kgregglv

You should enjoy this: http://www.mediate.com/articles/grayE1.cfm?nl=123 This is the approach that I've taken in mediation sessions. It gives the parties greater control over the process as well as the conclusion, and I feel that it more information from each party and has a better success rate than when an arbitrator tells the parties how the results are divided. Best to you, Just Ken

Interesting article: Randy Girls – Adolescent females love Ayn Rand – wonder why? By Amy Benfer http://www.incharacter.org/article.php?article=93

You might be interested in these two articles. The first is rather funny. Apparently the reindeer weren't informed about global warming: http://www.terradaily.com/2006/070207171633.474eyhua.html Dr. Timothy Ball , Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project <http://www.nrsp.com/>, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg and author: "Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?" http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm Best to you, Just Ken kgregglv@cox.net http://classicalliberalism.blogspot.com http://spencerheath.blogspot.com http://charlestsprading.blogspot.com

George H. Smith B-Day! by Kenneth R Gregg The philosopher, author and lecturer George H[amilton] Smith (b. 2/10/49) has specialized in two areas close to my own heart, freethought and freedom, and has been the author of numerous essays and books instrumental in both fields. Author of Atheism: The Case Against God, Atheism, Ayn Rand and Other Heresies, The Lysander Spooner Reader, The State (by Franz Oppenheimer) and more recently Why Atheism?, has completed a new book on liberty (I do not know the working title), in addition to his schedule of lecturing and debating. Known best for the logical clarity of his exposition, Smith is known for plumbing the depths of the most difficult subject in a manner which makes almost any topic surprisingly easy to understand, a feat unmatched by almost any other philosopher. Smith, although noting certain positive elements within Christianity, authored the classic work criticising religion in general and Christianity in particular, Atheism: The Case Against God. There has been no other more influential freethought work in the last half century. His debates with theists of various stripes and lectures on freethought have been significant to both sides of the matter. Smith became known as a leading independent libertarian intellectual since 1970 with a deep grasp of several schools of thought: Ayn Rand's epistemological and moral ideas, Murray Rothbard's anarchocapitalism, Nisbet's conservatism (through lectures by Nisbet while in Arizona) and even Robert LeFevre's antipolitical "freedom philosophy". Smith's "Rational Anarchism" Smith is also known for his dry sense of humor and wry wit which often brings as many to his side of a conversation as his deep grasp of both theory and history. On a personal note, I've been a friend of George's since the early 1970's and can confirm this effect. Happy Birthday George! Just a thought. Just Ken CLASSical Liberalism

January 3, 2007: Birthday of John Ronald Reuel Tolkien (1892-1973). You can toast to him at the Tolkien Society website: tolkiensociety.org Cheers! Just Ken

http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?cmd=dis...amp;entryid=485 Perhaps James Valliant will write another legal brief showing the irrationalities and immoralities of Robert Trascinski! Perhaps God Ayn Rand will come back from the dead as a vampire and scold him! Perhaps Leonard Pieholekoff's head will explode! Ah, the embarrassment of ever thinking that I was an objectivist. In the late 1960's, I associated with the INVICTUS crowd on the west coast, Louis Rollins, George H. Smith and others, who put out a periodical by that name promoting anarchocapitalism. It was creative and interesting in a way that few of the other objectivist periodicals were. At the time there were a number of student objectivist groups on and off campuses, and I would attend meetings and lectures in the L.A./Orange Co. area. They were quite enjoyable and I found many friendships which would last for many years, a few which have lasted through my life. I watched the NBI purges in surprise and shock, with "Statements" to be signed stating that you should never, never associate with the Brandens and that Ayn Rand was infallable. My initial thought was, "How silly this is, or was someone raped or violated?" I left objectivism following the split. I believed then, and believe now, that unless there was predation, a relatively minor difference of opinion was not sufficient for the kind of behavior that I was seeing. As a professional mediator for many years, I remain more convinced than before that I made the right decision. I have worked with people who are rich, honest, productive, as well as criminals of all stripes--murderers, child molestors, con men and thieves. I have never seen anyone incapable of rehabilitation, save for, perhaps, child molestors (and that for reasons that I can't go over right now, as I believe their problems lie on a level deeper than conceptual). We all change over the years and our beliefs change with the growth of knowledge and the change of context.

Best of luck to you both! I wish you all the happiness in the universe!

