an issue involving other people? Yes.

What person or groups are involved in this issue?

The defendant
The victim
The jury
The families of the victim, defendant
Witnesses
The lawyers
The legal authorities- police, judge, prosecutor

Is it wrong to execute those who commit first degree murder?

Premeditated murder is the worst crime a person could commit. The act of murder is final; a person loses their life because someone chose to take it. Our society recognizes different degrees of murder

What are some arguments in support of the death penalty?

What are some arguments against the death penalty?

Exploring Morality (in progress)

2007-08-26T20:28:00.000-07:00

If morality is subjective, then a society that says that killing an innocent person is wrong cannot be called superior to a society that kills innocent people. Is this true?

Let’s try to define some of the concepts mentioned in the above sentence.

Morality- notions of right and wrong. Every one has them, but obviously they are not all the same. That is, people often disagree strongly about what is right and what is wrong. Does this prove than an objective morality does not exist? Maybe a lot of people are wrong. Maybe they just don’t recognize the truth about morality. Or maybe notions of morality are simply preferences for certain kinds of behaviors?

Consider these moral positions held by some:

Killing animals to eat them is wrong
Not praying to god is wrong
The death penalty is wrong
Not giving to charity is wrong
Using birth control is wrong
The war in Iraq was wrong.
Not giving a significant amount of money (20,000 if you make 50,000) to charity is wrong.
Having an abortion is wrong.
Driving an SUV is wrong

Subjective- Varied, not definite, a matter of opinion

Objective- Definite, existing independently, a matter of fact

Society- all the people living in a defined area

Innocent person- innocent of what? Guilty of what? This concept cannot be used in isolation of a criteria. Did you steal the cookies? You are either guilty (yes I stole them) or innocent (no I did not).

Wrong- An action that is objectionable; it should not have been committed. Why is it objectionable? There needs to be a standard. Was it wrong to steal the cookies?

Right- To be correct; an action that is commendable. Why is it commendable? Again, there needs to be a standard.

Does an objective morality exist? (inc.)

2007-08-26T20:25:00.001-07:00

If morality is subjective, then a society that says that killing an innocent person is wrong cannot be called superior to a society that kills innocent people. Is this true?

As I’ve stated in previous posts, rights are not self evident. If you ask ten people what rights they possess, you will not get the same answer from everyone. Rights are social constructs. Am I correct in saying this?

This reminds me of something I just read. Let’s take a look at traffic laws. Society A has few traffic laws, and society B has many, like the US. In society B there are laws regarding speed, stopping, making left turns, changing lanes, making right turns, and getting your car inspected, just to name a few. In society A, there is only one law- don’t drive over 90 mph.

Is it possible to compare these two societies in regards to their traffic laws? Or are these two societies’ traffic laws equally good? Is good the right word to use? Good at doing what? How about, good at keeping people alive. If more people die on society A’s roads, and all other factors are equal, then can’t we objectively say that society B has better traffic laws?

Obviously, there are not an obvious set of traffic laws that exist out there for all to know- i.e. objective traffic laws, yet we are still able to compare them. As long as you have a standard, you can compare two things.

Where does this standard come from? Did I pick the right standard to compare the two societies’ traffic laws? My standard was the number of people who die. Traffic laws exist to prevent auto accidents, which cause injuries, some of which lead to death.

Do moral laws exist? If so, why? If moral laws do exist, they do not exist in the same way that traffic laws exist. You can’t look up a particular moral law in the same way that you would look up a traffic law. Morality (what should be done vs. what shouldn’t be done) is a uniquely human enterprise, a result of our ability to think abstractly and to put ourselves in other people’s shoes. Like cars on the road, each day people are out and about. Some people obey society’s laws, some do not. Many laws are based on moral principles, but not all.

I assert that it is possible to compare two systems of morality. To do this you need a standard to hold them up against. This standard needs to be defended. Why are you choosing this standard?

For example, if I were to compare prevailing moral views in the US and Iran, one standard I could use would be equal rights before the law. To what degree are members of each society treated equally before the law? A religious leader in Iran might choose to judge the degree to which members of each society adhere to Islamic law.

Creating a Vending Business

2007-08-24T20:34:00.000-07:00

I’ve made some connections with people selling candy machines on craigslist.com. Eighty to ninety dollars seems to be a reasonable price for a used machine. In the next twenty four hours I am going to fill out and send the application to affiliate with a charity. This is will give me some extra credibility, tap into the altruism of the store owners, and give me a chance to earn some money and donate a little, something I rarely, if ever, do.

Do I need to incorporate? Do I need to add to get insurance?

I plan on calling the headquarters of a large supermarket chain to find out if the lack of machines in one of the local branches is an opportunity I can take advantage of.

I continue to keep a list of stores that I plan on asking to host a machine.

So far, my plan is to spend about one hundred dollars, this includes the machine, candy and charity fees. I will get the machine in a store and start recovering the initial expense of starting the business. In the meantime, I will work on getting more sites and finding more machines. The goal is to the let the business expand due to its own productivity, as opposed to spending a lot of my money up front.

Some Excerpts from Recent Posts on Morality

2007-08-23T21:01:00.000-07:00

It’s time to take a step back and highlight some lines of thought I’ve had in previous posts regarding morals and morality:

- I cannot accept that systems of morality cannot be compared because there are not objective standards to hold them up against.
- a moral system that attempts to use reason is better than one that does not.
- When attempting to reason about moral matters, it is important to explore the interests of those who are directly impacted by the decision.
- The recognition of rights is decided by each society (does this relate to morality?)
- society that only recognizes the rights of some people is not as desirable (moral) as a society that recognizes the rights of all.
- Morality involves human beings asking themselves questions such as- what is right? what is wrong? what should I do? what shouldn’t I do?
- Morality is about thinking
- Because morality is about thinking, people will have different points of view, which explains the many different moral perspectives.
- When discussing morals, keep in mind this is not a search for ways to please a supernatural entity
- People have to choose not so much whether or not they want to live according to a system of morality but whose system of morality they will live by
- Who cares if we live according to a moral code?
- When I hear the word morality, I think of right vs. wrong and good vs. bad. Are these meaningful concepts?
- Are some actions inherently good or bad?
- Morality is a way of thinking, a type of thinking, a way of evaluating.
- Morality is not self evident. It requires thinking, analysis.
- Is there such a thing as truth in relation to morality?
- What is the minimum conception of morality? “Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason- that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing- while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual who will be affected by one’s conduct.” (pg. 11)
- Moral principles are developed by individuals
- Don’t most people think it is wrong to kill?
- Are some moral codes more legitimate than others? What do I mean by legitimate? I guess I mean is it possible to compare two moral codes and make a judgement that code a is more desirable than code b? More desirable to whom? What does all of this mean?
- Can I state as a first principle man wants to survive?
- My right to life only has meaning if I can convince other people to recognize it.
- Some people might not want to acknowledge that I have the right to live. I think Rand recognizes this. I think she is trying to say that in a sociopolitical context, the rules (laws) created ought to be based on the fundamental principle that everybody has a right to life. In other words, the first rule of government is do not kill.
- What if the founding principle of a government was everybody is going to live well?
- What if this society’s first principle is obey your creator rather than stay alive?

Vending Machine Business (273)

2007-08-22T21:31:00.000-07:00

After seeing an ad at Sam’s Club about vending machines, I came home and did some research about them. I quickly learned that the biggest scam going with vending machines is businesses who will charge you to rent machines and find you sites.
If I do this, I will find my own sites.

I am interested in this business opportunity because it involves a minimal start up cost.

Affiliating with a charity seems to be an excellent way to get into a business. I printed information for a fairly popular charity; they charge $12.00 for a sticker with their name and they also will print you a letter proving your affiliation with them.

A first step would be to spend the $12.00 and get the letter, so that I can do the footwork and find a business that is willing to house my machine. Once I get a commitment I need to get a machine as quickly as possible. A quick look on eBay priced the machines at $85-$150.

