RickU's blog

I'll address Rand's major points from the essay I posted earlier in essentially the format in which they were presented (give or take). For the original transcript see my earlier post. Let me start with this quote: “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.” Ayn Rand

This is what I see as the flaw in applying this philosophy broadly. While there are people that are heroic not every man or woman is. I'll start by amending the statement to suit my purposes. My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man with his or her own happiness as the main moral purpose of their lives, with productive achievement as their noblest activity, and reason as their only absolute. The idea of happiness being the main goal of humans lives hearkens back to at least Socrates. Rand's way of achieving happiness differs greatly but the end goal remains the same.

I've taken Objectivism and modified it to my own needs. It still is my philosophy for living and interacting with the people and the world around me. At this point in the essay I posted it says, “ Ayn Rand first portrayed her philosophy in the form of the heroes of her best-selling novels...” Again, I'll point out the flaw..heroicism. If people act as “heroes” any idealistic system works. Socialism works with heroes as well as lassaiz-faire capitalism or even monarchies. While Objectivism fails as the ethical equivalent of the “Theory of Everything” (as does every other ethical system I've encountered) I feel that it works for me in most situations. Moving on.

more beyond the fold

In an earlier post I claimed that I was an objectivist with caveats. A commenter on that post essentially asked why. As the first part of my response I'll transcribe from the suffix of my copy of Ayn Rand's “Anthem”. The title is “The Essentials of Objectivism”

“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.” Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand named her philosophy Objectivism” and described it as a philosophy for living on earth. Objectivism is an integrated system of thought that defines the abstract principles by which a man must think and act if he is to live the life proper to man. Ayn Rand first portrayed her philosophy in the form of the heroes of her best-selling novels, The Fountainhead(1943) and Atlas Shrugged(1957). She later expressed her philosophy in non-fiction form.

more below the fold

So, we know some people on TV. And yes, this is an odd post.

The folks that Mandy and I know are Doug and Noelle. Doug is the Dad and Noelle is his daughter, who happens to be a former student of Mandy's as well as one of the bridesmaids in Mandy and my wedding.

They're participating in a show on the Lifetime network called "Your Momma Don't Dance". This week, they're in trouble. In my (and Mandy's) opinion, they don't deserve to be in trouble...especially for this week's performance.

I'd love if you could help them out by voting for 'em. To vote for Noelle and Doug dial 1-877-472-4702. You can vote 10 times per phone line. Thanks folks!

Here's Noelle's casting video * Warning. This link will take you to the Lifetime Network. You may experience a slight drop in testosterone levels when the site opens.

I find myself conflicted. I have no ready resolution to my problem. As it says in my introduction on the sidebar, I'm a liberal libertarian with conservative leanings. What that really means is that I'm a registered Independant who doesn't concur with the party platform of the Republicans and Democrats. I am, with caveats, an Objectivist. I may address the hows and whys of those tenents at another time. I promised my conundrum though, and here it is.

These parents allowed their child to die because of their religious beliefs. They allowed a sentient being, a person with their whole life ahead of them, to perish because they believed that if their daughter was worthy, or their prayers fervent enough, she'd be healed by their magic sky fairy. They have murdered their daughter. I use that term, murder, intentionally. They have willfully denied their daughter medical care and because of that she is no more. This is especially tragic to me given that I'm an atheist. Without an afterlife to "live" for, or to transit to post-death, this result, death, is the worst outcome possible in my view. The parents failure to obtain proper medical care for a perfectly treatable condition is a travesty of both life and liberty.

The "State" is not necessary for many things. We are an over-regulated people in America. We have laws governing many of our behaviours. Of these laws, I believe most to be at best unnecessary, at worst intrusive. My conundrum lies in the straight fact that I'd like what these parents have done to be illegal. I WANT state intervention because I can't think of another way to handle such a case. This couple's daughter should be alive today. I'm not feeling my libertarian edge right at this moment and I'd like it back. Help?

Here's a little tidbit from the news.

The headline?

50 people looking for solar image of Mary lose sight

Enough said.

Rather than stating this in the comments of the post, I think a response to Brent's opening paragraphs in his latest review of Vox Day's book warrant a full post.

Brent, unsurprisingly, I agree with you.

Kind of.

Sort of.

Mostly.

Here's what I agree with you about:

I have my own opinions, political views, and values. I have my own, personal, rational for being a person in whom god-belief is absent (an atheist). I recognize no "atheist leaders" or spokesmen, and I endorse no one who claims to speak for me, or insinuates that they speak for me in any way.

Here's where our opinions may part:

I have lately (within the last few years) come to believe that the entire social and political "atheist movement", as it nominally exists, is a big, fat exercise in futility. Atheists are not, in any way, shape, or form, a "group" in the same sense that Methodists, Shriners, or Republicans are a group. The atheists who organize activist marches, set agendas and identify themselves as part of this "atheist movement" group seem to be lying to themselves. There is no cohesive atheist political movement.

more below the fold

I've heard and seen much mockery focused on the Tom Cruise Scientology video over the past couple of days. (I apologize if that link no longer works, but the video has been on and off the net and that's the best link I can find at the time of this article.) The truth is, while I believe that atheists (especially agnostic atheists), in general, have a leg to stand on in this case, I don't think the rest of the godders, or innumerable other groups, do. Let's look at a few things that Cruise says.

