tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23163411321275165552024-03-18T21:40:01.536-06:00A is AThis is a blog dedicated to individual rights, freedom, justice and most of all reason.cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-38439862626582472612011-07-26T18:20:00.003-06:002011-07-26T18:25:55.532-06:00Ayn Rand Institute's Former Participant essay submissionBelow is my submission for the ARI former participant essay contest where I won third place. <br /><br />Here is the prompt: What was your initial response to the novel(s)? In what ways has reading Ayn Rand inspired you and the choices you have made in your life? <br /><br />For more information on other contests visit the <a href="http://aynrandnovels.com/">AYN RAND NOVELS</a> website.<br /><br />Also, for more information about The Ayn Rand Institute visit their website <a href="http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=index">HERE</a>.<br /><br />Here is my essay: How Ayn Rand has Affected Me.<br /><br />“Howard Roark laughed… He laughed at the thing which had happened to him that morning and at the things which now lay ahead.” Roark is laughing at the fact that he has been expelled from Architectural school. He is laughing because there will be more obstacles, and he knows he will win. Seemingly his career should be over, yet he shrugs the incident off as would a child who has scraped his knee and quickly goes back to play. Immediately, Roark’s viewpoint in life had a deep impact on me.<br /> <br />Throughout the novel Roark is never deterred from his goal, and never imagines he might be unable to accomplish his deepest values. Dominique on the other hand believes Roark’s success is not possible. He is great, but greatness can’t live for long in this world, she thinks. While Roark waits for clients and struggles from commission to commission, Dominique actively seeks to ensure he does not attain any commissions. His view is that values are achievable, hers that they are not.<br /> <br />Ayn Rand called these metaphysical views the benevolent and malevolent universe premises.<br /> <br />I was constantly confronted with the malevolent viewpoint. It was a view that seemed always to hamper my progress. At the age of 16 I decided I wanted to be a public speaker and open a seminar production company. I was promptly informed this was not possible, because I’d have to prove myself in some way first. This seemed like good advice, so at 17 I planned out in great detail how I would achieve financial independence by the age of 35 through real estate investing. “Make sure to be practical,” and “that isn’t a likely outcome, but good luck,” were common reactions to my goals. I had no defense against these proclamations except for my desire to run my own seminar production company and travel the country expressing my passion for life. I continued with my plans while this doubt was still picking at my brain.<br /> <br />As I started out on my course of action I realized this plan had a huge hole in it. I did not enjoy real estate investing. How could I stand waiting 15-20 years to do what I actually wanted to do? I had no answers, and that doubt, which became fear, was that I didn’t know if it was even possible.<br /><br /> At 17, fortunately, I read The Fountainhead. In it was the man who laughed at the actions of the Dean, and at Ellsworth Toohey’s attempt to destroy him. I witnessed the portrayal of a hero achieving against seemingly impossible odds. I started to create a new vision of what was possible for me. I had stifled a passion for film years prior, because I was assured nobody can really become successful in the film industry. But, as Roark says to the dean, “I have, let’s say, sixty years to live. Most of that time will be spent working. I’ve chosen the work I want to do. If I find no joy in it, then I’m only condemning myself to sixty years of torture.” Roark’s courage, his view that values are achievable, gave me courage, and a similar view of what is possible began to emerge within me.<br /><br /> At 18 I read Atlas Shrugged, and met Dagny Taggart and John Galt. Here I saw the full demonstration of what I felt in reading about Roark and his struggle. I saw what is possible at the deepest philosophical roots. I understood Dagny’s race to find the inventor of the motor, while all the men of the mind are disappearing around her, comes from her deep set need to view the best possible in man. She requires a reaffirmation that man is a being capable of achieving high values on earth. Her search, and the entire novel, showed me the contrasting views of the benevolent and malevolent universe premises, and what the consequences to each were in such vivid detail I no longer held any doubt.<br /><br /> By the age of 20 I was fully on my way to becoming a writer and producer of films. The inevitable responses of how impossible this would be began. However, now I had a deep philosophic base upon which to draw. I often pointed out to people the hundreds of individuals in the credits of just one film, and the hundreds of movies made each year. They made this film, why do you think it impossible for me, I’d ask. Those were the lucky ones, and realistically that rarely happens, I was told. I saw the malevolent universe premise peering its ugly head at me. The people around me did not view achievement as a possibility to any but the born lucky. This was the view of James Taggart, Orren Boyle, and Howard Roark’s Dean. They didn’t believe true success was possible in the world.<br /><br /> For me however, I knew that so long as one assessed reality and oneself, as Roark, Dagny and Galt do, what I sought was achievable. When Dagny looks up into Galt’s face after crashing in Atlantis she says, “We never had to take any of it seriously, did we?” This was the expression of the benevolent universe premise, which has been deeply ingrained into my soul. Success is possible, it is not given to man, he must create it, but it is possible to create the career he desires, to create the life he wants – I can be what I want to be.<br /><br /> Ayn Rand’s philosophy as demonstrated in her novels, and elucidated in her essays, has given me the assurance and courage to pursue my dreams. May, 2011 marks my graduation from film school. During my time there I began a film production company where I’ve produced and written over 14 short films, documentaries, commercials, and promotional videos. I also wrote my first feature length screenplay. The difficulties occur regularly as they do for Roark, and as they would in the pursuit of any worthy endeavor. The benevolent universe premise that is now deeply integrated into my ideas always helps me gain perspective of what I can accomplish.<br /><br /> In Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand calls the shack which contains Galt’s motor, “an altar.” The connection to a religious symbol is not coincidental. When Dagny meets Galt she is witnessing the ideal, the possible. If Galt exists, anything is possible.<br /> <br />Ayn Rand’s work gives me the same euphoric feeling, a feeling of worshipful grandeur, and a fuel to continue through the inevitable difficulties. I can laugh at the unimportant, the irrational, while holding the knowledge that if Rand exists, anything is possible.cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-6175639394797286962010-10-29T23:26:00.006-06:002010-10-30T00:05:38.989-06:00Life: Capitalism's Motive PowerIn today’s political climate Americans are more thoroughly confused than ever. In the 2008 elections Obama was elected by a large portion of voters long considered politically inactive. A year later these same Americans were utterly shocked when Obama followed through on his espoused ideological aims. There is also a mass of uncertainty in the realm of political issues. A tea party attendee may carry a sign that states, “Keep your hands off my medical care!” But when addressing the issue of financial reform, this same person is likely to say “we should do something about those Wall Street fat cats.” <br /><br />Constituency shifts occur regularly between the right and left. Moreover, the two major parties have converged into one ideological pot. Lifelong republicans branch away from the party to join libertarian or “constitutional” parties. Claiming they are the “real” conservatives. Liberals join neo-conservative movements and juxtapose concepts of American patriotism with progressive ideas; such as the wholesale slaughter of American soldiers for proportionality in war: As if this is somehow American. <br /><br />This confusion among serious minded Americans stems from the only alternatives presented to them: Either; a heavily regulated and controlled financial industry, or complete nationalization; a self destructive war or endless and unhindered terrorist attacks on our own soil; today’s semi-free, partially capitalistic, mixed economy - or total statism. There is no large support for any other alternatives. When people are given the choice of death by firing squad or death by slow torture it should be clear as to the reason for American’s difficulty in deliberation.<br /><br />In the two major parties it is the democratic progressives that have continually accumulated numerous policy wins. The republicans have only accomplished slight speed bumps on the road to a larger socialist state. In any dispute between democrats and republicans, it is the democrats who are called “fiscally irresponsible,” but it is the republicans who are called “morally irresponsible.” The major opposition to Obamacare was that the bill was too big to understand and would lead to economic destruction. There were very few voices questioning the outright enslavement of doctors and the obliteration of individual rights.<br /><br />Democrats have been long time supporters of a growing moral movement: environmentalism – which establishes as the moral that which is best for nature. The republicans have long been supporters of religion, which states the moral is that which God commands. In practice, the difference means that the democrats claim to hold the morality of reason, science and secularism, while the republicans hold the morality of supernaturalism and faith. In any debate it is the secular moralists vs. the religious zealots.<br /><br />This has been the state of the fight for capitalism. The moral defenders are pitted as the irrational religious, while the ‘humanist/progressives’ hold reason and science as absolutes. For example, in regards to a complex scientific issue such as energy reform, to whom should the populace agree with - the religious moralists or the secular scientists? So has been the achievement of most of the democratic policy wins. <br /><br />The democrats have won by moral default. They hold up to a nation of life lovers the ideal that voting for them is a vote for this life, reason and the future of science and technology. They are believed to be the only advocates of earthly motivations to live by.<br /> <br />Men yearn for motivations. And so long as a man desires to live he must take actions. In this there is no choice. As with all living organisms, there must be an acquisition of values in order to continue functioning. A single celled amoeba must obtain its food by surrounding and capturing its prey in accordance with its nature. A plant must photosynthesize sunlight into energy and absorb nutrients from the soil; if these living creatures do not do this, they perish. <br /><br />The values these creatures seek are set automatically by their nature, and are determined by the type of entity that they are. For instance, a tiger could not survive by seeking the values a shark requires. Neither could a dog plant its feet into the ground and attempt to photosynthesize the sun’s light and absorb nutrients from the dirt. The same is true of man.<br /><br />Men must seek values congruent with their nature. Man is not born with the knowledge necessary for life. In order to accomplish the continual process of survival and flourishing, men must take certain actions. To not act is a choice which will lead to the death of any organism. Much like a prey’s inability to act in the face of a predator leads to its death. In every hour of every day man is inundated with actions he must take. Upon waking he must decide to stay in bed or get up, eat breakfast or leave without it, work or beg. <br /><br />This illustrates that every action, from talking to the beautiful woman in dance class to what shirt to wear for the big business meeting, implies choices that must be made. Even taking the action of inaction is a choice. As has already been indicated, animals make their basic choices based on their nature and instincts. A plant can grow towards the sun, but it cannot build a ditch to ensure it receives water. A man cannot absorb moisture and nutrients in the manner a plant can. But he can choose to use his unique tool of survival; reason, to build a ditch.<br /><br />What then are the values a man should seek? Since man does not have the ability to automatically know what actions to take, what actions are right for him, he needs a guide: a compass that can help direct him to a correct course of actions. Man cannot act without a motivation to do so. A car cannot move or even start without a motive power, gasoline, so to humans are incapable of making decisions without motivations, or a motive power to act as their energy source. For machinery, motive power is its primary energy source. Steam was the motive power for boats in the 19th century, and oil for boats today. A motive power is the reason a machine can move. What then is man’s motive power?<br /> <br />Many individuals accept one or both of the two dominant ideologies in America today, Environmentalism and Religion. These two systems offer a ready-made guide to human actions. They claim to hold the right motive power for man.<br /><br />Man requires a code for all of his values – i.e. an ethics (or morality). As philosopher Tara Smith puts it, “Ethics is a code of values whose purpose is to steer human beings to the achievements of the more concrete values that fuel an individual’s existence.”(Emphasis mine) Even the seemingly innocuous choice between cheerios and cyanide does not come automatically to a person; there must be a reference to all the values man ought to make.<br /> <br />There are various moral theories each offering their own version of what is the proper motive power that moves man. Three codes in existence today are utilitarianism, altruism, and egoism.<br /> <br />Utilitarianism offers the motive power of the “greatest good for the greatest number.” This theory advocates ensuring the actions of each individual are allotted towards the greatest good. When a person deliberates on a career the choice should be that career which provides the greatest good for the majority. It would be irrelevant whether a ‘selfish’ person wanted to enter the field of law enforcement if the majority decided there needed to be more teachers.<br /> <br />Utilitarianism is a variation of one of the oldest motive powers in human history - altruism. But altruism does not require merely a motive power in terms of good for the majority; altruism requires sacrifice to anyone. It is irrelevant to where a person’s rewards are distributed – whether to the old, the poor, or the handicapped person down the street – so long as the person creating the rewards does not receive them. Altruism literally means “other”-ism - the standard upon which all decisions should be made is what is good for other people. Moreover, this means everyone is a slave to any other person’s random need. If other peoples good is the standard of value, the motive power for each man, than any moocher with a cup in his hand requires the sacrifice of anyone capable of filling that cup. Utilitarianism discriminates upon the “others” saying the rewards should be a maximizing of the majority of peoples good. Altruism requires a person to give up any values to any person or thing; to the dipsomaniac, the bum, the enemy to humanity, any tree, rock, or pasture that supposedly needs something. As Dr. Peikoff explains, “altruism is not a synonym for kindness, generosity, or good will, but the doctrine that man should place others above self as the fundamental rule of life.” <br /> <br />There is, of course, never a rational basis to adhere to any of these moralities. Their defense usually boils down to some form of authoritarianism. People are told these moralities are correct because “God said so,” or it is the “will” of the majority, or our noumenel selves demand it as our duty, or the Fuehrer says so. Never are they expounded by the facts of reality. Thus David Hume’s statement that “an is does not imply an ought.” Moreover, these moralities are advocated as the only options available. <br /> <br />Egoism, the morality discovered and advocated by Ayn Rand, is that other alternative. Egoism should not be confused with hedonism, which is the morality that claims the motive power is that which maximizes pleasure. Rational egoism is the theory that advises taking actions which are in an individual’s best long-term interests. A person does not act in their own interests when they destroy their ability to live long-term, as in cases of subjective egoism (i.e. hedonism), wherein a person sacrifices others to self. Rand’s discovery is the idea of non-sacrifice. Opponents of egoism will point to such men today as Bernie Maddoff and Tiger Woods as crude egoists. Bernie Maddoff swindled millions of dollars from people and ended up losing his family, friends, self-respect, money, business, and freedom. Tiger Woods engaged in indiscriminate sex and alienated his wife, lost millions of dollars of endorsements, and lost the respect of most of the nation. It is absurd to proclaim these men were somehow acting egoistically; they in fact acted towards the destruction of all their values. <br /><br />Life is not a onetime accomplishment. It is an ongoing process. Tiger Woods may have valued his wife enough to marry her, but marriage is not the end of a relationship, it’s the beginning. Certain actions need to be taken in order to maintain the relationship, trust being merely part of that equation. Much like a person wouldn’t try fixing their car by putting vinegar in the gas tank, so to a person shouldn’t undercut other values in their life by sabotaging them with a string of one night stands. When Bernie Maddoff was running a successful investment firm he had to work hard to ensure his customers were happy and would return for repeat business. Tiger Woods worked towards achieving success in golf from the age of three. These true successes do not occur overnight.