As a blog I was reading today stated, the goal is passive income.

If I focus on candy, as opposed to soda or perishables, and if I keep the machines local, I can keep my involvement to a minimum, and earn a small stream of cash on a monthly basis.

I keep thinking that in this area there are hundreds of businesses and I just need one or two to say yes to get started. Tonight I noticed that the local supermarket, with tons of foot traffic, doesn’t have any machines. I wonder why. This could be a great opportunity.

Thinking about Moral Issues- A Case Study (in progress)

2007-08-21T20:15:00.000-07:00

As I’ve been focusing on morality, I keep getting stuck on subjective vs. objective theories of morality. I cannot accept that systems of morality cannot be compared because there are not objective standards to hold them up against.

So far, one idea that seems like a good place to start is with the notion that a moral system that attempts to use reason is better than one that does not. Simply put, if I argue that abortion is wrong I must give reasons to support my view. Conversely, if I believe that women ought to have the ability to terminate a pregnancy, I must provide reasons to support my views.

The first point that I would make is to think about an issue before forming an opinion. In practical terms, this means posing questions about the issue, exploring your answers to these questions, and identifying philosophical positions that you may already hold that relate to the issue. Also, brainstorm principles that you may not hold but that may be relevant to the issue. I recently wrote an essay that attempted to support the following thesis:

I believe that abortion ought to be allowed by law

I am of the opinion that society ought to allow abortions for any reason,

some reasons are better than others, such as rape, incest, or a mother’s life being in danger. (Here I need to explain why I am willing to support such an extreme thesis. Why am I willing to permit abortion in all circumstances? Why not argue that some reasons are valid, while others are not?)

When attempting to reason about moral matters, it is important to explore the interests of those who are directly impacted by the decision. One mistake that I made when formulating a strong pro choice view about abortion was that I didn’t develop a detailed position on the child (or fetus), and I ignored the father, and other societal issues. Here is what I did say about the child:

The (baby’s) life is innocent in that it does not consent to its life being terminated, nor is it justified by our society’s norms, in that it hasn’t committed a capital offense, the typical reason people are put to death in America.

Another lesson is that ideas have implications. In other words, what you say, especially in the opening lines of your essay, has implication for what you say, imply, or don’t say later on in the essay. This is a trap I fell into in my essay.

As our high school English teacher told us over and over you need to support your thesis with reasons. What reasons did I use to support my thesis?

protecting a baby while it is inside its mother is a greater problem for society than allowing it to be put to death.

There are also a variety of lines in my essay that are never really developed. In effect, they are incomplete ideas that are never adequately connected to the thesis. For example,

The issue of whether a woman ought to have the ability to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is about more than saving a baby’s life (what else is it about?)

I understand that many people are unable to see beyond the end of life that results when an abortion is performed, but they must. (why?)

more to come...

Newspaper Terms 8/17

2007-08-17T20:55:00.001-07:00

Elvis' posthumous earnings
79% drop in gun dealers
domestic spy tools
Poland's politics
Army suicides
Iraq's religious minorities
Drexel on West Coast?
Chinese journalism
citizen journalist
Iraq soccer victory

Rights

2007-08-16T13:31:00.000-07:00

The recognition of rights is decided by each society, as American women and blacks know all too well. That is not to say that each answer to the question of rights is equally desirable, as a cultural relativist might assert. A society that only recognizes the rights of some people is not as desirable (moral) as a society that recognizes the rights of all.

That being said, larger questions still remain: what exactly is a right and what criteria should be used to decide what is a right? The definition that immediately comes to my mind is that a right is a condition that can be simultaneously enjoyed by all at the expense of none. I think this definition comes from an Ayn Rand text I read, although it is by no means verbatim. Using this as a criterion, all of us should be able to speak our minds, travel, and spend money how we choose…just to name a few rights.

As soon as an action impacts another person it can not be classified as a right. Accordingly, if I desire to travel on your property, I should be stopped. If I want to speak to you, and you do not want to speak to me, yet I continue to pester you and follow you home, I should be stopped. If I want to buy your car, and you do not want to sell it to me, you have every right to decline my offer.

What about health care, smoking, and taxes?

Health care- I have the right to try to live as long as I can as long as it as not at the expense of others.

Smoking- I have the right to consume whatever I want as long as it as not at the expense of others.

Taxes- I have an obligation to pay for all services rendered and to expect that those services provided by govt. are in keeping with the philosophy of protecting the rights of all.

Back to health care. I want to be healthy. What does this require? I need to be lucky enough to have good genes, I need to eat nutritious foods, exercise, and see a doctor regularly. I have no control over my genes. Exercise, on the other hand, is easy to do if I have the will power to stick to it. I do not, however, have a right to a gym or to a doctor. Why? After all, some argue, if I have a right to be healthy, and if I need to see a doctor to be healthy, how can I not have a right to a doctor?

Recall the definition of a right- a condition that everyone can enjoy simultaneously without taking from some and giving to others. In the above example, if you need a doctor to treat you, then that doctor has right to choose whether or not to assist you. You do not have a right to that doctor's time or energy.

Let's take another example, security. You have the right to defend yourself and your property if it is threatened by another person or group. Self defense includes the right to bear arms. Your security, however, cannot come at the expense of another person. Nobody should be expected to sacrifice his/her life for your life. Military and police are created by society as a more efficient way to provide security for society. These positions need to be filled by the population, and the most desirable (moral) way to do this is by offering compensation, a salary, for the service provided. The salary should come from those who receive the service. In other words, one value (money) is being exchanged for another value (security).

Everybody benefits from the security provided by the police or the military. If the police do their job (this is a big IF considering the nature of man and power), everybody will be free to live as they choose in a secure environment.

What if a society decides that health care or education is best provided as a govt. service rather than a private service? It would be provided in the same manner that security is provided by an armed service or police that is paid via taxes.

Govt. services are provided at the expense of all. Therefore, a desirable (moral) govt. has a mechanism in place that allows all to participate in decision making. This is democracy. To make decisions in any other way violates the rights of some for the benefit of others. Even in a democracy the will of the majority is not automatically desirable (moral). As an example, assume the majority decides that govt. provided health care is desirable. How can this decision be evaluated?

Since all govt. decisions are dependant on tax revenue, they involve coercion. The power to tax is the power to coerce or destroy. This is why govt. power is inherently dangerous.

In a desirable (moral) society, rarely should the will of some or many be imposed on all. Local decision making is inherently superior to national decision making. Therefore local or state health care programs are infinitely better than one national program.

In addition, consumer choice is better than no choice since it leads to competition and efficiency, while simultaneously protecting the rights of all. The more choices = more freedom.

Getting the Most out of Your Newspaper (in progress)

2007-08-14T12:37:00.000-07:00

How to get the most out of a newspaper

Note: The following comments pertain to reading a paper for political and social news, not the entertainment and sports sections.

Reading a newspaper everyday is the first step you must take if you are going to be a well informed citizen. It is by no means the only step. I recommend reading the paper for at least twenty minutes. Ideally, you would work your way up to a few different papers each day for a total of about 30-40 minutes.

Ok, so you’ve started reading a paper every day, now for the fun part- thinking about the news. I have little doubt that if you do nothing more than read a newspaper daily you are going to benefit. You will have more to talk and think about, but I propose that a systematic reading of the newspaper can lead to dramatic intellectual growth. Dramatic?

My method of reading a newspaper involves a systematic attempt to interact with the ideas in the paper.

Start by recognizing that you are not going to read every story in the paper. You are, however, going to read most of the headlines in the A section. As you are reading jot down a key word or two from each story. Select the concepts that appear significant to the story….

When I read the paper yesterday, I identified the following concepts:

Karl Rove- politics, "Bush's brain," political mastermind of Bush's two presidential election victories, what does it say about Bush that people attrbute so mcuh of his success to Rove?, Who are some other Karl Rove's?