Barbara said No, only to the general tenor of the initial article and some of the responses. I do go further in pointing out an example (out of many possible) where attacking civilians is fraught with grave danger.Barbara said I would hope not either. Hitlers (and Stalins, for that matter) are few and far between, regardless whether the media presents almost any anti-american tyrant or terrorist as the new Hitler. If one considers that such a person appears perhaps once every century, it is unlikely that I would have such an opportunity to make a moral case for his murder. It's pretty much beyond the ken of my experience.In reality, I will never see, up front and personal, a Hitler. I just don't go around with a gun strapped to my waist in expectation of such an event, and I bet you don't either, Barbara.

I'd like to comment on the matter of "Rage" from a somewhat different stance. You see, I've been a professional mediator (domestic relations) for a number of years before I recently retired. In helping people frame a separation agreement for a divorce decree, I work directly with both parties on a range of intimate levels: who gets the child(ren), who pays child support, who gets the pets, the house and furnishings, how to separate all of those things commingled for years, often decades. Both have invested their lives and work into building up these pieces of their lives and they often have no idea how to do all of this. I facilitate the process with them, identifying the minor and major issues, the points of agreement and of contention, so that they can move forward to a point where they are ready to begin the rest of their lives. There are times when you just have to break down the issues to the simplest levels, start from there and move on to the areas of disagreement which, hopefully, we can resolve before they go in front of a judge. Sometimes it works all of the way through, sometimes there are stumbling points which the judge will decide. I always point out, though, that compliance is better if they come to an agreement directly with each other rather than wait for the third-party (judge or arbitrator) to make the decision. These are emotional and difficult issues to work through, and rage is not uncommon, especially, although not solely, with the men. For whatever reason, a man's ability to communicate is not as good as a woman's and it becomes important for them to express the specific problems in the mediation process. There are many times when all they can feel is the anger flowing through years of frustration and noncooperation. When I observe, either from the body language or how they talk, that there is a subtext of rage, I separate them into different rooms and discuss the areas that we are going to cover and see what their reactions are. As I begin to see the hot spots, I open them up so that they can express their anger and anguish. Once these are brought out, then the emotions are usually released to the point that we can move on with the process. This is all part of the facilitation process, bringing out the issues which need to be resolved so that they can move on with their respective lives. Not all mediators like to do this, but I've always found it valuable. Then we move on together putting together worksheets of what is the most and least important so that we can start the separation agreement with the things that they both agree upon. Once the mediation process gets moving, it's easier for both to get caught up in the process and work out their disagreements through a negotiation process. I think that many people separate because their family life has had no experience in negotiation. It's easier for them to have an authority to go to (parent, judge, politician) to make the decisions for them. Part of the facilitation process is to teach them methods of cooperation and negotiation which they can recognize and utilize not only throughout the mediation, but also later on when they may need to make adjustments in their separation agreement. I'd rather not have to have them go back to the judge--or me! Now we can come back to the matter at hand--rage. I've found that rage will exist whenever there is an inability to communicate, to talk to others about the matters that make them angry. Communication doesn't come automatically. We have to learn how to do this. Yes, you may be able to talk about your family, but not about your religion or your politics. Alternately, you may be great on the technical issues of objectivist metaphysics, but does that get you someone to be with on those lonely saturday nights? Perhaps your friends are all about beer and sports, but you want to be with friends who talk about the latest broadway show, or the election results. You become lonely, your loss of communication, if it continues, will probably result in rage. Certainly objectivists have issues. Objectivism comes to a person, more often than not, through reading a fairly long novel, and then identifying with the principles that one has now read about. You are excited, but you may never have heard about another objectivist in your life! Who do you talk to, communicate with? Your family is probably religious, or if relatively non-religious, they have never heard of Ayn Rand or objectivism, or if they have, they have a negative opinion of objectivism. Talk about minorities! You are a minority of one in a culture of religion, pop music and Playstations! Maybe you come across another objectivist online or perhaps a campus club. Your life, however, is a lonely one comprised of yourself on contraposition to the rest of the world. Rage? Of course you have rage. In a land of communicants, you are the voiceless. This can change the more you are in contact with fellows of like mind. You have to make the effort to make friends, to bring yourself into a regular exchange. The internet certainly helps, but you need more contact than that. Many objectivists bring their rage with them because they have not yet learned the tools of communication and used them effectively. There is potential and danger in this process. The potential for life-long friendship is there as you meet fellow obectivists. The danger is that the objectivist groups will keep themselves separate from the rest of society and fail to develop social connections with others not in their own groups. Herein lies the beginning of cults. This is something which objectivists need to be aware of and able to break through. NB does have some great material about this (although not specifically directed toward this issue) which is quite useful. Keep yourselves open and part of the general society. There is a balancing process to this, which teaches one wisdom. Good luck in finding this for yourselves! Best to all of you!