<br /><br />Egoism promulgates the idea that man’s proper motive power is his own life. That in the choices he ought to take are those choices which coincide with the values required by the type of being that he is. This would mean not taking actions congruent with the values of a dolphin, amoeba, or redwood, but that of the rational animal. <br /> <br />People living in close proximity, and engaging in beneficial activities require a social system to implement rules of actions that are to be tolerated or outlawed. Murder and theft are normally the first actions to be forbidden. When it comes to more ‘complex’ rules such as: private property, free expression, and freedom to pursue one’s own goals, people need a guide to help them decide. Men living together require rules or chaos will ensue. A system – such as feudalism, communism, fascism, or capitalism – is mandatory. The obvious problem is what rules are proper, and what principles are necessary to guide a society when establishing a social system.<br /> <br />It must be stressed that there must be social rules in any society. Even in a so-called “anarchist society,” eventually one group will rise up and enforce their social rules. Whether the rules are based on, slave to master, proletariat to bourgeois, or that of free men trading their goods for mutual gain and mutual benefit. These social rules must be more than mere taboos, they must be enforceable absolutes. For instance, throughout history, the social rule of property rights has been largely abnegated. That an individual be allowed to utilize and dispose of their property in any way they see fit. The degree this rule was allowed or outlawed is the degree to which that country and its citizens were prosperous – or impoverished. In almost all social systems some form of private property is allowed, if not merely de facto. Feudalism allowed for peasants to own some of their property that was unable to be fully controlled. In communist Russia small and private gardens in people’s backyards outgrew all of Russia’s massive ‘community’ farms. <br />The purpose of a government is to enforce the social rules believed to be correct by a society. A government is pure force. It serves no other function. A government cannot create, it can only dictate. It cannot produce, it can only command. However, this function is vital to a human civilization. There must be some societal norms which some entity must uphold. A government is that entity. <br /> <br />The type of social system a person, or nation, will advocate is based directly upon the motive power they hold. For someone who holds that the basic motive power for men should be the needs of others he will believe, implicitly at least, in some form of socialism. To hold that proper actions are those that benefit others at the expense of self (i.e. altruism and utilitarianism) inevitably means a country must force those who are not doing their part, to contribute. The same applies to rules against murder; people not respecting this rule must be forced to do so, because it has been established as morally wrong to murder. If sacrificing part of one’s possessions to others is morally right, then those who don’t must be made to do so. The reason Obamacare, or any welfare program in the last 100 years, has passed is because the majority of Americans believed it was right. It makes no difference that this last set of welfare programs woke some Americans up to the bankruptcy these bills will bring about; people needed them, and so something ought to be done about it.<br /> <br />Holding that man’s motive power is “the greatest good for the greatest number” means that person will advocate social rules which put this moral policy into effect. To say what is right is that which benefits the greatest good is to admit that there are no standards, and that man is subordinated to any two people who claim a need. There is no way to quantify or identify a “greater good” in actuality, greater good becomes whatever the “greatest number” says it is. If 51% of the population decides to take the other 49%’s property, this would be the enforceable social rules under this moral social system. This may occur in the form of income taxes, or in the act of a literal destruction of a minority of ‘undesirables’ within a society; the theory is the same, destruction and abnegation of the individual.<br /> <br />Egoism in morality leads to capitalism in politics. If each individual is their own sovereign entity, to which no one can rule, then this will lead a society to delegate government into the role of protector of the individual. This means recognition of each individual’s right to life, liberty, and property. This system has the distinguishing characteristic of recognizing that man’s motive power is his own life.<br /> <br />Respecting this motive power means recognizing the requirements of man qua man. This includes utilizing reason to solve the problem of survival through production, and enjoying the effects of one’s success. Whether the enjoyment is manifested in eating an extravagant meal with a loved one, listening to a symphony, or globetrotting in a private plane; the individual that created the rewards keeps them. <br /> <br />This is the purpose of the concept “Rights” (more specifically, individual rights); recognizing the fact that in order to survive each man must utilize his own tool for survival, means recognizing that each man has a fundamental right to choose which actions he thinks will lead to his success. This concept is also vital to understanding that a person has a sphere of rights that are limited. A Right is a concept which sets the terms for enforceable social conduct in a society based upon mans proper motive power. As Rand elucidated, <br /><br /><blockquote>Rights are a moral concept – the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others – the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context – the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law. </blockquote> <br /><br />Laissez-faire capitalism respects these rights by banning the initiation of force among men – either direct or indirect – within a given geographical area. In this system all property is privately owned and government is strictly assigned to the protection of individual rights, and they are forbidden interference in the economic realm. This means that if a person wishes to convince others to buy their products they must create the best product available and offer it at the best price. They cannot force a person to purchase their products. Nor can they attain subsidies from the government. There are no subsidies, government creates no money. There are no special favors, government has no power to arbitrarily make new rules that must be obeyed. Objective law is the only king. Businesses cannot lobby, government can do nothing for them, but protect their rights as they do everyone else’s. Wal-Mart may become the richest corporation in America, but there are plenty of people who refuse to step foot in their stores – and there isn’t a thing Wal-Mart can do about it. <br /> <br />Capitalism allows each man to judge his own situation as he sees fit, allowing each to receive their due rewards. Every individual person is able to take actions, unhindered by outside forces. It allows everyone to decide which products or services they desire and gives them the ability to choose which path they deem proper to achieve their values. A person can decide to take actions to save money for the possibility of a medical emergency, or they can neglect to do this, but they will suffer the consequences of their own choices. Society will not fix the irrational decisions of each of its citizens. If someone decides to imbibe alcohol and watch television all day, they are perfectly free to do so, but they are not free to run to the government and ask them to use force on more responsible adults to pay for their irresponsibility. In a just society the population is encouraged to make rational decisions, if they don’t, they, and they alone, suffer the consequences. <br /> <br />Imagine a bank in a free society. This bank can enact policies to lend out money based on a person’s need, but if this policy leads to bankruptcy there can be no bailout by the government. Once these irrational policies catch up to them, they are done. At the same time, a company that provides great products that the majority of people want, and decides to compete by offering a free service with every purchase, they are allowed to do so. Even if this means their competitor must shut down. Each person keeps the rewards of their actions, and decides what to do with them. It is irrelevant whether the person is a janitor or if they represent the collected interests of many individuals that voted them to run their multi-billion dollar corporation. <br /><br />Capitalism’s defenders give half-hearted defenses for advocating the system of private property and individual rights. Their defenses serve to undercut the core that allows the system to operate; selfish pursuit of ones values. These are normally counterproductive at best and absolutely devastating at worst. To say, for instance, that capitalism is the best system because it provides the greatest utility for the greatest number is to destroy the morality necessary for each person to pursue the values congruent with their nature. In other words, the defense goes, capitalism should be allowed, in spite of the depravity of its motivations, on the premise that it has the awesome ability to produce goods which brings happiness or pleasure to the greatest number of people. As Peikoff points out, “the essence of this argument is the claim that capitalism is justified by its ability to convert ‘man’s baseness’ to ‘noble ends.’ ‘Baseness’ here means egoism; nobility means altruism. And the justification of individual freedom in terms of its contribution to the welfare of society means collectivism.” He goes on to explain that the father of modern utilitarianism – to whom the above argument derives – John Stuart Mill, understood the contradiction in “trying to defend an individualist system by accepting the fundamental moral ideas of its opponents.” This led Mill to eventually proclaim his advocacy of socialism. <br /> <br />Men must be given explicit moral reasons to advocate capitalism. Much like the progressives have given people moral reasons to vote socialism into America piecemeal, so to must advocates of capitalism give moral reasons to scale government back to a point where its only job is to protect the individual. A motive power, a person’s moral code, is what gives energy to each person to make decisions in their daily deliberations. It is the fundamental reason that enables men to decide upon any particular action. The vast majority of proponents for capitalism point out every possible economic reason to fight for capitalism. It brings prosperity, they say. It allows for the free flow of goods and services, they proclaim. There have been thousands of books and articles that show all the economic reasons to establish a capitalist society. Even with all of this there is no massive movement towards unfettered capitalism; in fact the opposite is true. The choice is still between a mixed economy and a completely controlled economy.<br /><br />Socialist and Communist countries are even beginning to adhere to the economic praise for capitalism. They are proclaiming countries should utilize freedom to achieve ‘progressive’ ends. When the supposed defenders of capitalism sound exactly like the enemies of capitalism, it is time to alter course.<br /> <br />When men join a cause or a war (intellectual or otherwise) they do so for purely moral reasons. No one has ever gone to war or advocated a revolutionary new ideal because their economist decreed this new regime’s economic policy would increase GDP by 25%. When someone goes to war, it’s because they were given a moral motivation to do so. <br /> <br />In 480 BC the Persian Empire, ruled by Xerxes proclaimed King of Kings, attempted to conquer the known world based on the moral ideal of Zoroastrianism. This was a view that split the world in to two parts: Those in the Persian empire of “light and truth,” and everyone else of “darkness and lies.” It is no wonder they voraciously attempted to bring “light and truth” to the world. America’s Founding Fathers fought purely for the moral reason of their “inalienable rights.” The rebellions over tea taxes (economic reasons) were only representational of the moral indignation held by the founders. In fact, previous taxes were much higher than the tea tax which set off the revolution. In 1860 America, the south was motivated by the collectivist moral ideology of states’ rights and white supremacy. That each state could justify any collectivist goal they desired – in this instance; chattel slavery. As Dr. John Lewis shows, the north and south were fundamentally skewed by two opposing motive powers. “Alexander H. Stephens, vice-president of the confederacy, knew it, and expounded upon this at the Georgia convention on March 21, 1861: ‘our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea [from abolition]; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery – subordination to the superior race – is his natural and normal condition.’” And from the north, by Thomas Wentworth Higginson, “’slavery is essential to the community, or it must be fatal to it, - there is no middle ground… War has flung the door wide open, and four million slaves stand ready to file through… What the peace which the south has broken was not doing, the war which she has instituted must secure.’” Right or wrong, these men had a motive power to fight for their cause. <br /> <br />Whether the men were ancient Persians, Athenians, Spartans or modern Americans, Japanese, or Germans, they have always, and will always, fight because of the morality they have discovered. The destructiveness of giving men only economic reasons to accept an idea is that it cedes the moral high ground to ones opponents. Like saying one should adhere to a diet of eating healthy foods, but fail to defend against assertions that health should not be purpose of a diet. Instead, the purpose should be the sugar farmer’s needs; therefore, advocate high sugar diets.<br /> <br />Prosperity is not the reason to accept capitalism. Freedom is the reason. No other system allows a motivation of one’s own life as an end in itself.<br /> <br />To win the fight for capitalism, an absolute acceptance of the moral reasons for it are more than necessary, it is mandatory. Most men yearn to live a moral life, simply witness the vehement outcries against capitalism; they are all moral. Capitalism should be advocated because it is the only moral social system that is consistent with the rights of man. <br /><br />Those who fight for tomorrow live in it today. The fight ahead will be as tough as any revolution; albeit, hopefully a bloodless battle of ideas. Winning is not guaranteed merely because someone is right. However, to those people who choose to struggle for the promise of future values achieve those values during the struggle. No matter the outcome, merely the possibility of long-term values is worth an attempt at the enormous feat ahead. Men must make choices to live. Let us choose life.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Endnotes</strong><br /><br />1. Rand, Ayn. The Virtue Of Selfishness. (New York: Signet, 1964), 17-20<br /> <br />2. Ibid., 21-23<br /> <br />3. Smith, Tara. Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 23<br /><br />4. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. October 9th, 2007. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/ (accessed August 7th, 2010).<br /> <br />5.Peikoff, Leonard. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. (New York: Penguin Group, 1991), 240<br /> <br />6. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Oct 29, 2004. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/#io (accessed July 28, 2010).<br /> <br />7.Craig Biddle, “Capitalism and the Moral High Ground,” The Objective Standard Winter 2008-2009. Especially read pages 21 -22 for specific reasons that have been given as to why one should advocate a morality that requires enslavement of self to others.<br /> <br />8. Sowell, Thomas. Basic Economics. (New York: Basic Books, 2007), 168<br /> <br />9. Rand, Ayn. The Virtue Of Selfishness. (New York: Signet, 1964), 107-115<br /> <br />10. Ibid., 146 -149<br /> <br />11. Rand, Ayn. "What Is Capitalism?" In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand, 1-30. (New York: Signet, 1967)<br /> <br />12. Rand, Ayn. The Virtue Of Selfishness.( New York: Signet, 1964), 92<br /> <br />13. Armentano, Dominick T. Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1982. There has been an immense amount of literature destroying the myth that free markets create destructive monopolies of any type. This book investigates all major cases of antitrust in America since its inception in 1890, and showing them all to have falsely identified the problem. Other sources worthy of investigation are: 1) Greenspan, Alan. "Antitrust." In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand, 63-72. New York: Signet, 1967. 2) Branden, Nathaniel. "Common Fallacies About Capitalism." In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand, 73-100. New York: Signet, 1967. 3) Epstein, Alex. "Vindicating Capitalism: The Real History of the Standard Oil Company." The Objective Standard, 2008., 4)Daniels, Eric. "Antitrust with a Vengeance:The Obama Administration's Anti-Business Cudgel." The Objective Standard, 2009-2010: 21-29<br /> <br />14. Peikoff, Leonard. The Ominous Parallels. (New York: Meridian, 1982), 120<br /> <br />15. Lewis, John David. Nothing Less Than Victory. (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2010), 13-17<br /> <br />16Ibid. 143cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-15933552872342646032010-01-31T13:22:00.004-07:002010-02-03T13:24:45.575-07:00Use It or Lose It<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxCC1CImLTmAb9qjbmjkuy4qtgBnZUfa_qZzGJtsAEgYULsQDkAXUiOEVNMO5UufZiD81UdVDRvQW410WOsvuF5EP6ezqNnAKGD1cNnVmkIREAROV5URGODw4zHYoBmWtZQPBpWL0xsKo/s1600-h/FreedomTower-002.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5433003012004170178" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 105px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxCC1CImLTmAb9qjbmjkuy4qtgBnZUfa_qZzGJtsAEgYULsQDkAXUiOEVNMO5UufZiD81UdVDRvQW410WOsvuF5EP6ezqNnAKGD1cNnVmkIREAROV5URGODw4zHYoBmWtZQPBpWL0xsKo/s200/FreedomTower-002.