Jersey tomatoes- farming for profit, shipping food across the country, how it affects taste

US/India nuclear deal- India the largest democratic nation, has long standing rivalry with Pakistan

Taliban release hostages- to what degree are the Taliban still organized in Afghan?

India/Pakistan relations- this artcile disucsses cooling realtions between the two nations, Kashmir is a hot spot, Musharaff has a tenuous hold on power

US invasion of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia- in a letter a reader referenced this in reaction to an editorial about Cambodian war crimes being prosecuted, this reminds me of Chomsky's book Manufacturing Consent, the reader wanted to know why US "war crimes" weren't being discussed and he felt that US actions/policies precipitated the Khmer Rouge massacres in Cambodia

Bush's attempt to Privatize Social Security- a p

I also wrote down the following concepts from some history channel programs I viewed this morning:

Wake Island
Admiral Kimmel
USS Arizona
Yamamoto
General Short
Japanese wooden fin torpedo
Japanese spies in Hawaii
magic decoders
Hideki Tojo

And these are from the news hour on PBS

US businesses in China
Jewish persecution in N. Africa during WWII

Now what?

The first thing you need to do is to go back to these terms and think about them. Let's try a few.

India's thriving democracy
college tuition- a great value?
Iraq
Pa drunk driving laws
US Iranian relations
pregnancy weight gain
Phila. property tax reassessments
toy recall
Hillary Clinton's archival records
Genghis Khan
assembly line
Henry Ford
model T

Some thoughts

2007-08-14T08:55:00.000-07:00

It is 11.55 AM on 8/14/07.

Questions will drive this disucssion.

When are you going to log in again?

What is my daily 5?
1. 25 in kitch
2. scoop litter
3. 8-10 in LR/DR
4. one load laundy
5. Put away 20 clothes

At what time will you complete this daily 5?
How are you going to monitor your daily 5 progress?
When you do you want to complete painting the fence?
How are you going to practice critical thinking skills?
What do you really believe?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/15
-Did you complete yesterday's daily 5? Yes
-How much work did you do in house? 62 + mins., some of this included daily 5
-What else did you do that needs to become part of a regular cleaning routine?
Vacuum behind r’s chair
vacuumed basement for 5.28
-What are some projects that need to be initiated?
Organize hutch
Organize back closet
Organize back room
Organize front room
Sweep dr
Cob webs in back room
- Are you still working on filing and garage? Yes
-What next? Maybe go to flylady for ideas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Morality (in progress, needs editing)

2007-08-13T19:58:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I wrote about morality. Morality involves human beings asking themselves questions such as- what is right? what is wrong? what should I do? what shouldn’t I do? Some people derive answers to these questions from religion. Other people are skeptical of religious answers and seek other sources for moral guidance. But what are these other sources of morality? If they are not religious, they must be derived from human sources. Morality is about thinking. Because morality is about thinking, people will have different points of view, which explains the many different moral perspectives. I am trying to select a moral system to live by. I do not accept religion as a source of my morality due to my skepticism in people who claim knowledge of god. Morality is automatic due to the fact that we are surrounded by other people. Even a man alone on an island will make decisions that will lead to his survival. Everything he does is moral if he strives to keep himself alive. Said differently, everything he does is right or desirable (or good?) if he strives to keep himself alive. What if this poor soul chooses to give up and die? Is he behaving morally? Some might imagine god nodding his head in disapproval as this man slowly dies. I do not accept this. When discussing morals, keep in mind this is not a search for ways to please a supernatural entity That is, I am not wondering what would Jesus do? Or what would god want me to do? I am talking about what is the right thing to do here and now. People have to choose not so much whether or not they want to live according to a system of morality but whose system of morality they will live by. Even in a society where anything goes, where no standards of behavior are encouraged, a system of morality exists. As soon as people begin to interact with each other moral codes will compete. Is it logical to ask what moral code is the best? Or what moral code is the most moral? How could this question be answered?

Who cares if we live according to a moral code?
When I began writing I was thinking about the issue of truth. How does the concept of truth connect with this discussion of morality?

A Discussion of Truth (detailed)

2007-08-13T19:04:00.000-07:00

http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm

Thick vs. Thin Concepts

2007-08-12T19:46:00.000-07:00

http://www.philosophersnet.com/magazine/article.php?id=738

Morality- A mode of thought

2007-08-12T19:45:00.000-07:00

What is morality?

When I hear the word morality, I think of right vs. wrong and good vs. bad. Are these meaningful concepts? These are general concepts. There meanings are not obvious, other than that good means an action that is desirable and bad means an action that is undesirable. Are some actions inherently good or bad? What makes an action right and what makes an action bad? This is the essence of morality.

It is too simplistic to argue that an action, idea, or policy ought to be followed simply because it is good. It is good or right to you, but why should it be right for somebody else?

In chapter 1, the author emphasizes the need to provide reasons in support or against a policy or action. Providing reasons for or against a policy is the essence of moral thinking.

Morality is a way of thinking, a type of thinking, a way of evaluating.

Morality is not self evident. It requires thinking, analysis.

Be skeptical of analyses that avoid discussions of advantages and disadvantages.

Is there such a thing as truth in relation to morality?

What is the minimum conception of morality? “Morality is, at the very least, the effort to guide one’s conduct by reason- that is, to do what there are the best reasons for doing- while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual who will be affected by one’s conduct.” (pg. 11)

What is the best way to deal with the immigration issue?

A History of School Vouchers

2007-07-31T14:09:00.000-07:00

http://www.weac.org/resource/nov96/vouchers.htm

GARAGE AFTER 1 HOUR

2007-07-31T13:35:00.001-07:00

School Choice- The Milwaukee Experiment

2007-07-31T10:43:00.001-07:00

http://downloads.heartland.org/21844y.pdf

Do away with public schools?

2007-07-31T10:41:00.000-07:00

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-goldberg12jun12,1,786709.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=3&cset=true

The author asserts that govt. ought to play a minimal role in education, providing money in some instances but for the most part staying out of the way of the private sector.He appears to be arguing for a dramatic change in the status quo- a total dismantling of the public school system.

Other reformers have offered less radical ideas, such as enacting a voucher program that would give families a choice between the local public school and area private schools.

He supports his conclusion with two reasons: 1) Govt. is "inept at running schools" (govt. schools are "terrible"), and the goals of education can be achieved with better results in the private sector.

D.C. schools are referenced to support the "terrible schools" hypothesis. He says they are arguably the worst. According to a Washington Post analysis, D.C. is plagued with dangerous schools, low test scores, and inefficient use of money. No other districts are mentioned except near the end of the article when he mentions "good public schools." He explains that good schools are not good because of the government but because of parents. Does he support the similar notion that bad schools are bad not because of the government (including teachers) but because of parents and kids? Both notions avoid the complexities of comparing schools.

The author is philosophically opposed to govt. run schools, which is fine, but he makes little attempt to support his "terrible schools" notion with a variety of evidence.Thus, the notion that all or many govt. schools are terrible is assumed and unsupported in this article.

One reason to support school choice programs, and there are a variety of options here, is that they provide a way out to those who are trapped in a failing system, regardless of the reasons that the school is failing.

The idea that private, parochial, and charter schools get better results than public schools is assumed. He claims that parents "know" this, as evidenced by their demand for vouchers.The author assumes:
1) That non-governmental schools could provide all of the services that govt. schools provide.
2) That the demand created for private school slots could be assumed immediately. (The author seems to pay little attention to this "minor" problem). In other words, does a viable alternative to the status quo exist?
3) That all parents could afford to send their children to non-govt. schools.

Questions that I am left with:
How much would school taxes go down if his idea were enacted?
What would be the criteria for govt. subsidies?
What type of govt. oversight would he be willing to support?
How would he dismantle the existing system?
Would all public schools be eliminated? What about those that are working?
What if the community didn't want to get rid of its public schools?