Tom Cruise: ...I think it’s a privilege to call yourself a Scientologist, and it’s something that you have to earn because a Scientologist does... has the ability to create new and better realities and improve conditions. Being a Scientologist, you look at someone and know absolutely that you can help them.

"But that’s what drives me... I know that we have an opportunity to really help... effectively change people’s lives and I am dedicated to that. I am absolutely, uncompromisingly dedicated to that.

Replace the words “Scientologist” with the words Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Nazi, Feminist, Vegan, vegetarian, socialist, communist, capitalist, geek, Sikh, or even self help guru and you'll see what I mean. This statement, minus the maniacal laughter, could have come from any of the groups I listed and a whole lot more. Let's move on to the next set; shall we?
more below the fold

There's a new game in town. PZ over at Pharyngula posted a very funny Jesus light switch today and one of the folks commenting noted that the image was also up on Loltheist.com. It's definitely good for a giggle, or maybe even a belly laugh. Here's my favorite so far:

Although I'm late to this game, I didn't feel like I could contribute to the argument without having seen the movie or read the book. I bought the trilogy recently, finished the first and have started into the second book.

Minor non plot spoilers ahead

As has been said other places, the people objecting to this movie have completely missed the boat. In Pullman's fantasy world there are multiple dimensions and, as is clearly explained in the books, no god. There is a being that calls itself god but it was simply the first self aware being. It's all there in print. The first being didn't create the universes and thus is not god. Their objections about "killing God" are not only silly, but entirely baseless.

Reading comprehension people. It works.

On Monday nights for the last couple of months I've been taking a beer brewing class. That part has been going well. This past Monday we had an interesting discussion about the United States policies surrounding torture. Out of 6 people I was the only one who flatly denounced the practice.

My reasons for denouncing the practice are mainly practical. If the United States uses torture or condones others using torture we can't be outraged when it's done to our citizens and military personnel. We also can't wholly rely on the information gained because the person being tortured will say anything you want them to in order to stop being tortured. You also have to wonder where the torture train stops...If it's OK to torture "terrorists" will it someday be OK to torture criminals? Will we be outraged if a possible criminal suspected of kidnapping is tortured in order to recover a missing child?

The responses I got in class weren't, in my opinion, morally sufficient. What I heard most was, "Well, 'they' are cutting the heads off of our soldiers". I don't follow the logic and if that logic were applied more widely a whole range of behaviors becomes possible based merely on the fact that other people are doing worse things.

What do you think?

In arguments with theists, you'll often hear, "Well, why do you care? What harm is a person's belief doing?" You'll also hear folks get upset when R. Dawkins says that indoctrinating children into religion is child abuse. A story today on MSNBC shows a clear example of the harm that religion can cause.

In short, a 14 year old boy refused a blood transfusion because he'd been taught that it would make him "unclean". A child refused medical care, with his guardian's consent, because of his faith. I don't think there can be a clearer example of the damage faith can cause than this.

There's a neat article on msnbc.com today having to do with migratory birds. From the article, "Magnetic sensing molecules in the eye, known as cryptochromes, appear to stimulate photoreceptors depending on the orientation of the magnetic field."

I see this as another clear example that God is not necessary to explain the world around us. We are capable, as a species, of figuring out life's mysteries.

Here is a very interesting article about how the conservative and liberal brains function differently from one another. If I had to guess, you'd see a similar set of results if you compared the brain function of a fundy christian vs. an atheist (or at least vs an "enlightened atheist" as I believe Hank called it.)

Hat tip to SEB

Ah, the drug war. Fuck the drug war. We waste billions of dollars on it to no avail. Legalize, regulate and tax drug production and consumption. People should be able to do what they will with their bodies. Now that that's said, I do believe there are limits. There are drugs that should not be allowed on the market. For example, PCP is a drug which should not be produced and/or distributed on the market. My criteria? Posing a threat to another humans life is my only criteria. PCP can make a person entirely unaware of the consequences of their actions. For a drug to be legal in my book you have to be aware enough to know if what you're doing is having consequences on folks around you and of course yourself. Employers should also be allowed to regulate drug use as a condition of your employment. That's their right. If they don't want you stoned while paving a road...fine. However, it should be limited to (as with alcohol) your functioning at your job. In other words, if you smoke pot on the weekend but don't come to work on Monday stoned...they shouldn't have anything to say.

Freedom of choice is not the only reason to stop the drug war in the USA. The cost of the drug war is disturbing and it's shown little by way of effectiveness. The USA should have learned it's lesson re: Illegal substances after Prohibition but that lesson seems lost on the current round of politicians. There's, of course, another cost outside of enforcement and that's incarceration. Every prisoner in jail for having or distributing drugs is a drain on our tax dollars.