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>We find ourselves in a peculiar era today. There are many people still alive who can recall a time when America was the envy of the world. Millions of immigrants fled to our borders for the chance to work even a menial job here. Intellectuals, doctors, scientists, and businessmen of all flavors came in droves to the freest country earth has ever held. Yet, we look around today and all the hard work seems to be crumbling in on itself. There are American cargo ships that must prepare for the possibility of pirate attacks (yes, pirates!). The greatest military the world has ever witnessed is unwilling to do what is necessary to protect American vessels on the open seas. Our country currently has over-zealous followers to a demagogue that resorts to extremely derogatory language against any who oppose them. This, of course, is not new, but the fervor has increased to the point of classifying anyone who disagrees with the present administration as right wing extremists (or “teabaggers”), and clumps them with right wing terrorists. Consider what this could mean if someone disagrees with a political policy and is deemed a terrorist under the Patriot Act (especially if the act is expanded).</div><div><br />This is the same country that flooded the world with unimagined goods and services. This is also the country that ushered in an era of unfathomed prosperity. Today, the average person living below the poverty line owns: a television, a car, a refrigerator, shelter, has money for food, and dozens of other amenities never possible to the richest kings of old.</div><div><br />The question becomes how did we get from where we were to where we are? The answer is simple. The hard working people, who produced all the great values we now enjoy, never spoke up against a government that grew brick by brick around them. It is the old story of the boiling frog experiment. Put a frog in a boiling pot of water and it will immediately jump out. Put a frog in a pot of room temperature water and slowly turn up the heat, and it will boil to death. Well folks, it looks like today we are the frog and we’re boiling.</div><div><br />But it’s not too late.</div><div><br />There are a myriad of ways a government can grow to eventually dominate our lives. It inevitably starts with words like “temporary” or “public interest.” A temporary fix will always lead to more “temporary” fixes. Once the government fails, which it almost always does, it will clamor for more, and bigger, “temporary” fixes. Anything done in the name of the public interest or public good is even more dangerous, primarily, because there is no such thing as “public interest.” A public is merely a collection of individuals, each with their own wants, needs and desires. When someone says they are doing something for the “public interest,” ask them; “Well, who decides what that is?” The answer in some form or another ends up being, “I do.”</div><div><br />Medicare in the 60’s was instituted because it was said to be in the best interest of the elderly to not have to rely on private charity. Despite the glaring fact that elderly people who were incapable of paying for their own medical care were taken care of by private charity. Social Security was instituted because it was in the public interest to have a guaranteed retirement plan paid for by everyone together. It was in the best interest of the country to force banks to invest in risky communities they normally avoided (e.g. the Community Reinvestment Act). It was in the interest of America to appease terrorists abroad for decades. Look what appeasement has gained us. The trend continues today. We are told it is in the public interest to bailout big banks, and big automakers. They are too big to fail is the alleged theory. The government tried to tell us it was in our best interests to let them take over our health care industry. Finally, some individuals decided to speak up.</div><div><br />These are only a fraction of our government’s policies for the past sixty plus years. They got away with it because of one reason. Like the frog, the American people never realized they were being boiled alive. As our freedoms were being slowly expropriated, there was silence. The only voices heard were arguing over which freedoms to eliminate next, and how to do it. </div><div><br />Our most important freedom, which is being hampered by both the Right and the Left, is our intellectual freedom. Our freedom to speak out is our protection against the formulation of a tyranny. Our founding fathers had a definite structure to the constitution. The Bill of Rights is our first set of amendments, with our first amendment being strictly about intellectual freedoms; such as free speech. They understood that without these freedoms, none others are possible. Unfortunately, it has been those against individual rights who have spoken their minds the most. The men and women who attempt to corrupt the concept of rights and apply them to whatever they desire.<br /><br />What else is the meaning of the right to medical care, housing, jobs, food and all the other supposed rights? This is the idea that some people have the right to anything so long as they need it. Who shall provide for their need? This is when a proper right – or a right that infringes nothing on anyone else – is corrupted to mean whatever someone wants it to mean. The people advocating these policies force one group of Americans to pay for the need of another group. They accomplish this by shouting for the biggest gun in the world; the American government. The fact that this group expropriates the wealth of some to give to another by the use of the government, elucidates their true belief; might is right.</div><div><br />The people who advocated these so-called rights were the main individuals in the political and intellectual forum. The hard working American’s who paid for these policies were too busy producing values, and living their lives, to bother looking up long enough to notice the devastation around them. </div><div><br />We see where this silence has led America.</div><div><br />It is now time for those who never spoke up to take a stand, or one day we will all wake up to a totalitarian dictatorship with access to the most advanced weaponry on the planet. To stand by indifferently, crying that this can never happen in America is all our enemies’ desire of us. They aren’t interested in our support. They have their minority of fervent followers. They merely want you out of their way; they’ll gladly take your indifference. </div><div><br />If you do not use your freedoms, you will lose them.</div><div><br />To arm ourselves intellectually will take time and hard work, but it’s worth it. It is much easier to stop a dictatorship from occurring in our country than it will be to overthrow it. One can begin by reading books, articles, blogs newspapers and whatever else is available to start understanding the issues. Listen to intellectuals to hear what all are saying. Find sources on the internet, podcasts, and other online writings of people spending their time fighting for their liberties. Understand this, not all ideas were created equal; tread carefully. Hard work this may be, but vital to our future.<br /><br />Once armed, it is necessary to be prepared to shoot your enemies on sight. Don’t be afraid, stand up on principles, such as the principle of individual rights, and you will soon discover your intellectual enemies will crumble like a house of cards – assuming you have rational ideas of course. It is very likely you will take fire, and this is why building your intellectual ammunition is so vital. Remember, once that freedom is gone, we’ll never see it again.</div><div><br />If it is your goal to bring America back to our intellectual foundation it must start now. It must start with each one of you. It is in all of our self interests to learn what is occurring in America today and take a stand. There is no longer an easy way to win back our freedoms. The easy way ended over a century ago. Now, we must work towards our own bright future. But not to worry, there have been great thinkers of the past, and today, that you can rely on. They were and are men and women who have paved the way for the possibility of a future with freedom; mental giants all. And, once you expose the enemy for what they are, mental midgets with an inferiority complex, they will shy away from any and all rational responses. Reveal their disguise and fight back the torrent of evils, now, before it’s too late.</div>cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-80634333679978681942009-12-12T15:06:00.003-07:002009-12-12T15:11:58.399-07:00Letter to the editor of the Denver Post 12/08/09Here is another letter I wrote to the open forum of the Denver Post. It is in regards to the article on sunday entitled: <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_13946706">CSU Gun Ban is the Right Call</a>.<br /><br /><br />This author makes several illogical statements to fuel his false conclusions. Point one, accidental shootings might occur if students are allowed concealed weapons (with a permit). This is equivalent to claiming we should ban driving on campus because students may get in accidents. Driving accidents do happen frequently and should be punished accordingly. Gun accidents from a licensed holder rarely happen, but should be punished if they do. Second point, shooting sprees are too rare to really worry about. This is no reason to take away any persons right to defend their life. When was the last time someone accidently shot thirty people? Third point, the killer probably wouldn’t run into a gun holder, especially considering the 21 year old law. This is a good reason to repeal the law banning 18 year olds from acquiring a license. The author raises one more point worthy of addressing. Rape victims don’t need to use guns, they should use pepper spray. The idea of worrying about the offender of a crime is not only silly, but evil.<br />In regards to the last sentence of students not fighting back; we will.cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-12008203974889121242009-12-09T09:17:00.002-07:002009-12-09T09:21:34.086-07:00LTE to Denver Post 12/06/09Here is another Letter to the Editor I wrote to the Denver Post in their Open Forum section (unpublished). The title of the article I addressed was <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_13921494">"We all Pay the Price for Obesity, Diabetes."</a><br />The article is about the growing problem of diabetes and obesity in America.<br /><br />The author never addresses an actual solution; he simply spews out arbitrary stats and hides his agenda behind his supposed ‘good intentions.’ After all, who wouldn’t want to lower diabetes in America, especially in our children? Yet, look closer and it is clear this author simply wishes to enforce the way he believes we should all live our lives. The fact that costs will go up – because of government mandates, Medicare and Medicaid – is why we must do something, as the author postulates. The author does allude to a personal responsibility we all have to ourselves, but fails to connect that idea to the principle of individual’s rights.<br /><br />The fact that we are paying people to lead unhealthy lives is the real problem. Begin to rid our nation of the thousands of government intervention in the medical industry, and we will begin to see people take responsibility for their lives. Nothing will get people thinking more about their own health, than when it hits their pocketbooks.cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-52331697422375307432009-12-04T09:57:00.004-07:002009-12-09T09:21:47.074-07:00Letter to the editor of the Denver Post 11/29/09Below is a short LTE I wrote to the Denver Post in regards to <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_13876198">THIS</a> op-ed piece. The article is entitled "Salazar Right to Rebuff Critics." The article is about interior Secretary Ken Salazar position on the oil and gas industry, and critics pegging him as an anti-driller.<br /><br />Be wary whenever you hear a politician claim what they are doing is for the “public good,” or for the good of the “taxpayer.” Salazar stated that trade groups don’t own public lands; taxpayers do. What exactly does that mean? Who specifically is the ‘taxpayer,’ and how does anyone know what’s best for them? An important thing to understand is that there is no such thing as a public. The public is merely made up of individuals. You cannot have a public commodity or a publicly own anything, because this concept “public” is simply an abstract term denoting a group of individuals. The question we must ask is if these policies help me as an individual?<br /><br />By using this term “taxpayer” Salazar is asking for a free-for-all in his ability to trade political favors. After all, as long as he can say it is in the “public good” he can get away with almost anything. America’s constitution is designed to protect individual rights, not public rights; which is a contradiction in terms.cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-73894313569945940262009-10-21T07:41:00.000-06:002009-10-21T07:42:19.931-06:00The Reality of Medical CarePeople forget that words have specific meanings and that certain ideologies can accrue very real negative consequences; whether intended or not. The health care question is not merely what type of government takeover we want, but how much our government can fake reality. American’s today are so far disconnected from reality that their concept of rights, among other concepts such as medical coverage versus medical care, has been eroded to mean whatever politicians or intellectuals tell them it means.<br /> Ignoring facts has deadly consequences. For example, many American’s are under the impression that other industrialized countries are far superior to America because they all have some form of single-payer government medical care. The idea that a whole country is ‘covered’ for medical services will not alter reality. Medical services are a limited resource and thus it is impossible for every person in a country to have access to their own MRI, CAT, or private doctor twenty-four hours a day. Rationing must take place. The possible choices historically are to either allow the government to ration in any way it sees fit, or to allow prices to ration objectively in a free society. Looking strictly at the practical results it is the latter option which has proven far superior. <br /> In Canada, a country that has a single-payer system, the average time a person might wait from being referred by a general practitioner to actual treatment is over 17.7 weeks according to The Fraser Institute’s annual waiting list survey. Depending on where a Canadian patient resides the time could range anywhere from two to twenty-four weeks simply to receive a diagnosis using machinery such as MRI’s, CT’s or ultrasounds. Britain is no different, worse even. In 2002 the London Observer (3/3/02) published statistics illustrating cancer patients waiting over eight months for treatments, during which time cancer can become incurable. Even taking into account America’s heavily regulated medical industry, it usually only takes a few days to receive diagnosis and begin treatment.<br /> The evidence that socialized medical care systems are deadly can be seen by simple investigations into any countries with socialized medicine. Yet, the country always damned, America, is the one country the entire world depends on for new medications, treatments, technological advances, and more.<br /> Another absurdity often touted is that unchecked capitalism has allowed greedy business people to run up costs on innocent and unsuspecting customers. To believe this idea is to completely divorce oneself from reality. Our government is the single largest spender of medical services in America, totaling nearly half of all spending in the industry. The so-called ‘private’ companies are subject to thousands of federal and state mandates, regulations, oversights and more. To call this capitalism is an absolute abnegation of reality.<br /> A more serious abnegation is American’s vast disconnect with reality in regards to the concept of rights. To believe that someone is born with a right to have unlimited access (or any access) to medical care; is to disregard the fact that medical care doesn’t grow in nature, and that someone will have to provide this service whether they want to or not. There can be no such thing as the right to enslave.<br /> It is claimed that every American has the right to life; after all, it says so in the constitution. Once again, words have specific meanings and to negate the concept of rights is to destroy all of humankind’s progress so far. A right can only pertain to actions. A person has a right to pursue a career in order to make money so they can buy a house or pay for a health insurance plan that fits their needs. They do not have a right to a car, a house, health care, a cell phone, a trip to Fiji or any other such good or service which must be provided at the expense of someone else.<br /> To those who say that many American’s are unable to afford health insurance; look at reality. American’s can most certainly afford medical care. Where do you think the government gets the money it spends? They get it from the American middle class taxpayer. Although, the rich do pay higher taxes, there are vastly more middle class American’s than there are rich ones, and the burden will assuredly fall to the middle. For those truly unable to afford insurance, they must rely solely on other people’s charity. Regarding this concept and its modern negation, consider two points.<br /> First, there can only be a small minority of people who truly can’t afford healthcare in any country considering comprehensive single-payer health care. If a majority couldn’t afford medical care that country couldn’t afford a massive government takeover.<br /> Second, this small minority must rely on private voluntary charity, which is abundant in a free society. In the 1960’s when Medicare and Medicaid were being pushed through congress, liberals did not claim that the elderly were not receiving medical care, because they were. Less fortunate elderly people should not have to rely on charity is what they claimed. Switching the meaning of a word doesn’t change reality. If some people receive a service at no cost to them, and paid for by others, this is charity. It doesn’t matter what name someone gives it. To assume the government taking money from one group of individuals and giving it to another is not forced charity is like saying a college student receiving most of their income from their parents is ‘self-reliant.’