List of Logical Fallacies

2007-07-31T09:04:00.000-07:00

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

GOAL- TO COMPLETE DAILY 5 EVERYDAY

2007-07-29T14:09:00.000-07:00

DAILY 5

Clean kitch for 25
Scoop Litter
Wash one load
put away 20 clothes
6-10 in LR/DR

GOAL-All 5 done everyday at 90% clip.

7/29- 4/5 (folded 15, didn't put away)
7/30- 0/5
7/31-1/5
8/1-

GOAL- TO ORGANIZE ALL PAPERS (7/28/07)

2007-07-28T10:47:00.000-07:00

GOAL- TO ORGNAIZE ALL PAPERS

TIME- 25 hours

Time worked 25 mins

Estimated Completion-

Time Per Day- 5 mins

Log
7/28/07-5, filed, need to work on file cabinet, bill holder, peg board?
29- 5
30- 5
31-5
8/14-5

Book Summary Tags

2007-07-27T05:26:00.001-07:00

7/27 (60 mins in morning)- Manufacturing Consent- Us policiy towards Vietnam, why we fought, lack of political power caused us to move to military power, My Lai not an anomaly, how the US media covered the war, applying the propaganda model to war coverage, impact of tv coverage on the war- not so negative, comapring US media to Soviet media coverage of war in Afghanistan, media assumptions, US media sources mostly govt., Geneva Accords called for an election in 2 yrs. 1954?, US support of French occupation in 1950s.

Movies by Philosophical Theme

2007-07-26T19:47:00.001-07:00

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~brennan/movies.htm

GOAL- TO ORGANIZE THE GARAGE

2007-07-26T14:38:00.000-07:00

TIME ALLOTTED- 50 hours

PROJECTED COMPLETION- 50 weeks from July 26, 2007--->

TASKS- What do I have to do to organize the garage?

Put loose items in containers, Discard trash,

Overall Time Worked: 87 mins

Half Hours Reamining- 98 Hours Reaming- 49

Log (round down to nearest min.)

Photos- Will take a pic. every hour worked. There will be 50 pics.

Hour 1

7/26/07 (10 mins)- started sorting box, putting nails in jar, putting items in bucket to be stored (neatly) in basement. Tomorrow I will work on creating a system for items headed to basement.

7/27- (12) put items placed into bucket yesterday into zip lock bags for easy handling, storage, categorizing.

7/28- (10) handeled items, put items to be bagged in bucket, threw out items, what to do with bagged items?, have eye on big trash- will result in immediate (visible) progress

7/29- (13) working on bringing in valuables, items that don't belong outside. I will use allotted time to put items I bring in away, so as not to create more clutter.

7/30 (11) beginning to see some space in front on floor, took apart 2 folding tables and trashed tops, trash tv?

7/31 (10) started to put clothes in tote, bringing in items that can be used or should be stored in house--> make sure to give these items a home.

8/13 (10) sorting, bagging, trash

8/14 (11) removed items from box in house, started going through brown bag

Is this reasonable?

2007-07-24T05:56:00.000-07:00

Copied from
http://www.ablogistan.com/archives/2005/11/moral_relativis.html

I'm a moral relativist. Hence, I have designed and adopted an excellent moral system.
It's based around enriching myself, and optimising my happiness. I do whatever it takes to make life more beautiful, comfortable, and stimulating for me. This means that I'll often agree or cooperate with people, but only because it furthers my goals of making myself richer and more respected. I'm also very polite, presentable, witty, and charming, because to be so serves my interests.

I donate to worthy charities in my community, because since those charities are improving my local community, that improves my life in the longer term. It also makes me look good to others. However, I'll never help anyone if there's no benefit to be had for me.

I'm quite happy to lie when necessary, steal when necessary, and kill when necessary, as long as I'm clever enough about it, and analyse the risks and benefits properly.
I believe that it's impossible to demonstrate any flaws in my moral system from a moral relativist standpoint. I carefully examine the potential benefits, costs, and risks of all of my actions. By definition, everything that I do is the best for me. If it isn't best for me, it's because I made a mistake in weighing the costs and benefits. The only point that can be argued is whether my definition of what's best for me is correct, that being to make my life more beautiful, comfortable, and stimulating.

While my moral system may be repulsive to others, that is only because my moral system places me before them. If my moral system gave them equal footing, or advantage, they'd be happy with it. Since my moral system aims to optimise my happiness, not the happiness of others, the objections of others to moral systems such as mine can be disregarded out of hand.
I have one question though. Am I a psychopath?

Posted by Max Power May 19, 2007 10:12 PM

Examine the Question

2007-07-23T08:48:00.000-07:00

http://www.philosopher.org/tips.html

How do I launch a discussion on the chosen question? At the outset, let a few of the participants respond to the question in any way they please. But just when they think it's safe to assume that this is going to be a free-for-all confab without any underlying method-start probing the question in a Socratic way. That is, examine it for: 1) built-in assumptions, 2) embedded concepts, 3) differences of kind and degree, and logical consistencies and inconsistencies. Then try to seek out compelling objections and alternative viewpoints.

How do I find the question's built-in assumptions? For example, when a participant asks an apparently deep question like "How can we overcome alienation?" you need to challenge the premise of the question at the outset. You may ask: Is alienation something we always want to overcome? Shakespeare and Goethe may have written their timeless works because they embraced a sense of alienation rather than attempting to escape it.

Where are the concepts embedded in this question? To probe the question of overcoming alienation, you first need to ask and answer such questions as: What is alienation? What does it mean to overcome alienation? Why would we ever want to overcome alienation? By separating out the concepts and exploring them individually, everyone will get to see the question from a new perspective.
What are examples of exploring "differences of kind and degree"? In response to the alienation question, you might ask: Are there some types of alienation that you want to overcome and other types that you do not at all want to overcome but rather want to incorporate into yourself? What are some of the many different types of alienation? How do they differ? But also, what are the aspects that link them? Is it possible to be completely alienated?
How do I know there will be alternative views? You may think you already can predict the responses. But you and everyone else probably will be surprised by just how diverse and eye-opening they will be. In exploring the meaning of the terms they use, participants will reveal and articulate philosophies of basic concepts they might take for granted. This is what makes for a spontaneous and thrilling discussion.

A Versatile Cleaner

2007-07-23T08:42:00.000-07:00

http://www.vinegartips.com/cleaning/

Minimum Wage, Minimum Numbers

2007-07-21T10:21:00.000-07:00

Based on sheer numbers, if ever an issue ought to stay out of Washington it is the minimum wage debate. Here are some numbers from the US Dept. of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2006tbls.htm#3

-How many people make the federal minimum wage of $5.15 or less? 2006 estimate: 1.7 million

-866,000 workers earning the minimum wage or less are 25 or under.

-409,000 of all earning the minimum wage or less work 40 hours or more.

-568,000 are men-1,124,000 are female

-1,215,000 are high school graduates or more.

-376,000 have 1-3 years of high school education

-380,000 are married with a spouse present

-1,084,000 have never been married

My state, PA, has 96,000 earning the federal minimum wage or less. I know most states passed minimum wage increases prior to the federal increase.

Minimum wage policies are flawed, but at least flawed policies on the local or state level leave people with options. They can move to a more enlightened town or state. Flawed federal policies remove this option.

Can a negative be proven?

2007-07-21T10:08:00.000-07:00

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

How to Waterproof Basement

2007-07-20T12:02:00.000-07:00

http://www.dulley.com/diy/dw103.htm

The Minimum Wage (433)

2007-07-20T08:13:00.000-07:00

One’s actual philosophy, as opposed to one’s abstract philosophy, is revealed when he responds to a specific issue. The issue that I am examining today is the minimum wage. My values, assumptions, and ability to deal with evidence will shape how I respond to this issue.