Using human shields is hardly new, and it is an effective stop-gap against an army of occupation, and that is what the Israeli military is doing to the Palestinians--they are murduring people there. Putting human shields is a method that a local community commonly uses to proceed against an opposing force far more powerful than themselves. I recommend that you read up on the native Indian battle at Amristar known as the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. There are other examples that I can give you, but this should give an indication of the risk to the Israelis. In 1919, British Indian Army soldiers under the command of Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer opened fire on an unarmed gathering of men, women and children. Civil Surgeon Dr Smith indicated that the Indian casualties were over 1800. The troops were commanded by Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer who, immediately upon entering the Bagh and without the slightest warning to the crowd to disperse, ordered his troops to open fire, concentrating especially on the areas where the crowd was thickest. The firing started at 17:15 and lasted for about ten to fifteen minutes. The bagh, or garden, was bounded on all sides by brick walls and buildings and had only five narrow entrances, most of which were kept permanently locked. Since there was only one exit except for the one already manned by the troops, people desperately tried to climb the walls of the park. Most of the people jumped into a well inside the compound to escape from the bullets. A plaque in the monument says that 120 bodies were plucked out of the well alone. Dyer said he would have used his machine guns if he could have got them into the enclosure, but these were mounted on armoured cars. He said he did not stop firing when the crowd began to disperse because he thought it was his duty to keep firing until the crowd dispersed, and that a little firing would do no good. The response was a storm of outrage throughout the world. Even The House of Commons censured him; in the debate Winston Churchill claimed: "The incident in Jallian Wala Bagh was an extraordinary event, a monstrous event, an event which stands in singular and sinister isolation". In India the massacre evoked feelings of deep anguish and anger. It catalysed the freedom movement in the Punjab against British rule and paved the way for Mohandas Gandhi's Non-Cooperation Movement against the British in 1920. It was also motivation for a number of other revolutionaries, including Bhagat Singh. The Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore returned his knighthood to the King-Emperor in protest. The massacre ultimately became an important catalyst of the Indian independence movement. The Israelis would be foolish to engage in the same. They would be wiped out of the region, and nothing the U.S. could do would prevent it.

It's interesting to consider political corruption as an element of any city residence. Not solely with regard to the local voting procedures. During the lobbying process on almost any financial matter, there are always some special interest groups that are compensated, admittedly in often rather strange ways, which gain special benefits. Today's laws, particularly on a local city/county level, or even on the federal level, are complicated with numerous exceptions, special options, grafts, corruptions, giveaways to one politician's backers or another. Some political machines are terribly corrupt and cause great harm to the individual resident. Those are cities which it would be smart to avoid--particularly if you are outspoken about such matters. Others have a different vantage-point regarding corruption--it helps local businesses to protect themselves from the vices and crimes of the local city fathers, the cops, various regulatory boards, etc., etc. Here in Las Vegas, it's called "juice". "Juice" gets you a sympathetic ear with a prominent lawyer with connections, the Mayor or this board or that one. If you are particularly friendly and loose with your cash-box--with this campaign fund, or that offer for a job opening later on, it's the accepted way of doing things--and the doors open for you with smiles on every face. It's not pretty, and I've watched local politics long enough to know who is part of the "old boy" network (also known as the "Mormon mafia" here because of the city's roots in the regional mormon culture) and who isn't. New residents are shocked and surprised when they come up against the way things are done, but if you live here long enough, you find that local politics, which is where politics begins, has nothing to do with principled action. This is part of the reality of small-town politics and cities which, like Las Vegas with over a million in population now, have rapidly grown but not grown out of the small-town politics. Many issues come to the fore which become useful to local politicians, not the least being environmentalism and conserving local wildlife. It gives the local politicians leverage in controlling the community. Not that a conservation or environmental issue stop a project politically desired. Let me give you an example. Las Vegas used eminent domain to take a small nature preserve and turn it into a golf course. The nature preserve was given to the city of Las Vegas, along with an annual stipend, with the proviso that it remain in a "natural state". Once the land was gifted to the city, judges and local attorneys took the issue of the land grant to court (the local court, btw). It was next to a courthouse and the ones who primarily use the golf course are judges and attorneys in their off-hours, lunches, breaks, or when they are supposedly working on other projects (it's also less than a mile from where I live in Las Vegas). Having worked as a mediator (domestic relations) for years with numerous local attorneys and judges has given me something of an ear for the goings-on in the local courthouses and legislative bodies. Also, Nevada, being relatively small, means that I have had contact with more politicians that I particularly care for. Anyway, I'll get off of my soap-box for now. I do want to point out that corruption is a natural element in city/county politics. Kind of reminds me of the old comment made by Frank Chodorov about the McCarthy anti-communist crusade to get communists out of the federal government: "You can't get rid of them--It's their natural breeding ground!" Same way with corruption in local politics. Cheers!