<br /> Evading facts of reality doesn’t change anything. To continually push our country down the road of socialism and call this a good solution is to flat out ignore all the countries throughout history that have suffered under socialist ideology. It is time we advocate “change;” let’s try capitalism for once.cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-6399688892853786302009-10-17T00:18:00.003-06:002009-10-17T00:21:49.914-06:00The Real Goal of the Green Climate Crusade - A speech by Dr. Keith LockitchCome see Dr. Keith Lockitch explain what the Climate crusade is really all about.<br />Located in Denver Colorado on the Auraria Campus on November 18th from 6:30pm-8:30pm<br /><br /><strong>The Real Goal of the Green Climate Crusade<br /></strong>Environmentalists claim that our use of carbon-based energy is altering the climate, making us more vulnerable to climate disasters. Human survival, they insist, requires the immediate abandonment of fossil fuels in favor of carbon-free sources. So why do environmentalist groups vehemently oppose projects involving every alternative form of energy ever proposed to replace fossil fuels—including wind farms and solar power plants? And why do they ignore the dramatic degree to which industrial development under capitalism has reduced the risk of harm from severe climate events? Before we rush headlong into drastic climate policies and energy rationing, a critical examination of these policies is urgently needed. Dr. Keith Lockitch will address these important issues and answer audience questions.<br /><br />Click <a href="http://aurariacampusobjectivists.blogspot.com/2009/10/real-goal-of-green-climate-crusade.html">HERE </a>for more information.cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-31069252594824474212009-08-23T12:07:00.003-06:002009-08-23T12:08:48.921-06:00The Importance of the Amazon Kindle 2<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi02MyWnOwvgoZVlIQ2Gh7kDJop1F4EQyQzUg4BdOF9BYyuJtOjp8A-A930eSbYjS-hEmw0n3s1eoZFH5mqLq2RZyMOFZYnaU1IcqBYlSd_RnEsygh2GV8RzgZPv1l1WpbqJf81a4fNWoQ/s1600-h/kindle.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5373222570499455330" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 198px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi02MyWnOwvgoZVlIQ2Gh7kDJop1F4EQyQzUg4BdOF9BYyuJtOjp8A-A930eSbYjS-hEmw0n3s1eoZFH5mqLq2RZyMOFZYnaU1IcqBYlSd_RnEsygh2GV8RzgZPv1l1WpbqJf81a4fNWoQ/s200/kindle.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br />It sits there, next to my computer, whirring in exalted silence, seeming to say to me, “read me! Read me!” It is the Amazon Kindle 2. For those poor uninformed souls out there, unaware of what a kindle is, put yourself at ease, I shall reveal to you the wonder that is The Kindle 2. A kindle – produced by Amazon – may be one of the next great technological improvements of our time. Simply put, it is an electronic e-book reader. While true that there are other e-book readers on the market, and soon to be more, the Kindle easily trumps them all.<br /><br />The Kindle 2 (Amazon’s second version) is stock full of new goodies. It includes special gray tone technology to ensure ease of reading on your eyes – it’s just like reading a print book. The screen has anti-glare technology, and the kindle also is equipped with whisper net capabilities. Whisper net is free internet – works like a cell phone – to allow ease of purchasing new books, magazines, newspapers, blogs and more; on the go. The Kindle also has a speak to me function – although this is like listening to a robot attempting to pronounce proper names not in its dictionary, still somewhat effective for reading on the go.<br /><br />The way in which The Kindle 2 will revolutionize our lives is threefold. One, people who found excuses not to read, such as difficulty in carrying books around wherever they go, will have no such excuses today; the kindle is lightweight and little thicker than a fountain pen. Next, individuals who wish to write: books, blogs, newspapers, magazines, but find it difficult to get their work published, now have a cheaper alternative. Who needs the printed word anymore? Lastly, it will save the poor backs of every student the world over! Why would anyone carry humongous loads of books around in burdensome backpacks when a Kindle can fit in the back pocket of many a baggy jean? Moreover, The Kindle 2 holds over 150,000 books, not including your own online library – care of Amazon.<br /><br />This remarkable product was brought about in a free market, where the decline of readers of the printed word has opened up a whole new market. Yet again, we are given a brilliant example of free minds in open markets establishing new ways to give their customers what they want. E-reading will not eliminate reading, but enhance it; and, assuming the government stays out of this sector of the economy, the price of The Kindle and e-readers like it will drop dramatically in price as technology improves through competition – much like computers – making this wonderful product (with a battery life of up to two weeks) available to everyone. Bye-bye <em>New York Times, Denver Post, Economist, Constitutional Reporters</em> – PRINT – I have my kindle now, I’ll see you there.cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-44938399655693155702009-08-22T19:55:00.004-06:002009-08-22T19:58:47.960-06:00Thomas Sowell's "The Housing Boom and Bust," A review<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwd0DYgEdZDZNUuEDinPr8o6DAHqtzSkthbT6WXidg8XHo_p6YVu_pIp032c0YjsJfbhgNBL37CO0CgdaaiVr3s_DWHe2lOCDZl7so3FZzv1YzQ3fER3XXPSnO_Ew31Wej9w3RWpUy2qI/s1600-h/41wYncT-hML__SL500_.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5372972369885864402" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 132px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwd0DYgEdZDZNUuEDinPr8o6DAHqtzSkthbT6WXidg8XHo_p6YVu_pIp032c0YjsJfbhgNBL37CO0CgdaaiVr3s_DWHe2lOCDZl7so3FZzv1YzQ3fER3XXPSnO_Ew31Wej9w3RWpUy2qI/s200/41wYncT-hML__SL500_.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>Before Obama took office his soon-to-be chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel uttered these words, which every American should clearly understand: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” He added: “What I mean by that is that it’s an opportunity to do things you could not do before.” (Ch. 5) That this was said explicitly, with no consequences, is atrocious. Whether said explicitly or not, however, this seems to be the policy of most politicians today. Dr. Sowell, author of Economic Facts and Fallacies, and Basic Economics, points out the consequences of Mr. Emanuel’s statement, and how true it turned out to be. Dr. Sowell illustrates the reality of the harm caused by government meddling in the housing industry, explaining the use of ‘solutions’ in order to fix imaginary ‘problems.’ “What is called a solution in politics is often simply a patch put over problems caused by previous political ‘solutions,’” as Dr. Sowell puts it. </div><div><br />In the <em>Housing Boom and Bust</em>, Dr. Sowell shows the impacts of all the major government programs in the housing industry, and their dramatic consequences. This book holds all of the relevant necessities for anybody who wishes to clearly understand the root causes of the housing crisis; including the loud cries by some experts and public officials who warned against this disaster years before it occurred. </div><div><br />Dr. Sowell points out the efficiency in which the government – both the Bush administration and the Obama – passed bills such as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The idea behind this bill was apparently to ‘stimulate’ a stagnating economy, in other words, get people spending money again. However, the government throwing money at banks had the exact opposite effect; predictably this was immediately blamed on the greedy Bank CEO’s and their enormous paychecks. It seems that politicians and their media cronies can always blame someone else when the very specific plans they institute fail. The TARP money, ideally, was going to trickle its way throughout the economy. “The idea sounds fine, as most political ideas do. But the real question is: Is that what has actually happened? Is that what usually happens?” (ch4) In his book, Dr. Sowell adamantly states the answer is no, and through clear empirical evidence he proves his case. As he points out, the only real increase in spending was accomplished by the government. </div><div><br />There has been no worse patch instituted by the government then the imaginary problem America has had with ‘affordable’ housing. Acts such as the Community Reinvestment act of 1977 (CRA) forced banks to make loans to people with bad credit history, merely because politicians wanted to give the illusion of affordable housing for everyone, and this gave way to such ‘creative’ loans as adjustable rate mortgages (ARMS) and eventually progressing to no down payment housing. When interest rates were raised by the Federal Reserve, the first people to be hit the hardest were usually minorities, the very same group of people the government was attempting to make housing affordable for, “so much for the favor being done to minorities.” (Ch. 3) </div><div><br />In order for politicians to reach their goal of increased power, facts must be not only distorted, but ignored. The idea that housing was somehow unaffordable in America was first untrue, and second, increased housing prices were caused by government interference in the housing markets to begin with – a pre patch, patch so to speak. The average price for a home in America is only 3.6 times Americans average income, in Great Britain it’s 5.5 times, New Zealand 6.3, as in many other places. Before the 1970’s Americans only spent around twice as much on their home as their median income – meaning “A family dedicating a quarter of its income to a mortgage could pay off a loan for a home in a little more than 10 years.”(Ch. 2) Of course, this all changed with legislation passed in the 70’s, such as CRA. </div><div><br />One importance economic fact to understand is that it does not cost a million dollars more to construct a house in California as it does most anywhere else in the U.S. The reason for the extra expense is land cost. However, Dr. Sowell explicates that a vast majority of land in coastal California, among many places across the U.S., is illegal to build on, which subsequently drives up the price of the remaining land, and is a major cause to the huge increase of creative financing for home loans in these regions. </div><div><br />There is much misunderstanding in regards to the housing crisis. Moreover, most people don’t even know who all the major players involved are. Government organizations whose duty it was to prevent a crisis like this, such as: The Federal Reserve, The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). All of these organizations were set up by the government in order to protect Americans from the catastrophe that they though was inevitable, their failure indicates not the failure of the free market – which they claim – but a failure to realize that the manipulation of the economy by the government can only lead to one horrid conclusion. </div><div><br />Beyond the major players involved in this fiasco are all of the economic misunderstandings of the housing market, which Sowell clears up. He covers the economic impacts of zoning laws, minimum lot size laws, open space laws, height restrictions, preservations laws, building permit laws and much more. In his explanation of the many impacts of these policies, Dr. Sowell elucidates the reality that when facts are pushed around Washington, demagoguery always trumps. </div><div><br />The only missing ingredient to this book seems to be its utter failure to defend capitalism on a moral ground. He makes the very loud claim that “rights are not the issue” and that “The purpose of Government is not to exercise every conceivable right it has. But to exercise whatever wisdom it has for the benefit of the country.”(Ch. 5) While his book shows every practical reason the government should leave the housing market alone, he doesn’t mention one moral reason. If it is practical, but “rights are not the issue” then doing the moral thing should be obligatory, and since there is no defense of the morality involved it is left open as to why we should only follow the practical reasoning. It doesn’t really matter that the government enlists laws like “open space laws” under the claim that we are destroying too much nature even though we only inhabit 10% of the land in The United States. The relevant moral problem is why does a government have the ability to force American’s to build their homes on more expensive land because some interest groups feel that land has intrinsic value? </div><div><br />Dr. Sowell has once again put forth a fascinating case study into the history of the housing crisis going all the way back to the 30’s, and despite its moral lacking it stands up as one of the few books giving a thorough breakdown of all the relevant factors regarding the 21st century housing boom and bust.</div><div> </div><div>This book is available for sale on Amazon <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Housing-Boom-Bust-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465018807">HERE </a>for $16.47</div>cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-84784381411191476722009-08-06T22:39:00.001-06:002009-08-06T22:41:21.862-06:00Reporting myselfBelow is an e-mail I sent to the whitehouse in order to report myself for opposing Obama's new healthcare bill. Ari Armstrong and many others have written in, and so should you. Read <a href="http://www.freecolorado.com/2009/08/report-yourself-to-obamas-thought.html">here </a>for more information.<br /><br />Here is what I sent:<br /><br />I am a 24 year old film student at the University of Colorado Denver. I want to turn myself in to whoever is in charge of your thought police. I have started a newspaper, a blog, and I am currently working on a video to infect the youth on campus of that nasty word which you have no right in uttering; truth. I will ensure that many young people are aware of what you are doing to their futures. Please inform me of where I need to go in order to turn myself in for the abhorrent crime of thinking.cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-52393644172339059902009-08-03T00:18:00.001-06:002009-08-03T00:19:06.643-06:00Tea Contest VideoThis is a video Cornered Tumbleweed Productions did for a 15k scholarship. Please check it out, the more hits we get the better chance we have of winning.<br /><br />Thanks for all the help everyone.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWDgPpuH92Y">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWDgPpuH92Y</a>cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-29380663554194624742009-07-23T12:44:00.006-06:002009-07-26T10:24:04.326-06:00A Schopenhauerian dialogue on the frustraions of a broken heart<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnOouU8aZV7VJ-rK4j0mIXPcCA6nrZzM4wSbEYh_khpVJxCMLRBswN7h8hWz7EtbaEZTjacZP18rg7HdbM3Qhovo62kYBnyahcxX0odSilHZ1UER8NoAkuZy4nrmBZLz5R9kANok58rAM/s1600-h/schopenhauer_and_hegel.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5361729855195068482" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 144px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnOouU8aZV7VJ-rK4j0mIXPcCA6nrZzM4wSbEYh_khpVJxCMLRBswN7h8hWz7EtbaEZTjacZP18rg7HdbM3Qhovo62kYBnyahcxX0odSilHZ1UER8NoAkuZy4nrmBZLz5R9kANok58rAM/s200/schopenhauer_and_hegel.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><em>In a Nazi concentration camp two Jewish captives sit, huddled together in the freezing winter snow seeming to hang tenaciously to the last remnants of their humanity. Around them are a few hovels and men in Nazi uniforms laughing and eating heartily. Once in a while a Nazi officer walks by wearing a large extravagant fur coat eating a massive turkey leg spilling it all over his shirt and looks right down at the two captives and says “I dare you to eat the crumbs.” The captives don’t move they merely huddle closer together. Upon witnessing this scene it looks almost comical in its horrific juxtaposition of happiness and human depravity; the eyes of any visitor are led directly to the massive painting of the camps leader the man to whom all owe their allegiance a huge 10 foot by 12 foot painting of the fuehrer Hitler. </em><br /><em></em><br />Jew1: Oh how I miss my dear one.<br />Jew2: Yes, I know.<br /><br /><em>Jew2 slyly picks up a few crumbs from the preceding officer and shovels them greedily into his mouth.</em><br /><br />Jew2: I think it is time you just realize where we are. We are in a concentration camp and will soon be dead, so be it.<br />Jew1: I don’t want to die! I want to see my wife, just one more time, I wish for life!<br />Jew2: Don’t you see there is no life left here; there is only death.<br />Jew1: OOH but…<br /><br /><em>Jew1 gets up and begins dancing and singing.</em><br /><br />Jew1: OOH but… MYYYY “Heart, my achy breaky heart”<br /><br /><em>As he begins to sing a knife flies right next to his face and loud boos and calls to SHUT UP come from the Nazi tent next to them. Jew2 seems unperturbed by this sudden outburst and greedily picks up a bug and sticks it into his mouth.</em><br /><br />Jew2: So you have a broken heart… Who cares, we’ll all be dead soon anyway, life doesn’t mean a thing.<br />Jew1: But it does! Don’t you see, as long as we have life there is a chance, ooh my friend there is a chance, we can give into our morbid desires and pass away into the ether or we can fight back! I say we fight.<br /><br /><em>A loud yell comes from the Nazi tent: “SHUT UP YOU JEW!”</em><br /><br />Jew2: Well you won’t have much of a life soon if you don’t stop talking. I say we see if we can get more crumbs from the officers tent. They are too busy masquerading as philosophers to know what’s going on; if you would just be quiet.<br />Jew1: But we can’t! We might get caught and die and be killed, then what will we do?<br />Jew2: I have come to view life as a uselessly disturbing episode in the blissful repose of nothingness.<br />Jew1: What? What on earth does that mean?<br />Jew2: EXACTLY!<br />Jew1: You can do whatever you want; I’m staying right here.<br />Jew2: Suit yourself.