What is the issue? The issue is the extent to which government should intervene in the economy. Keep in mind, the government already intervenes in the economy in numerous ways.
It is possible that the impact of government intervention is small, or maybe it is large.

I am going to go on the record now and assert that I am going to avoid extremes. I want to evaluate the issue thoroughly and arrive at a conclusion that balances the interests of all, if this is possible.

Where should I start? Should there even be a federal minimum wage? On what grounds should this issue be decided on a national level, as opposed to on the state or local levels?

I prefer local changes to state changes and state changes to national changes. Each of these preferences will lead to specific consequences and it is important to weigh them. If one state raises its minimum wage, it stands to reason that other states may feel the pressure to raise their wages. Or if the impact of a particular state’s minimum wage increase is negative, other states may avoid a similar policy.

Who earns the minimum wage? Those who are entering the work force for the first time, mainly teenagers, and those who have few skills. Are supporters of a minimum wage really arguing that America’s teenagers need more money? This seems unlikely. Instead, well intentioned politicians are attempting to increase the wages of unskilled workers. As a worker acquires more skills, he or she gains economic bargaining power and as a consequence is more likely to earn higher wages.

What is the typical length of time a single worker stays in a minimum wage job?

I wonder what our economy would look like without a minimum wage? How low would wages go?

I wonder what is the history of the minimum wage?

States with high minimum wages need to be examined? What is the highest minimum wage in the country? The lowest?

Surely supporters of a minimum wage would not want to enact a policy that actually hurts those they are trying to help.

Maybe some supporters are simply using this issue to score political points.

Why have a minimum wage in the first place?

Need to Consider other interests involved:

Current Minimum Wage Workers Business Owners Those who want to
(Small / Large) Enter the Work Force

Excerpts from Floor Debate on Minimum Wage

2007-07-20T08:09:00.000-07:00

FAIR MINIMUM WAGE ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - January 10, 2007)

Which statements are factual?

-Adjusted for inflation, its buying power is the lowest it has been in 51 years.

-In fact, in the 4 years following the last minimum wage increase, small business employment grew more in those States paying a higher minimum wage than in those States paying only the minimum wage.

-without any interference by Congress whatsoever 99 percent of all people in the workforce were able to find work above the minimum wage

-minimum wage workers aren't poor. Less than one in five lives below the poverty line. The average family income of a minimum wage worker is about $40,000 a year.

-Very few minimum wage workers, indeed, support a family. Instead, the majority are teenagers. They are college students, and many are part-time workers.

-Over three-fifths of the individuals below the poverty line did not work in 2005. Only 11 percent work full time.

-Overall, retail job growth between 1998 and 2006 was 10.2 percent in those States with a higher minimum wage and only 3.7 percent in the Federal minimum wage States.

-making an important change for the families of nearly 13 million American workers.

-This bill will increase the minimum wage by $2.10 an hour over 2 years. This will mean an additional $4,400 for a family of three equaling 15 months' worth of groceries or 2 years' worth of health care.

-41 percent minimum wage increase

-research has shown that most of the beneficiaries are adults, most are female, and the vast majority are members of low-income working families.

Some of the Conclusions made by Representatives
Conclusions

-This causes unemployment

-an increase in the minimum wage is helping the economy grow.

-Raising the minimum wage is the first step to a stronger economy for all Americans, not just for the privileged few

-this legislation detrimental to small business growth and job creation,

-minimum wage hikes, which increase government interference in the labor market.

-Economists agree that when the cost of labor increases, it becomes more difficult for employers to hire new workers.

-small businesses which produce an estimated two-thirds of all new jobs in the United States.
the bill ignores other side effects

-As the minimum wage rises, recipients have access to less work, even if that is what they most need to prepare for a new job.

-the minimum wage helps to equalize the imbalance in bargaining power that low-wage workers face in the labor market. The minimum wage is also an important tool in fighting poverty.

Good Background Info on Rights

2007-07-19T18:40:00.000-07:00

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm#Backrights

Dinners Eaten/Ideas

2007-07-19T18:36:00.001-07:00

Total Chicken Meat Pasta Turkey

9/2- 37
Started- 7/17/07
GOAL- 90% at home
CURRENT- 62% at home (23/37)

Roasted Chicken & Veggies (use oven bag) (7/11)
Meat Chili (7/12)

1. Italian Hoagies- assembled at home (7/17)
2. Marinaded Chicken Tenderloins/Grilled (7/18)
3. Lasagna (7/19)
4. Chicken Dumpling- Crock Pot (7/20)
5. Marinaded Flank Steak (7/21)
6. Mom's Goulash w/ ground Turkey (7/22)

ate out (7/23)------stromboli
ate out (7/24)------chick fil a

7. grilled, marinaded pork chops (7/25)
8. grilled chicken quesadilla (7/26)

ate out (7/27)-----turkey club
ate out (7/28)-----pfr, won ton, egg roll

9. roast beef sandwiches- (7/29)
10. hot dogs, mac/potato salad (7/30)

ate out (7/31)-----------dominoes
ate out (8/1)------------charlies
ate out (8/2)------------boston market
ate out (8/3)------------Wendy's

vacation (8/4-8/11)

11. grilled kabobs (8/12)----needs work, K. didn't like, different marinade?
12. grilled, marinaded steak (8/13)
13. turkey chili (8/14) (had meat chili 7/12)

ate out- pizza/chicken cheese steak (K)
ate out (8/16)-----------chinese food (last had 7/28)

14. bag /season chicken (8/17) (chicken was tough-- overvooked?)

party (8/18)

15. ziti (8/19)
16. chicken divan (8/20)

ate out (8/21)--------N's Roast Beef

17. beef tacos (8/22)
18. french toast (8/23)

ate out (tomato pie + mozz cheese fries)
ate out (f.g. turkey, mac cheese, mash potatoes)

19. penne w/ creamy pesto, mozz., diced tom.
20. chili mac (w/ ground beef)
21. marinaded steak

ate out (turkey clubs)

ate at m's

ate out (outback)

22. potato gnocchis w/ sauce
23. mexican chicken, veggies,

Are rights subjective? The Social Nature of Rights (611)

2007-07-19T08:23:00.000-07:00

Quoted from: http://www.economicswithaface.com/weblog/archives/2005/04/defining_rights.html

Other person's words= bold

Let me start with Rand's definition of a right, as it is one of the clearer I've ever read (from "Man's Rights" in TVOS):

A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

A "right" is a moral principle
Why is a right a moral principle? Do rights even exist? Do moral principles exist? What is a moral principle? A moral principle is a rule that defines what is right and wrong. Moral principles are not self evident, although some argue they are not as varied across cultures as we may think. Moral principles are developed by individuals. Don’t most people agree on what is right and wrong? Don’t most people think it is wrong to kill? Consider the heated debates over religion, the death penalty, stem cell research, the Iraq war. Some people turn to religion to find out what is right and wrong, others turn to philosophy or experience. If moral principles are subjective, why bother discussing them? In a world with a subjective morality, can one declare the events of 9/11 wrong or evil? Are some moral codes more legitimate than others? What do I mean by legitimate? I guess I mean is it possible to compare two moral codes and make a judgement that code a is more desirable than code b? More desirable to whom? What does all of this mean?

defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context.

People are born into this world and have to cope with the environment they find themselves in. In a world with no laws (I am reminded of a quote I read yesterday credited to Locke that said something to the effect ofà Laws make freedom possible.) the environment would boil down to survival of the fittest. Can I state as a first principle man wants to survive. Survival may mean fighting or killing other people. Any action I take to survive is by nature right. It appears in this line that Rand is arguing man should have freedom to act. In other words, the people around me need to respect my freedom or right to act. Why should they, especially when my actions might impact them? I might even act in such a way that causes them harm or death.

There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life.