During the course of my life (I'll be thirty mid-August) I've often wondered why my perspective on various issues differed from most of the other people I've met. Skepticism has, of course, played a major roll in why I view the world as I do...but I don't think that's all there is to it. I think, and I hope, that part of the reason that my worldview is outside of what's considered "normal" is that I don't buy into any particular ideology. As it says under my portrait, I'm a "liberal libertarian with conservative leanings". What that ends up meaning, government wise, is that I want to leave the parts of government that I think work and ditch the parts that I think are extraneous or don't work. The same idea applies for me philosophically.

It seems to me that when most people buy into a philosophy, religion, or even just a course of action they commit themselves wholeheartedly to it. When RAH's book "Stranger in a Strange Land" was released people bought in and formed "nests" of their own...despite the fact that a "nest" by itself leached off of the society around it for support (much like any cult or religion). In my short time on this planet I've had some things change my perspective. One of those was reading Ayn Rand's books, particularly "Atlas Shrugged". John Galt is and was an inspiring character and I can indeed see the "virtue of selfishness". Despite loving the book , I can still see the flaws in the idealized system that Rand seems to be extolling. They're as obvious to me as the flaws in any communist, socialist or laissez-faire capitalist worldview. When everyone is a hero, the ideological system always works and seems fabulous.

The point is that I think people end up finding something that their comfortable with and then buy into that idea completely, including any flaws. Yes, I'm accusing most people of being intellectually lazy. Whether it's Objectivism, Christianity, Islam, Liberalism, Libertarianism or a conservative worldview I want to be able to take the positive aspects of each and leave the chaff behind. I welcome people that challenge how I view the world and would really like it if the rest of humanity would accept the challenges that they encounter too; without just disregarding them because they don't fit nicely within their ideologically limited window of perspective.

We need to stop this immediately! Shooting powerful lasers into the center of the galaxy will surely attract the attention of the mighty Zoidlon overlords!

In all seriousness today's Astronomy pic of the day is pretty darned neat, and so is the tech we're using to learn more about the universe.

I'm for a flat tax and a balanced budget. I'd like to see a constitutional amendment mandating both as well as a maximum percentage of your income that can be taxed. In my opinion no more than 15% of our income should go to our governance for federal, state and local taxes. That's it. No exemptions at all, and if the government(s) don't have the money to support a program it just won't happen. This applies, of course, to individuals income. A business and it's income could, and should be treated differently.

The elections aren't exactly upcoming, but with candidates starting to declare it seems like a good time to post my positions on various issues. This is meant to be an interactive endeavor. You can challenge a position I've taken or suggest one that I've not addressed at your leisure. Let's get started with my first position.

Gay marriage: Who the hell cares? Well, I do if the state decides who can and cannot marry. If the state is going to sanction a union between two people, it should be any two people that choose to get sanctioned. Hell, this will really freak out the fundies but if 3 or 4 people (or whatever number) want to combine their efforts into a family "unit" I don't have a problem with that either! I do want to add...it's not a bloody slippery slope. No one's going to marry their dog or cat or a monkey. A non-sentient being can't give consent.

You can expect my positions on various issues to be espoused over the coming weeks. If you have suggestions for issues that I should address you can email them to me @ ulreyric@gmail.com.

You may, or may not, have been wondering why I've been so quiet lately. One of the main reasons is that I've been on vacation in Italy. If you're interested, I've uploaded some of the pictures we took here.

We visited Lago Maggiore, Venice and Milan during our time there.

Some of the many tourist attractions in Italy are the churches there and the wife and I did visit some of them. The pictures on the inside of a church come from Piazza Duomo, the 3rd largest Christian church in the world.

One of the questions atheists often hear is, "What harm does it do to believe?"

Visiting these churches showed me some of the harm. The churches are magnificent, awe inspiring and opulent. They represent, to me, wasted human effort and that is one of the things that is harmful about religion. We (as humans)pour, and have poured, huge amounts time and resources into something that atheist's regard as false. How can we help but see that as harmful?

If you have any questions about the pictures linked, feel free to ask in the comments and I'll do my best to address them.

I was on my way to be the forward guard for our camping trip when I heard a piece on NPR that made my blood boil. It was about how the military was treating soldiers who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan with mental health problems. The official line is that they want to help and treat every soldier with problems. The reality on the ground doesn’t come close to that line.

According to the piece PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) manifests itself in many ways. It can include depression, drug and alcohol abuse, family problems, spousal abuse and problems with authority. One interviewee was the Sergeant Major of the Army who stated that above all the Army was concerned with “good order and discipline” which is pretty standard. He also stated that they would do what they could for the soldier but that “good order and discipline” was the most important thing.

The trouble with this is that in these cases good order and discipline is in direct conflict with the soldier’s and Marine’s state of mental health. So if those soldiers and Marines cross the line they’re disciplined in the standard way. That means, in many cases, that they’re kicked out of the service. Being kicked out of the service means that they’re then cut off from the health care that they need and deserve.

I understand the military’s dilemma. I DO understand the need to maintain good order and discipline and to maintain unit cohesion. However, when a member of the military has been diagnosed with a mental health disorder those members need and deserve care. Kicking them out seems to me to be the most irresponsible thing that the military can do.