<br /><br /><em>Jew2 cleverly sneaks from one post to another. Whenever an officer walks by the area he simply begins whistling a Richard Wagner tune lightheartedly and pretends to be doing some form of work. The first time he is seen he takes an officers coat and begins to dust it off; another time he grabs a pot of coffee from the Nazi tent and begins filling the cups of the nearby officers. All the while, he is slowly taking crumb after crumb from the tables and floor around the officers and slipping it into his tucked in shirt. Eventually he seems to be attaining a bit of a belly. Soon, he heads back over to Jew1.</em><br /><br />Jew2: SEE! Mmmm. You are sitting around accomplishing nothing, while I have attained some food for myself!<br /><br /><em>Jew1 looks heartily at the food while saying this line</em><br /><br />Jew1: how can I think of food when I haven’t seen my wife for 4 months! I miss her so much. What if she’s been forced to find another man? Or what if she’s dead? Or worse?<br />Jew2: Meh, all my family was killed long ago; what does it matter? Human existence must be some kind of error anyway! Its bad one day, worse the next.<br />Jew1: I know it seems that way, but I won’t accept that this is the norm of life. I have lived 32 years of life in relative ease and great comfort! I have seen life is benevolent. Ooh woe is me. What is happening to this world?<br /><br /><em>Jew1 begins sobbing hysterically. Just as he begins sobbing, a rather morose looking young Nazi soldier walks past them and looks down at the two Jews</em>.<br /><br />Nazi: What are you crying about Jew? Why aren’t you satisfied with what we’ve given you? You are still alive and able to serve men such as us. Quit your blubbering.<br />Jew2: He is sad because he has lost his love.<br />Nazi: AAAH. Love. What a terrible mistake is love. Your woman is probably off procreating with some man, I would not worry about that too much, Jew, you have other things to be tending to; life is miserable and we are here to help you through this misery. We will see that you’re life is no longer a waste. Look Jew, I will tell you something. Do you see that woman Jew over there? Why do you not go there and copulate with her? She is as good as any other right?<br /><br /><em>The three look over at the raggedly ugly woman stumbling into the scene.</em><br /><br />Jew1: oh but my lovely is mine. I miss her, how can I imagine being with someone who is not my lovely?<br />Nazi: She is only your lovely in the past. Not anymore. Love is fleeting and only a result of your will-to-life as father Schopenhauer teaches. It is not up to you who you love. You only claim to love this woman of yours because in your subconscious mind you believe you will breed better Jews from her. Let me tell you, one Jew is as good as another.<br />Jew1: Oh no sir that isn’t true! I know this might seem strange to you, but we are meant for one another. I just know I will see my darling dearest again. I can see us out on the balcony of our home, which does not exist anymore, just dancing.<br /><br /><em>Jew1 gets up again and grabs the Nazi officer in a daydream like trance and begins singing and dancing with him.</em><br /><br />Jew1: Heaven, I’m in Heaven, and my heart beats so that I can hardly speak, and I seem to find the happiness I seek, when we’re out together dancing cheek to cheek.<br /><br /><em>Once again loud shouts from the tent and a barrage of eaten turkey leg bones, plates, forks, knives come flying towards the three individuals. The Nazi soldier composes himself and pushes jew1 away; trying to play off the fact that he was dancing voluntarily.</em><br /><br />Nazi: You are crazy.<br />Jew2: That’s what I’ve been telling him for months now!<br />Nazi: Shut up! Your opinion doesn’t matter.<br />Jew2: I apologize. I am simply agreeing with everything you say. This is a world in which human life must be some kind of mistake; this is sufficiently proved by the simple observation that man is a compound of needs which are hard to satisfy; that their satisfaction achieves nothing but a painless condition in which he is only given over to boredom; and that boredom is a direct proof that existence is in itself valueless, for boredom is nothing other than the sensation of the emptiness of existence.<a title="" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2316341132127516555#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a><br />Nazi: I am glad you have read father Schopenhauer. It is too bad you are only a Jew.<br />Jew2: yes. It is too bad.<br />Jew1: Wait! You haven’t helped me with my broken heart at all!<br />Nazi: As our father would conclude “That our Existence itself implies guilt is proved by the fact of death.”<br />Jew1: What does that mean? And how does that help my broken heart.<br />Jew2: OOH. Show him show him good sir!<br /><br /><em>Nazi systematically takes out his side arm and shoots Jew1 three times in the chest. Jew2 claps and says:</em><br /><br />Jew2: yes he is no longer guilty. Good day to you Sir.<br /><br /><em>Nazi summarily shoots Jew2.</em><br /><br /><em>As Nazi holsters his sidearm and walks away Jew1 miraculously stands up and begins singing to his beloved.</em><br /><br />Jew1: Night and day, you are the one; Only you beneath the moon or under the sun; Whether near to me, or far it’s no matter darling where you are I think of you day and night.<br /><br /><em>Once again pots, pans, knives, food, drink, even a stuffed animal comes flying at the Jew, and everyone yells together: SHUT UP!<br /></em><br /><a title="" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2316341132127516555#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> Schopenhauer, Arthur. On the Vanity of Existence. Essays and Aphorisms. s.l. : Penguin Group.cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-9792495815821850082009-07-17T23:47:00.004-06:002009-07-17T23:58:21.911-06:00Integration of Music and Movies<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJXNgIje2F38nSZDnEebJofQDMJHwvEI8sQFITQr_xW0DYFMBgyyIsiMn_i6wVrYLW1ZrbPG3YOvpK1B_7TSNJWzTlTdsb6El_vhETvtsLahclD2_NV2U73H5DDs8wD48qd6broZU0S74/s1600-h/music%2520and%2520movies%2520logo.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5359673293243273090" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 74px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJXNgIje2F38nSZDnEebJofQDMJHwvEI8sQFITQr_xW0DYFMBgyyIsiMn_i6wVrYLW1ZrbPG3YOvpK1B_7TSNJWzTlTdsb6El_vhETvtsLahclD2_NV2U73H5DDs8wD48qd6broZU0S74/s200/music%2520and%2520movies%2520logo.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><p><br />Today, movies and music go hand in hand, and it seems hard to imagine a time when movies had no sound; in fact, even from the very outset of images on screen music was played alongside them. Throughout the 20th century many possibilities have been attempted in regards to the integration of movies and music. These attempts usually became the conventionalities we see today, such as the cliché on screen of playing a slow sad musical composition with a slow sad scene in a movie. Eventually it has been attempted – somewhat successfully – to juxtapose two mixed aspects of sight and sound in order to convey some mixed concepts; this is when a director has a high suspense action scene and has a slow classical composition as the background music, and many times this contrast can effectively – if in a bromidic fashion – emphasis the event occurring on screen. </p><p><br />These attempts at using images and music can, if done correctly, result in magnificently portrayed abstract concepts. However, in almost every instance a movie director has a certain task – such as to project love – and merely uses love songs along with the story of Romeo and Juliet; when this happens all the director has accomplished is a simple bromidic surface level concrete of this complex abstract idea, and no one is left understanding what love really means or where it comes from. The combination of images and sound are capable of portraying much deeper concepts. Unfortunately, this has not been attempted properly very often; however, there are three movies where they have been: <em>Immortal Beloved</em> by Bernard Rose, <em>Copying Beethoven</em> by Agneszka Holland, and <em>Peter Shaffer’s Amadeus</em> by Milos Forman.<br /><br />The first of these <em>Immortal</em> takes place primarily in the form of an inquisitive search. Beginning with Beethoven’s death, a letter is found; Beethoven’s last will and testament, which he names a new heir to his estates and it’s not his brother, but his immortal beloved. The letter sends one of Beethoven’s most faithful servants – Schindler – on a journey into Beethoven’s past. He discovers a troubling man. It is a story that delves into the making of a musical genius; it’s theme: the effects music has upon our emotions and what it can do to their creator. </p><p><br />The next movie <em>Copying Beethoven</em> covers a much smaller time span in Beethoven’s life; mainly the composing and debut of his 9th symphony. A female musical copyist is sent to help Beethoven finish his composition before the appearance in four days. The story is more about the copyist’s revelations through the genius of Beethoven. </p><p><br />Lastly, <em>Amadeus</em> is a movie that takes place in the story telling of the movies main character – the court composer Antonio Salieri. When Salieri discovers the musical brilliance he has always admired is wasted on a childish jokester like Mozart; he begins to plot for Mozart’s demise. Through a series of failures and successes Salieri is finally triumphant in defeating Mozart, but it has cost them both a great deal.<br /><br />These three movies depict music in three distinctive manners. <em>Immortal </em>uses carefully selected images to convey the mood Beethoven was trying to impose. In <em>Copying</em>, they merely use the reactions of audience members to show the mood. <em>Amadeus</em> shows only what the two main characters feel as a result of their music. <em>Amadeus</em> is different than the other two because it is naturalistic to a much higher degree; the movies main goal is to enumerate the steps and consequences of a sadistic man’s jealous nature about his own inferiority. What makes the movie to be a mere surface level naturalist movie is the fact that it takes humans as readymade, and it presupposes people as being jealous without showing where it comes from or what causes a person to become so jealous. </p><p><br />Movies have an uncanny ability to express concepts to us using one of our most important perceptual senses; sight: it also can use our sense of hearing as a clear awareness of the mood the movie is giving us. To combine the two – sight and sound – is of profound importance that has not been properly accomplished. This is due to the fact that as far as our precepts go in music we have not discovered an objective manner in deciphering and understanding the meaning of sounds in regards to our subconscious mind. </p><p><br />Most movies, especially today, show a very crude understanding of music and what it is able to achieve. An example is a recent movie: <em>The Soloist</em> by Joe Wright. During an important scene wherein one of the main characters – Nathaniel Ayers played by Jamie Foxx – is taken to a private rehearsal of a local orchestra and is overcome by the music he loves so much. Mr. Wright has assumed the very worst in regards to music and our subconscious. The way in which music is ‘shown’ in this movie is by random colors thrown on screen in a Stan Brakhage manner. This displays the director’s vision of music; which is mystical, other-worldly and unknowable.</p><p><br />Art is a selective re-creation based on an artist’s view. In <em>The Soloist</em> the director has chosen to elucidate his ideals as to the epistemology behind music using random shapes and colors; in essence, he claims that music can only give the emotional equivalent of an annoying pin prick, but he doesn’t understand that music is capable of much more.</p><p><br />The most unfulfilled potential in art lies with movies. Since movies are a visual art, but don’t merely give one image but thousands of images over a certain span of time, they have the ability of communicating what an artist painting a series of paintings could never dream of doing. The movie has only one master and term-setter which is its literary aspect; this means literature is what provides the metaphysical element that enables the pictures on screen to become a concretization of an abstract view of human beings. When the literary aspect is removed from film it is simply a vaudeville or circus. Music has always been an incidental accompaniment to movies. </p><p><br />The most unique of the arts is music. This particular art form works backwards in regard to a human’s interaction between the conscious mind and the automatic functions of the subconscious. All other arts create a physical object such as a book or a painting, which then carries the person’s perceptual grasp upon the object to a conceptual grasp.<a title="" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2316341132127516555#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> As Rand put it, the pattern is:</p><blockquote>From perception – to conceptual understanding – to appraisal – to emotion… In<br />music it is perception – to emotion – to appraisal – to conceptual<br />understanding. (emphasis mine)<br /></blockquote><p>When listening to a piece of music it can seem very similar to dreaming. Ostensibly random images pop in the listeners mind, but these images are not exactly random since the abstract emotion is carefully selected by the composer. The power of music is to use the vibrations from sonorous bodies to bring about a particular feeling of a certain abstraction. For example, a musical composition cannot show you what piousness looks like – as in the Bellini painting St. Francis of Assisi in Ecstasy – but it can give you the feeling; it can’t show you what it is like to stand in front of your beloved after returning from war, but it can give you the feeling. With music’s ability to reach straight into your subconscious emotions and then allow your mind to perform the concretization process the possibilities for music is as of yet almost completely unknown.<br /><br />In particular scenes throughout the three movies – <em>Immortal Beloved</em>, <em>Copying Beethoven</em>, and <em>Amadeus</em>- each director gives specific examples of what they believe music’s capabilities are, and of the three only <em>Immortal </em>comes close to any particular truth in this manner.</p><p><br />In <em>Amadeus</em> music is shown mainly through its effects upon the two main characters, which incidentally somewhat coincides with the plot-theme: The jealous Salieri’s destructive attempts to destroy Mozart. Also, the movies theme is the inspiration of genius, and what effects this has on inferiors. The movie fails artistically to convey where that inspiration comes from; and it also fails to properly use music to express the abstraction of jealousy. This is due to the naturalistic approach of the story. When we see a scene which has Mozart or Salieri conducting, the movie concentrates upon what it is doing to the composer, and sometimes a few audience members. This is presupposing the antecedent event; in other words, the movie’s director expects the viewer to simply enjoy the same emotions as the composer, which almost negates the effect the music might have. </p><p><br /><em>Copying Beethoven</em> is guilty of the same laziness as <em>Amadeus</em>. The director expects the viewer to garner a sense of what he wishes to convey as the concrete, but he does not want to do the work himself, he is like a child beating on pots and pans in his parent’s kitchen expecting beautiful meanings to emerge. Both directors are succeeding in producing very rudimentary concepts in regards to the abstract feeling or idea they want to allow the audience to understand. <em>Immortal</em> goes a little further in both the explanation of music and its subsequent portrayal of it throughout the movie.</p><p><br />In one of the scenes that sets <em>Immortal</em> apart in regards to understanding music, and being a bit more of a romantic story, is the scene when Herr Schindler – the character going on the journey to discover who Beethoven’s immortal beloved is – tells the story of how he met Beethoven: <em>Schindler is listening to two virtuoso’s rehearse the new Beethoven Sonata, Beethoven enters and loudly starts talking to Schindler – Beethoven is mostly deaf by this point – and he explains his understanding of music</em></p><blockquote>Music is a dreadful thing. What is it? What does it do..? If you hear a marching<br />band; you march. If you hear a mass you take communion. It is the power of music<br />to carry one directly into the mental state of the composer. The listener has no<br />choice, it is like hypnotism… So now, what was in my mind when I wrote this? A<br />man is trying to reach his lover, his carriage has broken down in the rain;<br />wheels are stuck in the mud, she will only wait so long. This is the sound of<br />his agitation.