In other words humans, like all animals, are programmed to stay alive. She calls this ever present need to survive a right. My need to survive and your need to survive might conflict. What if there is only one meal left? How are we to decide what to do? We both are motivated to survive, and will probably fight to obtain nourishment. What’s to stop us? My right to life only has meaning if I can convince other people to recognize it. Some people might not want to acknowledge that I have the right to live. I think Rand recognizes this. I think she is trying to say that in a sociopolitical context, the rules (laws) created ought to be based on the fundamental principle that everybody has a right to life. In other words, the first rule of government is do not kill. What if the founding principle of a government was everybody is going to live well?

Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action;

Self sustaining- to stay alive
Self generated- to act for oneself

the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

This is totally subjective. It is not self evident. Is it logical? What if other people don’t want me to be happy? Of if my happiness comes at the expense of other people?

Once I choose to or am forced to (when you are born you are forced to live in society with certain laws) live with other people, the issue of rights is complicated. I want to live, but how I live is going to be restricted by other people. I must recognize this. What if this society’s first principle is obey your creator rather than stay alive?

Nature of Rights (897)

2007-07-16T06:13:00.000-07:00

The recognition of rights is decided by each society, as American women and blacks know all to well. That is not to say that each answer to the question of rights is equally desirable, as a cultural relativist might assert. A society that only recognizes the rights of some people is not as desirable (moral) as a society that recognizes the rights of all.

That being said, larger questions still remain: what exactly is a right and what criteria should be used to decide what is a right? The definition that immediately comes to my mind is that a right is a condition that can be simultaneously enjoyed by all at the expense of none. I think this definition comes from an Ayn Rand text I read, although it is by no means verbatim. Using this as a criterion, all of us should be able to speak our minds, travel, and spend money how we choose…just to name a few rights.

As soon as an action impacts another person it can not be classified as a right. Accordingly, if I desire to travel on your property, I should be stopped. If I want to speak to you, and you do not want to speak to me, yet I continue to pester you and follow you home, I should be stopped. If I want to buy your car, and you do not want to sell it to me, you have every right to decline my offer.What about health care, smoking, and taxes?

Health care- I have the right to try to live as long as I can as long as it as not at the expense of others.

Smoking- I have the right to consume whatever I want as long as it as not at the expense of others.

Taxes- I have an obligation to pay for all services rendered and to expect that those services provided by govt. are in keeping with the philosophy of protecting the rights of all.

Back to health care. I want to be healthy. What does this require? I need to be lucky enough to have good genes, I need to eat nutritious foods, exercise, and see a doctor regularly. I have no control over my genes. Exercise, on the other hand, is easy to do if I have the will power to stick to it. I do not, however, have a right to a gym or to a doctor. Why? After all, some argue, if I have a right to be healthy, and if I need to see a doctor to be healthy, how can I not have a right to a doctor?

Recall the definition of a right- a condition that everyone can enjoy simultaneously without taking from some and giving to others. In the above example, if you need a doctor to treat you, then that doctor has right to choose whether or not to assist you. You do not have a right to that doctor's time or energy.

Let's take another example, security. You have the right to defend yourself and your property if it is threatened by another person or group. Self defense includes the right to bear arms. Your security, however, cannot come at the expense of another person. Nobody should be expected to sacrifice his/her life for your life. Military and police are created by society as a more efficient way to provide security for society. These positions need to be filled by the population, and the most desirable (moral) way to do this is by offering compensation, a salary, for the service provided. The salary should come from those who receive the service. In other words, one value (money) is being exchanged for another value (security).

Everybody benefits from the security provided by the police or the military. If the police do their job (this is a big IF considering the nature of man and power), everybody will be free to live as they choose in a secure environment.

What if a society decides that health care or education is best provided as a govt. service rather than a private service? It would be provided in the same manner that security is provided by an armed service or police that is paid via taxes.

Govt. services are provided at the expense of all. Therefore, a desirable (moral) govt. has a mechanism in place that allows all to participate in decision making. This is democracy. To make decisions in any other way violates the rights of some for the benefit of others. Even in a democracy the will of the majority is not automatically desirable (moral).

As an example, assume the majority decides that govt. provided health care is desirable. How can this decision be evaluated? Since all govt. decisions are dependant on tax revenue, they involve coercion. The power to tax is the power to coerce or destroy. This is why govt. power is inherently dangerous.

In a desirable (moral) society, rarely should the will of some or many be imposed on all. Local decision making is inherently superior to national decision making. Therefore local or state health care programs are infinitely better than one national program.

In addition, consumer choice is better than no choice since it leads to competition and efficiency, while simultaneously protecting the rights of all. The more choices = more freedom.

Expand Upon these Ideas
-Capitalism is an economic system in which parties trade value for value, no coercion is involved.

-How to Protect Minority Rights

Animal Rights? (245)

2007-07-14T10:51:00.000-07:00

<> I browsed the PETA website today after reading an editorial that was critical of the way chickens are treated by the "meat industry". Kentucky Fried Chicken was referenced as being a particular menace to chickens, and the author argued that KFC ought to follow PETA's recommendations. I don't know what these recommendations are, but I imagine if they don't promote a vegan diet they do support less cruel "slaughters," if this is even possible.

PETA supports a vegetarian diet due to its health benefits and, more importantly I imagine, the fact that it does not create demand for animal meat. <>

There is a brief article on the site supporting the concept of animal rights, articulated by Peter Singer. <>

What is a right? A non-negotiable condition for all. It can be simultaneously enjoyed by all at the expense of none.

-If animal rights are recognized on what basis would we recognize them?

Do animals even have rights? In the brief excerpt on the PETA site there is a statement that discusses a "criteria of suffering" (my phrase), meaning if an animal can experience suffering than it ought to be left alone. Thus, most (all?) of the animals consumed by millions of people ought to be left alone, since they suffer.

Need to Consider

What are the implications of animal rights?

What is the most succinct way to argue for animal rights? against animal rights?

Should we care that animals may suffer when being turned into food?

SAT SCORES (352)

2007-07-13T09:50:00.000-07:00

This frontline special, linked below, puts a human face on the SATs by discussing individual tests takers and the impact of their scores as they apply to UC Berkeley, a very selective public university.

Issues ranging from the historical reasons for the test, parental and self imposed pressures, test prep, affirmative action, and socioeconomics are covered.

On a deeper level, the reader is forced to confront their own notions about the test.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/etc/script.html

What is my reaction to this report?

The SAT is an achievement test. The test does not measure one’s intelligence, in that all intelligent test takers do not necessarily do well on the test for a variety of reasons. Thus, while I cannot discount the fact that smart students do well on the SATs, I am reluctant to say that all smart students do well. Therefore, students who look down on themselves just because they did poorly on the SATs are misinformed. They are not failures, although some of their peers or parents may try to make them feel this way. This is a huge problem that many of us contribute to.

As an aside, I view intelligence as a dynamic set of strengths demonstrated by an individual; problem solving and creativity are at the heart of intelligence.

It is stated in the program that the SAT ACTUALLY measures first semester college grades and beyond that has little predictive value. ETS and a multitude of test prep companies, who make a fortune on the test, have a vested interest in perpetuating the significance of the test. Nevertheless, many colleges, not all, continue to emphasize SAT scores.

By the way, I am curious if the students with low SAT scores who were accepted to Berkeley graduated. Were these students admitted due to affirmative action policies? As one who is reflexively opposed to affirmative action, I understand the impulse to look beyond SAT scores and GPA.

Also, I was surprised to see that a few of the students boosted their scores significantly- 100 to 200 points, after test prep.

Confessions of an Economic Hitman (264)

2007-07-12T09:36:00.000-07:00

What have I learned from Confessions of an Economic Hitman?

There is a fortune to be made in developing countries, and businesses will do whatever it takes to establish themselves in these countires. Examples discussed in the book are Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Ecuador, Guatemala.

Many US politicians are or have been prominent members of the business community. Cheney, George Bush Sr and W., Gerogr Schultz,

When in power, politicans will persue policies that are beneficial to business. He mentions prominent republicans, but he also says democrats are not innocent. Both parties serve the interests of business.

So called "economic hitmen" (ECH) are not government employess; they are not paid by their businesses.

The author believed the leaders of Ecuador and Panama were assassinated; most likely with the CIA's support.

Throughout the story, the author describes the mixed emotions he experienced when confronted with the facts of his job and the economic rewards he was reaping as a result of his work. At times, I felt like he was being disingenuous when he tried to sell the reader on his moral objections to his job, but I think by the end of the story I believe him. In fact, like the author, I think many in the USA feel bad about the plight of people in other parts of the world, but how much are we willing to change to help the “less fortunate”?

I think the author’s beliefs about the Founding Father’s are a bit patriotic/naive. I need to elaborate on this point later.

His emotions while in New York after 9/11 are worth writing about. So are his views on 9/11.

Michael Moore. vs. Sanjay Gupta (214)

2007-07-11T20:21:00.000-07:00

The debate between Michael Moore and Dr. Sanjay Gupta provides an opportunity for me to explore the issue and practice my critical thinking skills. Both have gone back and forth claiming various facts. As I was reminded of at the factcheck.org site, facts matter, and when 2 people assert different facts, the sources need to be examined/scrutinized.

The critical thinking text I'm reading emphasizes it's important to identify value assumptions and conflicts and descriptive assumptions.

In this case, a person who wants universal medical coverage asserts that health care is a human right. It is not something that should be dependent upon external variables, particularly income. Thus, people like Moore will frame the debate as rich vs. poor. They want equal access to medical care, no exceptions.

The other side in this debate emphasizes that the quality of care for many will decrease if the govt. takes over the health care system.

My previous sentence reminds me of a huge value assumption and that is that govt. should or can efficiently manage the health care industry. Another conflict is between govt. decision making vs. private decision making.

Many have a natural distrust of govt. and emphasize that a govt. controlled health care system will lead to major inefficiencies, diminishing the quality of care for all.

Basement 10/13

2005-10-13T15:06:00.000-07:00

Dry Wall

2005-07-13T09:24:00.000-07:00

Basement Walls

2005-07-10T10:58:00.000-07:00

"The Virtue of Selfishness"

2005-07-05T20:46:00.000-07:00

I am currently reading a collection of Ayn Rand's essays entitled "The Virtue of Selfishness." While the title "The Virtue of Selfishness" may appear provocative to many, it is only because most people define selfishness in a negative way- i.e. being greedy or taking more than one deserves. In reality, being selfish means acting in one's own best interest and expecting others to do the same. It means living a life that is purposeful and productive and not expecting others to reward you for no reason. It is a philosophy that does not encourage or support giving away one's resources and expecting nothing in return. To the contrary, it is a rational philosophy that is based on the rules of the natural world, the most basic of which is the desire of living creatures to stay alive. Is it wrong to act selfishly, when acting selfish simply means acting according to the objective laws of nature? Is it rational to give away what one has earned or produced for nothing, or for the sole purpose of expecting more in return when one has no criteria for giving other than "if I give, I shall receive"? The world does not operate this way, in spite of what some of you may wish.

According to Rand, altruism is a belief system that centers on sacrificing personal needs, goals, and desires for the good of others; Altruists are supposedly morally superior because they do not act in their own best interest; rather, they give what they have so that others may live a better life. While this may sound good, it is a destructive philosophy. How much does one have to give before they can legitimately satisfy their own needs and not be considered immoral? What would life be like if the philosophy of altruism was carried to its logical conclusion (see "Atlas Shrugged")?

Followers of Rand's Philosophy, which is known as Objectivism, expect to receive value for value. So in a way when an Objectivist gives resources, even if it seems like it is charitable contribution, it is not. It is in no way an altruistic act. Instead, it is done with the expectation that the person receivng the "aid" is worthy of it (somebody who is rational and does not expect something for nothing) and will get back on their feet and become a productive, valuable member of society, rather than a parasite.

Sandra Day OConnor

2005-07-04T18:41:00.000-07:00

I lost a lot of respect for O'Connor when she supported Bush in Bush vs. Gore back in 2000. Her vote in this case really was the deciding vote and appeared to have more to do with her desire to leave while a Republican was in power than past court cases regarding fedeeral elections. I almost expected the other Republicans to vote the way they did.

Correct me if I am wrong but in 2000 five justices on the Supreme Court, including O'Connor, decided that the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was unconstitutional; thus, deciding the election in favor of Bush and taking the election process out of the hands of the state. The hypocrisy, IMO, of the conservatives on the Court was that by intervening in this case they were disregarding their typical preference for state's rights.

Dilemma of Africa

2005-07-04T08:04:00.000-07:00

The dilemma of Africa is that until you attack the root causes of the poverty, it will always remain. Churches and relief organizations help those that are dying now. In some cases, they are only able to provide a person with the semblance of a dignified death. While essential, these organizations do little to address the larger, more systemic issues affecting Africa.

When people start talking about "making poverty history," I become skeptical really fast. How is this done? A statement like this is analogous to our president's oft stated idea of "eliminating terrorism." Both notions are unrealistic.

Real, profound change in Africa will probably start with establishing governments that are truly representative. Who should establish these governments?

Live 8

2005-07-02T20:43:00.000-07:00

Maybe I'm just another spoiled Westerner who is part of the problem rather than the solution, but the self righteousness of the many hosts and musicians who are involved in Live 8 is nauseating. Is debt relief the answer to Africa's problems? Are issues of debt relief as simple as these simple minds profess? From listening to MTV or VHI, you would think these enlightened celebrities were donating 50% of their pay checks while everyone else in the "wealthy West" researched stocks, planned vacations, and dreamed about retirement, paying no mind to loftier issues until told to by the TV.

Africa is a mess. Whose fault is it? Aids is rampant, many governments are corrupt, the climate is brutal, and the legacy of European colonialism has created numerous conflicts, that continue to this day. I believe these issues cannot be ignored.

By no means am I an expert on Africa or issues of international finance. Nevertheless, I can't help but wondering: How much debt relief is being requested and what’s the criterion being suggested for deciding when to provide a country with debt relief?

Basement Window

2005-07-02T12:49:00.000-07:00

As you can see, the concrete is visible on the right side. Should I use something like liquid nails to get the wood to adhere to the concrete? Also, what should I do with the top piece that extends out. This piece seems to extend into the window. Should I remove it?
I am concerned that the wood will not adhere flush against the wall, which is somewhat uneven. How can I be sure that it does?
This piece is in good condition. Should I still remove it?

Basement Photos

2005-07-02T10:25:00.000-07:00

Where to begin?

1. as far as I know, water does not come into the basement; however, there is evidence of past water damage.

2. a friend suggested that I do the following:

a. caulk around the window (assuming I choose not to get a new window.)

b. buy wood planks and insert them around the window; since the dry wall here "peeled away" it was so damaged. I plan on installing a drop ceiling.

c. seal the concrete that is exposed (this is where the oil tank used to be).

d. place studs on the exposed concrete and "build out" with a thin piece of wood that covers the exposed concrete.

e. cover the entire wall (including the old dry wall) with new dry wall.

My Philosophy (in progress)

2005-07-01T18:32:00.000-07:00

My Philosophy- First Premise

The first and most fundamental premise of my view of life in society is that all people, no matter who they are, have a right to live as they choose, as long at their actions do not harm other people. People have no control over where they are born and, as a result, are subject to various degrees of governmental control. A democratic society is nothing more than a collection of people who choose to live together and follow certain rules, or laws, that are agreed upon by the majority. Laws, or restrictions on one’s freedom, are legitimate to the extent that they protect the life and property of each member of society. Conversely, laws are unjust to the extent that they infringe on the person or property of individuals.

Dinner

2005-07-01T14:59:00.000-07:00

It is 5.59 PM. I need to go to the store and get food for dinner. I should also find out what time the produce junct. closes. I should start planning next week's meals now so that I don't have to go shopping every day.