</blockquote><p><br />What sets this movie apart in regard to understanding music is the image shown during this sequence. As Schindler listens to Beethoven’s Sonata an image comes to the screen of an incident that has happened in Beethoven’s mind that inspired the Sonata, and the image is of Beethoven struggling in a dark, muddy, insolent forest; rain dousing him, his muscles strained to the extreme trying to push this carriage back onto the road so he may reach his beloved. It is important to note when listening to this Sonata that nobody else will be imposed by this particular image of Beethoven pushing a carriage in the rain – the listener will only get the feeling the composer had at that time. </p><p><br />As an attest to Beethoven’s greatness many movies have used his 9th symphony in their musical score. However, the two movies, <em>Immortal</em> and <em>Copying</em> both sought to demonstrate what the cause and effect of this piece has on our subconscious emotions. In <em>Copying</em> the director illuminates his surface level approach with regards to musical capabilities. As Beethoven is conducting the concert the camera holds on the intense emotions of Beethoven, his copyist and Karl (his nephew); among a few other audience members. By holding the camera on those three individuals it is left unsaid how and why they are feeling such emotions. <em>Immortal</em> does a much more succinct job with this same concert. As the concert begins we are shown an image of a young Beethoven after just having been abused by his father; he is running away to the sound of <em>The Ode to Joy</em>. As the boy reaches a pond the music is approaching its climax. The boy takes his shirt off and lays half naked in the dark black pond reflecting the starry night sky above. The camera has a bird’s eye view of the boy; then it begins to pull back with the increasing intensity of the music, and as it pulls back the boy looks as if he is laying among the stars, which concretizes in one image the feeling of heroics and the feeling of being among the gods that Beethoven was trying to demonstrate. </p><p><br />This image is a great example of what a proper marriage of sight and sound in motion can be capable of in art. These two mediums, together, have the ability to more succinctly concretize certain philosophical abstractions in our minds. It is not enough to merely juxtapose music to an image and randomly hope people will grasp the full meaning of the idea being attempted. It is unfortunate that psychologically we have not intoned the meaning of sounds epistemologically. And, there is still room for much improvement in this art. If one were able to fully integrate abstract ideas in both sight and sound, through a story, an artist could reach a level of the human psyche rarely ever touched. Understanding the basic principles of a human’s ability to form concepts could inevitably bring about new forms of meaning in images and sounds on screen. It would take a genius psychologist, magnificent composer and brilliant philosopher all in one to formulate a brand new way of integrating sounds to images. This would bring about new possibilities in all of the arts, and would make possible grand achievement in other areas of human endeavors. This form of integration could bring about an entirely new artistic era and usher humans back to the knowledge of their own benevolent greatness.<br /><br /><br /><br /><a title="" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=2316341132127516555#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> Rand, Ayn. Art and Cognition. The Romantic Manifesto. New York : New American Library, 1971</p><br /><div></div>cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-15033510266677259332009-07-13T22:53:00.002-06:002009-07-13T22:56:01.118-06:00Epicurus Dilemma Dialogue<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjrNvTqSVpIHLVOiepaw9X-CzFrJhVHyfMtyej622j1i9Gc2MAEF9TmjNOzSN-LbmKJDsoWLVyMRttunSlzLTdrp7AZ55NghSRMkfpKekseave8Cemr5Kj8gWCx4AEL4Ne79Lc5foO8Qk/s1600-h/epicurus.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5358175025417092546" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 156px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjrNvTqSVpIHLVOiepaw9X-CzFrJhVHyfMtyej622j1i9Gc2MAEF9TmjNOzSN-LbmKJDsoWLVyMRttunSlzLTdrp7AZ55NghSRMkfpKekseave8Cemr5Kj8gWCx4AEL4Ne79Lc5foO8Qk/s200/epicurus.gif" border="0" /></a><br /><p><br /><br /><em>An old woman Helena Piraska kneels in a garden, meticulously working the various flowers of a grand garden. She carefully holds a beautiful Acacia Rose flower in one hand, and carefully prunes the petals around it; with the same loving care she pulls out a spray bottle and gently sprays the flower, breathing life into life. At that moment George Boswell comes out of the large estate Helena is working at and walks to his car; grumbling to himself.</em> </p><br /><p><br />George Boswell: Helena! You’re still here, there’s no need; the garden looks fine.<br />Helena Piraska: Yes sir, I am almost done here.</p><p><br /><em>George walks over to his car and before getting in turns to the old woman.</em></p><p><br />GB: Helena, may I ask you a question?<br />HP: What is it?<br />GB: How are you always so happy, honestly, I do not pay you that well.<br />HP: You pay me for the job I do, and I thank you for that.<br />GB: How can you be so happy from the little I give you?<br />HP: You do not give me anything, I earn it, it is not a gift, but I procure it for my services: I earn it.<br />GB: Ok. Ok. You earn it, true enough. How can you be so happy to live off of so much?<br />HP: I get what I need from you.<br />GB: Why do you keep evading my question?<br />HP: Honestly, sir, I don’t think you would understand.<br />GB: I think now I want to be more open to listening, things aren’t going to great.<br />HP: What has happened?<br />GB: I just lost an enormous deal that would have put me on the map; I mean really put me above the rest of those hacks. I could have been one of the top 50 richest men in America. But not anymore, who knows what will happen now.<br />HP: Are you going to lose all of your money?<br />GB: Good god no! I’ll be fine. I have enough to last the rest of my life in luxury. It just doesn’t seem to be enough. I break down corporations and sell them off piecemeal; but sometimes I feel as if I’m doing it unscrupulously, and I don’t like how I earn my money anymore. Still, I know I want money, I want to have money and I never seemed good at producing anything, only destruction. I feel lost if I can’t be up there with the big boys. So, I guess I’m just curious how someone can live off of the amount that I give them? And, at the same time seem so happy!<br />HP: it’s easy really. I just don’t have the same values as you do Mr. Boswell.<br />GB: What do you mean; values? What do you value?<br />HP: Well, I would prefer working on my relationship with my husband rather than on a huge multi-million dollar deal. That type of value.<br />GB: Oh, so you enjoy the simple pleasures.<br />HP: If you wish to call them simple.<br />GB: What would you call them?<br />HP: Just about as extravagant as your values sir. I follow a certain philosophy, Epicureanism, or rational hedonism as some might call it.<br />GB: Now you’re speaking more my language. If you are such a hedonist how can you be content working in a garden for nickels? I’m a hedonist.<br />HP: Maybe, but are you living rationally is the real question?<br />GB: I enjoy pleasures, and I understand that they are the first good and that they are natural to us. This is what Epicurus said.<br />HP: Yes he did, but I think you should finish his statement. “For this very reason we do not choose every pleasure, but sometimes we pass over many pleasures, when greater discomfort accrues to us as the result of them: and similarly we think many pains better than pleasures, since a greater pleasure comes to us when we have endured pains for a long time. Every pleasure then because of its natural kinship to us is good, yet not every pleasure is to be chosen: even as every pain also is an evil, yet not all are always of a nature to be avoided. Yet by a scale of comparison and by the consideration of advantages and disadvantages we must form our judgment on all these matters…”<br />GB: What does that mean?<br />HP: Be rational.<br />GB: ugh, I must have skipped that class-<br />HP: What?<br />GB: Nothing! Can you explain that a bit for me please?<br />HP: Sure, it means that you must rationally choose what pleasures are best suited for you. Not all pleasure is the best, and you also much choose the pains which you need to survive and which are best suited to endure; not all pains are worth having. For example, you are in good shape; would you advocate eating 3 cartons of chocolate ice cream if you wanted to stay in good shape?<br />GB: Of course not. That would make me sick.<br />HP: That is a rational choice, and you should avoid those types of extremes. There are certain pains you must endure, for example; the pain it takes when you are working out in order to stay in shape. You, however, would not want to lift weights all day every day, or to try and lift 600 lbs when you know you are only capable of 250.<br />GB: yes, true.<br />HP: Well this is what it means to be a true Epicurean. I choose the values which are best suited to enhance my life, which I think are quite universal in many manners.<br />GB: Such as your husband?<br />HP: Exactly, I never eat alone. Tonight we are having friends over, I am working hard now so I may get done with work and go to the grocery store to buy a nice bottle of Pinot Noir, this I will gladly share with those who truly understand me in this world; people who do not need to be fooled by fancy clothes or nice cars, but who truly understand who I am and what I mean in this world. That is a value that you cannot buy Mr. Boswell.<br />GB: I can see the value in that. I can’t remember the last time I’ve had good company over. I think this conversation is the best I’ve had for quite a while. You know, when I started in college I was a bright eyed wannabe philosopher. Now I realize the practical.<br />HP: Have you received just compensation?<br />GB: No, I suppose I haven’t. Honestly, I don’t ever feel very happy. There was one time I felt happy.<br />HP: When was that sir?<br />GB: My freshman year, I met a grad student who was emphasizing in Aristotle. He told me a little bit about the great organizer, but there was one thing I really wanted to understand more. He showed me the theory of Aristotle’s subsequent metaphysics on the immovable movers. I believed they were supposed to be the giants of industry in today’s terms, but now I realize they are that and much more. I would really like to speak to that grad student again. I think his name was Andrew Ryan. I only met him the one time, but based off of that encounter he showed me what he believed were Aristotle’s intention. I suppose I really didn’t study it enough and took upon myself the wrong premises. All I can remember now is the mere fact that Aristotle could come up with and organize into theory and practice so much that this grad student thousands of years later was going to major in him. I knew there was no way anyone would ever major in me, I couldn’t even understand his very succinct explanation of the immovable mover. How was I to change the ideas of the world? I knew I would never be great enough to achieve such things, but I could go down a line my father did. He was a businessman, so I felt I could be one too.<br />HP: Why don’t you change your path and continue where you were?<br />GB: Bah, it’s too late now Helena. I’m a businessman, or I should say I destroy businessmen…<br />HP: I think, before I go, I will let you in on one of the major acquisitions Epicureans teach, which is thought.<br />GB: Yes, I’d like to hear about that.<br />HP: Epicurus was determined to ensure he and his friends would analyze all things involved in their lives; whether concerning death, money, illness etc. He believed firmly that upon rational thought a person would come to the proper conclusions about money. It isn’t bad to have money, it is just important to also have friends in order to experience life with. You can’t experience life with just your money Mr. Boswell.<br />GB: I know.<br />HP: Well I hope you will think on this: “The wealth demanded by nature is both limited and easily procured; that demanded by idle imaginings stretches on to infinity.”<br />GB: I don’t understand.<br />HP: It will take some thought, Mr. Boswell.<br />GB: Ok. I will think about what you said and I’ll be back! (To himself) To think, I have my own philosopher in my backyard.<br />GB (CONT): Oh by the way, take this; I want you to buy a nice bottle of Pinot Noir for you and your friends on me.<br />HP: I do not accept alms.<br />GB: It is not alms Helena. It is payment for my first philosophy lesson.</p><br /><div></div>cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-1333892075019403662009-07-11T09:38:00.004-06:002009-07-11T09:52:11.841-06:00Bad Science and Green Crazyness Isn't New<a href="http://sixmeatbuffet.com/images/timeshot1.gif"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 300px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 404px" alt="" src="http://sixmeatbuffet.com/images/timeshot1.gif" border="0" /></a><br /><div><br /><div>So, which is it; Global Cooling, Global Warming or Global Temperature Change?</div><br /><br /><div>Apparently, it is all three. In the 70's there was a huge uproar of what we should be doing to prevent the global cooling. Of course, we haven't cooled down, but we have obviously warmed up. Until, that is, the evidence that our whole world was warming up went away and now we are supposed to call it climate change. That seems quite ridiculous. Doesn't the global climate change constantly? Through the day, week, month, millenia? Of course it does, and history including very good science can even show us some of the changes, such as The medieval warming, the little ice age etc. Today we are worried about a temperature change not because anyone really cares what will happen to other people (the real damage will occur when they destroy technology), but because they wish to utilize the fear of average American's in order to take control over our lives. People are much more willing to give up certain liberties if they are convinced their lives and their families lives are at stake. </div><br /><br /><div>If you are unsure of my reasoning, below is a link to an article written in 1974 in TIME magazine. I want you to keep in mind that this is 1974 not 2009 and you will realize that the garbage we are being fed today is the same garbage they've been feeding us for over 30 years. </div><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><div><a href="http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf">Time Magazine (1974): "Another Ice Age?" </a></div></div>cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-91252415879359880442009-06-27T18:19:00.002-06:002009-06-27T18:24:47.468-06:00Socratic Dilemma Dialogue<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibjnUT2jCkf9vwYPy8NdjQarP1P5zp7sYv9q4I3NcF4lJpGKyXhwcxf8114_HYeLF-nStH3vSdPKqGrcTA_rSui_S63G1_nWDep3P9Rrc_YkC-nttnDx_ChJT1_MtzXH0XTEqRCWsvj8E/s1600-h/soc.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5352167796163614930" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 150px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibjnUT2jCkf9vwYPy8NdjQarP1P5zp7sYv9q4I3NcF4lJpGKyXhwcxf8114_HYeLF-nStH3vSdPKqGrcTA_rSui_S63G1_nWDep3P9Rrc_YkC-nttnDx_ChJT1_MtzXH0XTEqRCWsvj8E/s200/soc.bmp" border="0" /></a><br /><div align="left"><br />(A script writer sits alone in his home working on his next project his wife enters after a few moments)</div><br /><div align="left"><br />Andrew Kauf: Why, can’t I just write what I want?<br />Morgan Kauf: Hun, what’s the matter?<br />Andrew: I’m having difficulties with my next script. I’ve never felt like I can write what I want, but this idea I have is good, really good! I know it, but no one would ever buy it.<br />Morgan: How do you know that?<br />Andrew: I’ve been in the business for 15 years, I know what they want.<br />Morgan: What exactly is it they want, and why does it make you so angry?<br />Andrew: What they want is the same trash I always write. They wish me to write about the bum next door, the wretch, the whore, the man without purpose. They only want me to write about man’s depravity.<br />Morgan: What is wrong with exploring such things? Don’t people need to see what is wrong with men? Isn’t it the best way for them to learn, to understand, to appreciate?<br />Andrew: Maybe for other writers, if that is what they wish, maybe someone even is helped by it; although I doubt it. I just don’t know if I can write about another bum. How will people remember me?<br />Morgan: You are correct in your assumption there, they will remember you from the one thing you have been able to do. But, my question to you my dear is why you are worried about how people will remember you?<br />Andrew: Isn’t that what the value of life is? How else should I live my life?<br />Morgan: What is life, Andrew?<br />Andrew: What kind of question is that? I am life.<br />Morgan: Just a thought experiment Andrew… Let me ask you, if you are life, does that mean I am not life?<br />Andrew: Well of course you are life as well. But, I am alive so I am life.<br />Morgan: You are running circles around me in this experiment, it seems. Let me try again. Is a plant alive? Is a bird? A rock? What is life?<br />Andrew: Ok, well these questions seem a little weird, but I’ll humor you. Of course plants are alive, birds, but not rocks! Life is all that which is alive.<br />Morgan: If life is that which is alive, are cells and atoms alive? What about the rocks? They are made up of matter, which could seem alive, could they not?<br />Andrew: Well yes, but I think this is self evident darling.<br />Morgan: If it is self-evident then it shouldn’t be hard to explain, correct? So, my questioning returns to what is life? You see honey, if we can determine what is life, we perhaps can determine the purpose of life, and if you are leading the correct purpose.<br />Andrew: Alright fair enough, I’ll play along. Life consists of all living creatures, plants and animals alike, which are able to be a part of this existence past, present and future. Life could probably be best described by things which can procreate, for it is the continuation of a life which is necessary for life.<br />Morgan: Wow, that is really good Andrew. So, if we say life consists of all living creatures, plants and animals alike, and that life is determined by the ability to procreate, then we can determine that all living creatures have many things in common, correct?<br />Andrew: That is correct.<br />Morgan: Great, now we’re getting somewhere. What then determines human life, how are we different then a muskrat?<br />Andrew: Ok, I know this one. We are different because we have languages, arts, mathematics, philosophy and more.<br />Morgan: This is true, but what is it that allows human beings to have developed a Socrates and a Victor Hugo?<br />Andrew: Their mind.<br />Morgan: That makes the most sense. They have a conscious mind and are able to use it more aptly then do animals.<br />Andrew: correct.<br />Morgan: Then what exactly is it that we have that is so different? I think we should specify this difference.<br />Andrew: Our ability to reason?<br />Morgan: precisely, but again what exactly does our ability to reason allow us to do?<br />Andrew: Understand the world we live in?<br />Morgan: I think you’re right there; I would go farther in that it allows us to form concepts, and more importantly broad abstractions, such as life.<br />Andrew: How can this help me determine how to best live life?<br />Morgan: That is a spectacular question! Now that we better understand what life is, we need to begin to question the purpose of life.<br />Andrew: Good.<br />Morgan: if life is being alive, and procreating, can we not say that being alive requires a certain flourishing of life?