News 6/30

2005-06-30T20:03:00.000-07:00

Quotes
"Unlike G.M., about 40 percent of United States companies with more than 5,000 employees offer no retiree health benefits,"
What does this tell me? I am young and have alredy started saving for retirement. It does feel good, however, to know that I am paying into a pension fund that seems to be stable. Am I being naive? Should employers be required to provide health benefits? I could not support such a proposition. How could I? I am constantly defending the right of individuals to negotiate the conditions of employement based on the principle of mutual advantage.

"Now the unionization rate has sunk to about 8 percentof all private-sector non-farm workers."
Why is the case? How do I feel about unions? I naturally seem to defend Wal Mart. Why? Wal Mart has been accused of union busting. Is this true? I do not support preventing people from unionizing, although wouldn't it be reasonable for an employer to let a prospective emplyee no up front that participating in a union would be grounds for termination. I need to learn more about the labor movement. I also need to read the book that JU was reading. I think it was called "The Worm in the Apple."

"With unions in decline, real wages for hourly workers are stagnant, their health and pension benefits are in tatters, and inequalities between rich and poor have widened to levels not seen since the 1920's and early 1930's - just before the last great union surge"

Who are the "terrorists"?

2005-06-30T18:55:00.000-07:00

Who are terrorists? What do they want? Terrorism is a label attached to the actions of a person or group who attack civilians in an effort to achieve a political objective. People like Osama bin-Laden do not make distinctions between soldiers and civilians. All are legitimate targets. Terrorism is not a new concept. Many around the world argue that the US has committed numerous acts of terror. The terrorism that our country encountered on 9/11 is part of a larger war that is being waged against the West by jihadists who believe that Islam is at war against Christians and Jews.

5 Minute Room Rescue

2005-06-30T18:25:00.000-07:00

from FlyLady.NET
"This is a reminder to spend just 5 minutes clearing a path in your worst room. You know this area of your home: the place you would never allow anyone to see. Just 5 minutes a day for the next 27 days and you will have a place you can be proud to take anyone."

6/30- R's Room- done: vacuum, litter

Inspiring Myself

2005-06-30T12:08:00.000-07:00

I am sitting here at 3.09 PM. I know that I need to get out and exercise. It is really hot but I will be fine as long as I bring water. I intend to get up and go at around 3.30. I am thinking that I will ride down past DB. This should be a good, safe ride. There are a few hills that will add some challenge.

4.13 PM
I did it. I was able to get up and go it. I made the choice to move. This is what it takes to get healthy: the desire to change and the strength to act on this energy. I feel great, although I do not think going out at 3.30 is the smartest move, since it so hot. I need to go earlier or later.

Basement

2005-06-30T11:22:00.000-07:00

6/30- I need to decide whether putting dry wall on top of dry wall is worth the time and effort in the basement. Are the existing walls beyond repair? If even one wall is unsalvageable, does that mean I have to redo all of them?

News 6/29

2005-06-29T21:07:00.000-07:00

A Chinese business is attempting to purchase an American oil company (UNCOl?). Many fear that the Chinese could use this transaction as a political or economic weapon against the US. Others counter that the US has already extended its tentacles into the Chinese economy and it is only fair to expect them to do the same in our economy.

I saw a blurb mentioning that clean air might increase global warming. I need to check this out.

I read the CS Monitor's commentary on Bush's speech. They pointed out some of the things he failed to mention in his speech. They also suggested some benchmarks that could lead to an American withdraw. They clearly pointed out how the reasons for the war have changed as time as passed. I think it is important to note that we did go to war for multiple reasons, although Bush has emphasized certain reasons at certain times.

The Economics of Work

2005-06-29T20:36:00.000-07:00

As a teacher, I am embarrassed by colleagues who complain about their salaries. Not surprisingly, whenever I ask these complainers to elaborate on their philosophy of economics it typically involves a fundamental misunderstanding of work in a free market society.

A worker, or collection of workers, is paid what others feel they are worth, in relation to all other alternatives. Through our unions, we help shape and ultimately decide if we are going to work for the wages/benefits offered. If I feel underpaid (underappreciated, undervalued) as a teacher and think I can do better in another field, I have the right to quit and do something else.

To this, some respond "I love my job too much to leave and care too much about kids to walk away just because of money." If you are the type to respond this way, I think it is disingenuous to complain about money when you acknowledge that you continue to teach even though you understand that you could be doing something else for more money.

Very rarely do people throw money at workers if those workers do not show their employers what life would be like without them.

As far as working at home and working weekends, you choose to do this, even if it is "for the kids." I often work many hours at home or on weekends, but I realize this is a choice I am making.

Life is about making choices. Our choices reveal our priorities. Even though you might not ever say this out loud, you are choosing to work when "off the clock" for the salary you are being paid. If you complain you have nobody but yourself to blame.

I realize this and do not complain. Did anyone force me to become a teacher? No. Do I “deserve” summers off? No, but this is part of the give and take of a contract. Many school boards attempt to prolong the length of the school year, and our unions have to decide what to do when these changes are proposed. Are you willing to strike if the school year is extended by a week?

Do I get angry that many people feel that they could do my job? No, I feel that there are many jobs out there that I could do. Am I right? Who knows….Am I as talented as I believe I am? That is for the free market to decide if I ever choose to venture out into it and sell my skills. Meanwhile, I am going to relax on my deck and tackle the pile of library books that are waiting for me. Maybe I'll stay up until 2 AM reading these books….After all, I don't have to get up for work. It's summer time! (Check out the rest of my site CLICK HOME below)

New Site- Teacher Idea Exchange, members (free) gain access to lots of free materials

6/29 TO DO

2005-06-29T10:32:00.000-07:00

-call dry wall guy if he doesn't call by 1PM---called he gave price. seems expensive. I need to get a truck so that I can save on delivery.
-reschedule w/ Honda----service guy told me to wait for a check since the car was checked in March and is driven infrequently.
-go to food store- went but only got a small order. i need to start buying more to save repeated trips to the store.
-go to hardware store- buy rope--> use masking tape instead
-send certif. letter to roofer

News 6/28

2005-06-28T23:56:00.000-07:00

15.00
John Kerry suggests what Pres. Bush should say in his speech to the American people about Iraq. The Supreme Court ended its 04-05 term with rulings on a variety of hot button issues ranging from the Ten Commandments to Iternet file sharing.

The Court allowed the Ten Command. to remain in one case, based on the fact that they were erected many years ago and have not caused much controversy over the years. In the other case, the Court ruled that the Command. could not be hung on the walls in two courthouses.

Having watched Bush's speech, he did not seem to take Kerry's advice. On what points do I agree with Kerry? disagree? (5.00)

Evening Routine

2005-06-28T20:08:00.000-07:00

1. Litter---no more than 1 bag upstairs
2. Empty/load/run dw (when nec.)
3. check chairs for 3
4. File 5 items
5. b. t. /f for 1 min.
6. 5 minute room rescue

how long does this take? about 15 mins
6/28- 5/5
6/29- 5/5 (trashed some papers instead of filing)
6/30- 5/5
7/1- 1/6
7/2- 4/6
7/3- 0/6
7/4-2/6 (22/39)
7/5- 1/6
7/6-4/6 (7/7 5.55)

6/28ToDo

2005-06-28T09:33:00.000-07:00

Meal Plan- at least 5 or 6 items-----planned 4 meals, cont. tom.
order dry wall for basement--------waiting for call back
Go to park, ride bike- didn't do. need to start exercising every day.
Go food shopping--------didn't do. should do tom.

Done
-scheduled car maint. appoint (1 yr. service)
-ordered early edition of grad class text
-bought/hung new shower curtain
-balanced checkbook
-worked in basement-----need to buy rope to tie rug. Need to finish pulling up padding. Should be done by Thurs.

Tomorrow
send certified letter to roofer (at new address)