<br />Andrew: You mean it isn’t enough to survive, but we must also attempt to live the best and most prosperous life possible?<br />Morgan: Correct. Think of a tree and its roots. A tree has certain goals based upon its nature. As the good Hursthouse writes in On Virtue of Ethics that “a living things nature will dictate what is good for it by pointing us to its needs, [and] what living things do is live, and a good living thing is one that lives well. For humans, certain traits are virtuous because of facts about human needs, interests and desires, just as certain traits make for a good elephant because of facts about elephants needs, interests, and desires.” So the good and the purpose should be determined by what is good for the organism. So we should therefore strive for an enjoyable life and a morally upright life, as this is part of our nature. For what is good for us is to be morally upright. Also, it is good to enjoy the life we have, for these pertain to our goals of flourishing; for I dare say that humans seek to enhance their lives.<br />Andrew: In other words I should live the life best suited to my goals?<br />Morgan: Precisely.<br />Andrew: Then, I should write this screenplay if my goals in life are simply to attain money?<br />Morgan: Precisely, but I know you won’t because I didn’t fall for a person who stands for nothing.<br />Andrew: I guess you’re right. It’s not easy standing by what you believe I guess.<br />Morgan: Nor is it supposed to be.<br /></div>cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-76987308202699283102009-06-22T18:28:00.003-06:002009-06-22T18:35:56.190-06:00Music is Reason<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCXOWC7pLt7aBnIxYUbKz2WyQcUT9agLOQoOe3WDImWopdQflyxgjLMByaagBEULoDSZ98pTYoZBV-nFbCQ6ZotmBk-Y0LhLS7nKO65CMJMoO66726E4Om1VBD201VApbtY-Zpw8q27iQ/s1600-h/renaissance.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5350315210960157154" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 150px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCXOWC7pLt7aBnIxYUbKz2WyQcUT9agLOQoOe3WDImWopdQflyxgjLMByaagBEULoDSZ98pTYoZBV-nFbCQ6ZotmBk-Y0LhLS7nKO65CMJMoO66726E4Om1VBD201VApbtY-Zpw8q27iQ/s200/renaissance.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>I was given a discussion topic in school about the Middle Ages and The Renaissance. Specifically in regards to music. My professor made the comment that people believe The Renaissance or 'rebirth' is the period that followed the Middle Ages or 'Dark Ages,' and that these terms can be misleading, because history tends to move continuously rather than by leaps and bounds. The disusion was to talk about the gradual improvement of music through these periods.</div><br /><div>First it is necessary to disprove the statement “these descriptions can be misleading as history tends to move continuously rather than by leaps and bounds.” This is false. After the fall of the Roman Empire western world did not see many of the necessities Romans took for granted for almost one thousand years. It wasn’t until St. Thomas Aquinas rediscovered Aristotle in the 13th century that we began seeing the emergence of the Renaissance. When I say rediscover, I mean rediscover in the true context of Aristotle’s writings. The Greek language, culture and more was all but lost for a thousand years after the fall of Rome. The barbarians who destroyed Rome found they had nothing of significance to replace it’s splendor with. St. Thomas Aquinas was an Aristotelian, and fortunately, he brought back reason to our world. After the rebirth i.e. renaissance began, man was able to begin considering himself an individual. It would take hundreds of years for this to fully take effect, but eventually rebirth would give way to enlightenment. In enlightenment we see the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Polish-Lithuanian Constitution of May 3, 1791 and much more. For once men shrugged off the shackles of God and King, and realized his own greatness. </div><div><br />Next we must define what art is and what music is to our cognition. Art is a selective re-creation of an artist’s metaphysical value judgments, and, as such it is an indispensible medium for the communication of a moral ideal. Looking at a piece of art injects several abstractions; life, death, hope, love, hate, fear etc, and it is how we react to these things which indicates what our sense of life is. A sense of life can be defined as something that happens before our concepts, on a more emotional level, the way we react to art helps us to indicate what our sense of life is, but it does not define it. Our sense of life can be developed in two ways; by a conscious effort or be chance. We either choose what values we hold by deciding basic philosophical premises such as; where we are, how we know it, and what to do, or we evade such actions and come to these conclusions based off of our friends, family, or teachers. This latter method is very dangerous. </div><div><br />Looking at a painting can invoke certain emotions. The painting uses certain abstract and concrete concepts in order to fill the viewer with certain emotions. Music on the other hand does not have the ability to show anything, music uses different sounds produced by periodic vibrations of a sonorous body. Music works in reverse of a painting. It does not invoke images directly, but indirectly through your subconscious. While listening to a piece of music you may feel yourself seeing random images as if from a dream, but this is actually your subconscious at work and is not random but carefully selected. Let me give some examples: A piece of music can’t show you what it looks like to be about to kill someone, but it can give you the feeling. It cannot show you what it is like to be in love, but it can give you the feeling. It cannot show you a beautiful garden, but it can give you the feeling. Another great example of this is in the move “Immortal Beloved” where Beethoven tells a future servant of his that the music he is hearing is his frustration at not being able to get to his lover. As an aside, for great examples of music and the emotions they convey see the aforementioned movie. What is important to follow here, is that the emotion is conveyed by the composer whether that is happiness or anger, and how the person reacts to it are dependent upon their sense of life. </div><div><br />Now, looking into the middle ages, it is important to remember that the church pretty much had a monopoly on the arts for almost 700 years. During this time the main form of music was ‘Gregorian Chant’ a rather ominous and morose kind of monophonic sound. The art of the time was meant to convey a sense of uselessness. It was meant to keep the average person from realizing his or her own potential and condemn them to a life in fear of mystical leering gargoyles and an eternal hell. Going to church was not the celebration as it is to some today; it was as if going to mourning. They were mourning life. In “<a href="http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/music/kamienb/">Music an Appreciation</a>” by Roger Kamien he illustrates that many of the secular songs were about love. Note however, that the majority of these songs and illustrations weren’t predominant until the 13th century. This is not to say that there were no secular songs before then, just very seldom. Secular music and secularism in general began appearing more and more after reason was re-introduced. </div><div><br />For more on this read Ayn Rand’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Romantic-Manifesto-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451149165">The Romantic Manifesto</a></div>cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-3320950788233261182009-06-22T11:38:00.006-06:002009-06-22T11:49:52.381-06:00Why are students becoming philosophy majors?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-wEvxA7dkD9Zhxsn3kGT0gIgJL75WxVxnb7mSV4jwTTAwFbEvVUQER56EFes-NyfMHqXNeo8mTI6WoUjWgmfLcmX9fa23ENhyphenhyphenrVOTPFrCn2E3S4CPLA0hdjTVrYDLBErmgmjqtw1h9Xc/s1600-h/58158128_RodinThinkingMan.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5350210166528762370" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 150px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-wEvxA7dkD9Zhxsn3kGT0gIgJL75WxVxnb7mSV4jwTTAwFbEvVUQER56EFes-NyfMHqXNeo8mTI6WoUjWgmfLcmX9fa23ENhyphenhyphenrVOTPFrCn2E3S4CPLA0hdjTVrYDLBErmgmjqtw1h9Xc/s200/58158128_RodinThinkingMan.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><span style="font-family:Arial;">I was given an old article from the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/education/06philosophy.html">New York Times </a>that reffered to a large growth in the number of philosophy majors and minors in America. I was then asked the question why young 'practical' minded people (as the teacher called them) are becoming more interested in philosophy? </span><br /></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span></div><br /><div>It is possible that young college students are becoming more enamored with philosophy simply because they are not satisfied with the abhorrent answers they normally get in the 'real world.' Some of these answers come from parents, teachers, bosses and even friends. The idea that everything is nothing may not bode well with some younger people who understand - on some level at least - that their life is something. They hear things like they are just a mass of protoplasm with no meaning. Young people are very impressionable, however, and I believe they do realize that their life is important to them: their future means something, and they wish to understand what is going on around them.</div><br /><div>They see the giants of their world crumbling around them. They see the power of the presidency taken over by a man they helped put in to office, and do nothing but more of the same. They see pirates (yes PIRATES) hindering our trade as if we have returned to more primitive times. They understand that the majority of the country is against a war that is killing their friends, brothers, sisters, cousins; and yet their government heeds not their words. They remember hearing in history class and social studies that the government was set up as a system 'of the people by the people and for the people,' that there was supposed to be some semblance of morality, of reason, logic and so on. They see the rule of law being deteriorated around them, by such acts as imposing 'empathy' upon the judgements of judges. They see the erosion of property rights and wonder what is the 'principle' that backs property rights. They see the businessmen around them being punished, and wonder why. They don't understand why capitalism could have failed, they question, and hope philosophy will lead them towards the road of discovery. They wish to seek the best within themselves, they do not wish to allow the people of the world to condemn them for attempting greatness.</div><br /><div>They possibly question things like socialized medicine. Why, they may ask, is it my duty to help others? </div><br /><div>Some young men and women wish to bring back what they remember reading in their history books. 'Where are the great men who built this country?' They ask. There are some who wish to have something to look forward to. They do not wish to be infringed upon, they have a sinking guilt in the bottom of their stomachs at seeing neanderthals gyrating their bodies to the beat of a primitive drum claiming that 'we must leave nature alone!' spitting their fury at anyone who attempts the evil of living their life to the best of their ability.</div><br /><div>Then there are those who wish to use philosophy to destroy the men and women I just described. They wish to use their greatest weapon against them, reason. They will twist reason to suit whatever needs they wish. And these young impressionable people can seek one defense; philosophy. If they do not understand the basics that philosophy teaches, such as, where we are, how we know it and what we should do once we know it, they will inevitably succumb to the gross ideology that is overtaking their world. </div><br /><div>It is unfortunate that most of the people who are joining philosophy en masse are individuals who wish to destroy the best within others. They do not wish to be held to the responsibility of their own greatness, and seek to destroy what others wish to achieve. They use filthy language to impose guilt upon the aforementioned young people of the mind by saying 'they are greedy, they are selfish, they have no empathy.'</div><br /><div>These young people who wish to understand why they see people condemning the great men and women of industrial power and still they don't go to their defense because they feel guilty; they are the ones who need to be taught; not Plato, or Nietzsche, or Kant but Aristotle. They are the ones who should understand that values are something achievable, that we live in a world of concretes and they can either abide and prosper, or evade and perish. </div><br /><div>It is also unfortunate that these young people may never have the courage to question; they may not have the ability to admire, nor to take pride in their own actions. They can, if they discover the proper philosophy. If they learn not that reason can be some 'sublime' fantasy, but it is their reality. They all have the ability to change, as long as we are human we have volition. </div><br /><div>It is volition which eventually led mankind to throw off the shackles of, God, King, and now we must throw off the shackles of 'society.' </div><br /><div>I can only hope that it will be the people of the mind who will give sanction to the best within themselves. We already seem to be going down a road quite opposite to this idea, and it is each of us who are paying the price. </div>cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-31510885238352894432009-06-15T18:16:00.002-06:002009-06-15T18:19:53.119-06:00Review of "Crito" by PlatoThis is a brief review of Socrates' reasoning as is shown in Plato's Dialogue entitled "<a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html">Crito</a>"<br /><br /><br /><strong>On Socrates’ reasoning</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />First of all, I must commend Socrates for his effective use of logic. Socrates has succinctly used and or created logical discussion. He first defends himself from Crito by using Argumentum ad Numerum or even Argumentum ad Populum. The first 'Numerum' is the fallacy perpetrated by an individual who claims something is more right the more people hold it as true. As Crito seems to be doing when he says, “but do you see Socrates, that the opinion of the many must be regarded, as is evident in your own case, because they can do the very greatest evil to anyone who has lost their good opinion.” This is also similar to 'Populum' which is appealing to the people; this fallacy is usually characterized by emotive language which Crito obviously uses. These defenses by Socrates demonstrate his ability to be steadfast to reason under any incoming fire. Based upon the antiquated reasoning of the time Socrates does seem to be holding true to his integrity. So, if we define integrity as an unfaltering holding to ones values, whether there are other's watching or not, then Socrates is most assuredly a man of integrity.<br /><br /> However, I believe Socrates makes a few fundamental and costly mistakes in his assessments of the state. For one, to assume the state owns him simply because of some arbitrary 'social contract' is ludicrous. It is true that Socrates agreed to live under Athenian law, but when these laws are set in place for the mere ability of allowing the polis to create criminals at its discretion, the polis and not Socrates has betrayed any 'social contract.' Socrates fails to understand what the state is. As Murray Rothbard explicates in <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard62.html" target="_new">Anatomy of the State</a>:<br /><blockquote>“The State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly<br />of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it<br />is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary<br />contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion." </blockquote><br />Furthermore, Socrates makes the preeminent mistake most individuals make, which is equating each individual person as 'a part' of the state. In other words saying 'we’ are the state.' In essence, 'we,' as the individuals who make up the state, are made equivalent to some unknown controller of violence. We are made to believe that as citizens of such and such society 'we' are all one, and 'we' must obey the laws and dictums handed down from on high. The fundamental error here is that we are individuals. Rothbard shows that if we are the state, than anything the state forces upon us is done voluntarily.<br /><blockquote>"Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not<br />murdered; instead, they must have "committed suicide," since they were the<br />government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the<br />government did to them was voluntary on their part." </blockquote><br />Also, simply because we are all participating in our societies does not implicate us to their every action. As <a href="http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_3/1_3_3.pdf" target="_new">Williamson M. Evers</a> from the department of political science at Stanford elucidates, "Mere participation is not enough for obligation. If a burglar lets you argue with him while he is relieving you of your valuables, it does not place you under an obligation to him."<br /><br />Socrates also uses the argument that he has accepted the ‘gifts’ from society i.e. schooling. This is once again a fundamental error in reasoning. He uses the analogy of parents giving a gift to their child as equivalent to the ‘gifts’ from society. The problem lies in the conditions in which the gifts are given in the two scenarios. When a parent gives something to their child, such as room and board, there is only an obligation to the parents for as long as the child accepts the gifts. When the child moves away from home and stops accepting gifts from their parents, they subsequently disallow all ‘rules’ or edicts handed down from their parents. The difference with the state is that one can not merely ‘shrug’ off their allotted ‘gifts.’ These so-called gifts are imposed rather than something that is attached as a condition to a gift.<br /><br />Socrates, while defending his position, accepts many irrelevant and counter-intuitive ideals that unfortunately lead to his early demise. While it is admirable that Socrates had the integrity to stand up for what he believed was right, his failure to come to more correct and logical conclusions deprived him of years of life.cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-9495762793908282732009-06-02T13:31:00.002-06:002009-06-02T13:35:29.625-06:00Pajamas TVInterested in a different news story. Check out Pajamas TV, dedicated to covering stories not always on your mainstream news station or radio. Pajamas also has a list of dedicated bloggers. Since the Blog world can be like the "Wild West," as they call it, they attempt to weed out some of the erroneous blogs and supply you with a fresh taste of excellent blogs based upon reason and truth. Their TV is informative, mostly free, and quite entertaining. Enjoy their commentaries on Obama's Healthcare plan, the right to life debate, the climate change debate, and much more!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.pjtv.com/">http://www.pjtv.com/</a>cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-49980135728893747142009-06-02T13:30:00.003-06:002009-06-02T13:31:38.300-06:00Great Blog RollIf you are the type to go from blog to blog to find your favorites, a great blogroll is available for you.<br />Visit <a href="http://www.condron.us/">http://www.condron.us/</a> to find see a list of blogs on their website. You may even add your own to their blogroll if you wish. You can determine the speed it runs through blogs, what kind of blogs you wish to look at and more. So check it out!cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-20947015651394609082009-06-01T12:32:00.003-06:002009-06-01T13:17:09.741-06:00The Crucible<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3v70d6sT3_PFrXe0Y3chRadzdQD9X6G-kAfxkoo1RW_zQhads42DnWnBrJmDBxf4Mp-NZtFWbBoMzqexjCKFnVxuqVR5H1eYgLS_Bye52NDfplMRBF1fmqDj1XAEjfwytWGiX_mFAzGo/s1600-h/crucible.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5342430968052365106" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 150px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3v70d6sT3_PFrXe0Y3chRadzdQD9X6G-kAfxkoo1RW_zQhads42DnWnBrJmDBxf4Mp-NZtFWbBoMzqexjCKFnVxuqVR5H1eYgLS_Bye52NDfplMRBF1fmqDj1XAEjfwytWGiX_mFAzGo/s200/crucible.gif" border="0" /></a><br /><div><br /><div>The Crucible</div><br /><div><br />Faith and lies can twist and destroy lives. This is a basic premise of Arthur Miller’s wonderful play The Crucible, produced by the Arvada Center. The play, set in the 1690’s showcases the lunacy and terror that occurs when a society arbitrarily places faith in a higher power. Upon entering the world of The Crucible we are immediately confronted with one character’s consummate second-handedness. An important central figure to the play, Reverend Parris, is shown kneeling in front of his unconscious daughters’ bed. He is praying, most likely about the situation at hand. Before the start of the play the Reverend stumbles upon some of the local girls, including his daughter, dancing in the forest. In a place where god and law are one and the same, anything perceived as a moral wrongdoing is a punishable offense. Reverend Parris, a main representative of the mood of the play, is completely obsessed with the beliefs and perceptions of those around him. </div><div><br />Only a few characters in the play show their first handed ability to live their own lives dependent of other’s opinions. The main character, John Proctor, showcases the tragic story of The Crucible. A man who has only once told a lie, he takes on the whole town when finally pushed to the edge. Although, initially, he bides his time attempting to outlive his one dishonest moment, eventually he sees that truth is the only way and confesses his previous weakness with Abigail. The antagonist of the play, Abigail Williams, is a young lady infatuated with the striking John Proctor. Their affair, which ended in Abigail being fired by Proctors wife Elizabeth, was never known by the public. For once again, the public opinion is everything in a town based on faith.<br />Arthur Miller has done a great job in showing that lies feed other lies. When people are threatened they will seek any way out, even losing their integrity. This concept of integrity is integral to the plot and story of this play. For at the plays end, the upright man Proctor, refuses to implicate other people accused of being a witch. With his final testament that they can try and take his soul, but to leave him his name, Proctor comes close to some grander understanding of life. Miller shows us that men can be pushed, but no matter what, there is always choice. </div><div><br />The play almost seems to take on the format of an epic tragedy. With many characters, and the time taking place over several months, this almost is true. However, a closer look shows the climactic formatting of the story structure. It is true that the play takes place over a few months, but the location doesn’t really change in any meaningful way. The farthest we are taken is in John Proctors property on the outskirts of town, where he is confronted by many of the characters from the town, but this doesn’t seem enough evidence to allow this play to meander into the realm of epic tragedy. </div><div><br />John Proctor could be considered a tragic character. He is upright, a goodly man, who is willing to take his beliefs to their inevitable end. He may have his doubts along the way, but his unwavering integrity is crucial to the story of The Crucible. </div><div><br />The production elements were effective and to the point. A simple black box theatre, with a few easy to maneuver sets. The set, which included a vast arrangement of ropes as the backdrop, and a disproportionate (twisted) framing of the houses and court, fully captured the essence of the play. In Act III, the courtroom scene, Abigail begins to accuse Mary of bewitching her. The closeness of the audience to the stage allowed her to begin pointing over our heads shouting about a bird. This involved the audience (the voyeurs), almost making them feel uncomfortable at times. This is highly effective in twisting the audience’s mood to feel what the protagonist feels; frustration. We as the audience are completely unable to fix or alter others lies. Even though we are completely aware that Abigail is lying, because we see no bird, we feel helpless to do anything about it. As the protagonist (Proctor) also feels helpless. It is this that the production is most effective. After leaving the theatre with the twisted buildings and lynches littering the stage, we are unable to shake the feeling that others beliefs can one day effect our own lives. As it has done in our own recent history, much like the red scare did in America. It is this basic theme that has been so proficiently driven home in the mind of the audience. We may believe that people would not lie when someone’s life is on the line. But, as we were shown, faith can twist and destroy lives.</div></div>cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-67478473857676267732009-06-01T12:30:00.002-06:002009-06-01T12:31:40.937-06:00The Departed<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOTD5poCq02FOmMnmGpB-z-GAmdXwngFHzHZjWGVPkY-u86YZ_5l0K8PdfgvnYUM7-z4CuGqr0p4ix9QkAlJ3K8yEKlXzCXhWv3jPmiB5VqPDzovDyhtg2Ruae3mRd5tvgqLzZP36r3GI/s1600-h/Mark_Wahlberg_in_The_Departed_Wallpaper_8_800.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5342428527481365986" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 200px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 150px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOTD5poCq02FOmMnmGpB-z-GAmdXwngFHzHZjWGVPkY-u86YZ_5l0K8PdfgvnYUM7-z4CuGqr0p4ix9QkAlJ3K8yEKlXzCXhWv3jPmiB5VqPDzovDyhtg2Ruae3mRd5tvgqLzZP36r3GI/s200/Mark_Wahlberg_in_The_Departed_Wallpaper_8_800.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />The Departed<br />By Martin Scorcese<br />Produced by PLAN B/INITIAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP/VERTIGO ENTERTAINMENT<br />Review by Kirk Barbera<br /><br />“When I was [younger] they would say you could become cops, or criminals. Today, what I’m saying to ya is this; when you’re facing a loaded gun, what’s the difference?” The antagonist of the film, a brilliant Jack Nicholson, is initially purposefully under lit, leaving his face always in shadow. As the audience is lead through a series of shots of Boston, Nicholson’s character Frank Costello goes through an explanation of what it takes to be a man in modern Boston, and how the Irish rose from peasants to rulers of the Boston underworld. Upon the conclusion of the “what’s the difference?” line we finally see Frank Costello fully illuminated, and this greatly elucidated moment propels the story into well planned out chaos. As Frank emerges and delivers the last segment of his line we automatically get the premise for the entire movie, for indeed the movie endeavors to satisfy an answer to that very question. The major meanings of this movie can be found in this opening statement. In modern Boston two moles on both sides of the law compete to out-lie the other, leading to an intermingling of deception, self, love, friends and family.<br /><br />The story follows two men from the Boston State Police academy and their subsequent paths. Billy Costigan (played by Leonardo Dicaprio) is raised as a ‘double kid’ his paternal familial side is completely engrained in the southie (Boston) projects, while his mother apparently lives uptown. This juxtaposition of Costigan’s inner workings enables him to creep his way into Costello’s gang. In contrast to Collin Sullivan (Matt Damon), who is a sly and intelligent kid from the wrong side of the track who was able to embed himself into the state police, and work as a mole for Costello. A movie that could be characterized as a criminal drama, a thriller or a cleverly written character drama, the audience is amazingly shown the conflicts in these two characters’ lives. In this drama each character is trapped in a cocoon of his own deception, leaving the audience in utter wonderment as to what can be considered good or bad.<br /><br />Several motifs run rampant throughout the movie. Some are a bit much at times, for instance the rat symbolizing… well, a rat, is quite unnecessary. Yet there are a few visual motifs that help to illuminate the underlying story and theme, as well as give credence to the two main characters. The first and most prominent of the motifs is the Boston state capitol’s golden dome. Collin Sullivan seems infatuated with this symbol from the onset of the script. This makes sense given what the film is attempting to say about Sullivan and modern times. For one, Sullivan is a gangster pretending to be a state police detective, and attending law school at night. Throughout the film we see his desire to ‘prove’ himself to his friends, his co-workers, and lover and to anyone who will pay attention including his father figure Costello. In the first date scene with Madolyn we are inundated with his sad attempt at pretending to be sophisticated, while he is obviously charming, he seems to fall short of the upper class he so desperately wants to be a part of. While Sullivan is attempting to prove himself, Costigan is attempting to find himself. Costigan uses many drugs to keep himself sane. This double life pushes these two characters to the edge and back again, making them unravel from the strain of maintaining identities antithetical to their true natures.<br /><br />Another Motif that seems prevalent in the movie is the use of America memorabilia, everything from flags, and United We Stand Posters to the State capitol dome mentioned above and more. This visual theme is Scorsese’s way of including in the film the underlying theme of America’s uncertainty in contemporary times. As all the elements battle it out in the movie the idea that nothing can be known for certain is inundated on us over and over. What really is good, what really is bad? This theme is hammered home over and over again.<br /><br />Scorsese illustrates his masterful ability to portray the underbelly of society, and how a countries lower caste often bleeds over into the other molds of society.cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2316341132127516555.post-22497380264596081652009-06-01T12:26:00.004-06:002009-06-01T12:30:25.223-06:00All in the Timing: Performed at the University of Colorado - Denver<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi06hTzeZ2UHnHolRPr-J5AZd976sUiV35RECVXTIV-TjwsNk5neIxOsbfpfE6XKiH9VEQjhi-Y0Mm3usfI7riiPY4GSA7aroVZgzEG9C3LT2V0HLXhnCjpYKuG735ACDltyNA-zmapvhU/s1600-h/timing600_moo-sb_timingpost.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5342428182125748178" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 140px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi06hTzeZ2UHnHolRPr-J5AZd976sUiV35RECVXTIV-TjwsNk5neIxOsbfpfE6XKiH9VEQjhi-Y0Mm3usfI7riiPY4GSA7aroVZgzEG9C3LT2V0HLXhnCjpYKuG735ACDltyNA-zmapvhU/s200/timing600_moo-sb_timingpost.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div><br />All In the Timing<br />A review By: Kirk Barbera<br /><br />A play about two universal truths important to us all: time and language. As we enter deeper into the 21st century we are still plagued with these two themes. Many nuances in our daily lives seem to be of the utmost of import, yet numerous individuals are caught complaining, they say things like: “I never have enough time,” or “If only there were more time, I could…” or “I never seem to be able to get my point across,” even in love “If only I had a tongue of silver, I could get her/him.” These ideals are commonplace in our lives today, as they were in the lives of most people everywhere at all times. The one commonality in everyone’s life is time. It doesn’t matter how much money you have, it doesn’t matter how far you can kick a football; everyone has twenty four hours in a day. You have twenty four hours, I have twenty four hours, and Albert Einstein had twenty four hours. The difference is merely what we do in those twenty four hours. This play and production succinctly illustrates the humor of our actions in regards to time and language. </div><div><br />The very first play, Sure Thing, is reminiscent of a Meisner acting exercise, in which one person attempts to sit next to another person while the other person attempts to read. The subsequent dialogue is, at least in the exercise, completely dependent upon the two individuals and their ability to listen and feel the other’s reactions. In the play it is used to great effect. And, for obvious reasons, it is David Ives’ most reproduced play. The ensuing effect on the audience is to connect to the individuals thinking to ourselves, “Well, I’ve done that!” As we see the progression of these two people attempting to battle it out in a Groundhogesque way the audience can’t help but feel attracted to these two characters. The stage itself, a thrust, is crafted both elegantly and meaningfully to allow the audience to really be a part of the action. Rooting for the man to say the right thing, than as the dialogue shifts to the woman attempting to win the man, we begin to root for her. It is a great play on emotions, made more prevalent by the enormous backdrop that shifts colors; literally elucidating emotions. </div><div><br />Next we have Words, Words, Words, while seemingly the least effective in garnering laughs, a rather insightful attempt to convey our societal attempt to re-create art of the past. The set design again simply explains the three ‘monkeys’ situation. Automatically, through music cues, swings, and acting, we understand that these three people are in fact monkeys. Seemingly not the most popular of plays this one can strike a chord with many writers in the audience. Words, Words, Words showcases the frustration that can sometimes happen when attempting to write.<br />Universal language, the third play of the night, and probably one of the more popular ones, mesmerizes an audience whether they are capable of keeping up with the funny tongue or not. No matter who the audience member is, it is seemingly impossible to keep up with all of the doubletalk. Yet, we are still left with a vague assurance that we have walked away with a meaningful experience on trust, love, language and some of our frustration at being unable to communicate effectively, and thusly fit in. </div><div><br />Everyone can understand living temporarily, or sometimes forever it seems, in a Philadelphia. You ask the drive-thru person for no onion, and you of course, get onions. On an attempt to print out your economics homework you subsequently fry your motherboard. It’s easy to connect with the poor sap that has seemingly fallen into a ‘Philadelphia.’ With that dear friend who seems to always be living that L.A. dream, juxtaposed together with ones misery, this makes for real comedy. Seeming to play on the concept of the way we act according to our situation. As some of us were told, you can’t control your circumstances, but you certainly can control the way you react to them. As Mr. L.A. is put up against a Philadelphia we all realize that although most of us go through these days, some people just can’t handle it. </div><div><br />Variations on the Death of Trotsky, depending on how one looks at the puzzle of this play, may actually be the crux of the whole thing. Explaining to us that ‘the victors always write the…’ Upon entering Trotsky’s parallel universe it is seemingly apparent of his unfortunate, yet humorous, predicament. As many in contemporary times read the history books, holes in the writing become immediately apparent. This one plays on this to great humorous effect. As Mrs. Trotsky points out, Mr. Trotsky has had a mountain-climbers axe embedded in his head, yet as she reads the encyclopedia (a 2009 edition, the play is set in 1940) they discover he is struck in the head one day, and dies the next. This is the imagined happenings of that ‘next’ day.<br />The last play of the night brings together all the plays and showcases, a little too easily, the point of the play. Time and language. The baker at one point even plays a clock. Although the play seems oversimplified, it is still a fun way to end the night. </div><div><br />Overall, the night can appeal to a hugely wide audience. Through the transitions of stages, all quite different, to the funny and playful plays themselves, almost everyone can get something out of this night with the University of Colorado Denver, Theater, Film and Video department.<br /><br /></div><div></div>cedrachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13597474383822192482noreply@blogger.com0