Barbara said: Oh gosh, Barbara, that's fine. After the Vietnam foolishness ended, the last thing I ever wanted to do was talk about another war, and never expected anyone in politics of any party to engage in any invasion akin to that war. I sincerely hope that war will never be an issue again. I suspect that we can never know for certain whether a third party of a minor stripe like the LP had enough votes to overturn an election with the GOP. I would expect that if the leading figures in the GOP knew that it was the case, the GOP would actively and handily destroy the LP. For the GOP, it would be like smashing a gnat with a sledgehammer. My experience in politics tells me it would be easy to do. My own training was with some of the "old boys" in the Nixon camp who knew what dirty politics was. The LP wouldn't know what hit them.

Barbara and Chris, I certainly agree. Ronald Reagan was a remarkable person, and was proud to work for him in California when he was governor. He was a great speaker, but even more charismatic on a personal level than he was on the podium. As I am sure you are well aware, people like him are few and far between. It may be a long time before we see the likes of him. He worked well with everyone and managed to work with a long-entrenched Democrat control in California. He was a good man; an opinion I still hold. My last political act was to work for Barry Goldwater, Jr's campaign to get elected in California (successful), mainly due to my respect for his father. Several of my old buddies went on to become part of Reagan's administration--one is still a congressman in Orange County, CA. Many of my friends of that time went on to become part of his successor's ("Duke" Dukmejian) administration instead, and I had a close view of California politics. I also learned much of what had gone on during Reagan's gubernatorial administration as well from my friends. I worked with one of the Reagan "Kitchen Cabinet" members afterward (in a nonpolitical position) and he was quite open with me. I did not particularly care for much of Reagan's Presidential administration, as there was little in the way of reducing federal power that had been accomplished during that time, and the federal government growth actually increased during that time. I did like the minimalist approach to foreign policy. Outside of the Grenada invasion, which could be argued was an effort to keep our military in fighting order than an actual war (Grenada was barely a nation and more akin to an old, dusty Carribean community), and an incursion in Lebanon (he backtracked quickly on that one), he was more an isolationist than a Wilsonian internationalist like Bush II. I know that many of us had hoped that Bush Il II would follow in his footsteps, but his administration has done so much damage that it may not be possible to ever find a "frugal" government for yet another generation. On foreign policy I just have no regard for his policy of invasion in Afghanistan and the invasion in Iraq--which has opened up into a near world war in the islamic countries against the Christian west. Neither action addressed the problem of terrorism. Nor does bombing madrasses (islamic schools) in the middle east do anything but increase the likelihood of terrorist acts. Bush has no respect for the rights of people in these countries. These people are not terrorists, even though they don't think the same way that we do. There are terrorist-wannabes there and terrorists, but our actions do not clearly demonstrate in the court of public opinion that we are considerate of the lives and property of others. Barbara, I doubt that the LP handed control of both houses to the democratic party. The LP votes would not have necessarily gone to the GOP. Most likely, most would have gone to non-involvement, the Greens or some alternate party, and would have been irrelevant to the vote totals.

Rich, Don't think of it as a disappointment, think of it as something that has weighed heavily upon you. I suspect that you are going to be more relieved than you realize. You were invested in something that didn't help you, and you have the chance to be rid of it, once and for all. Cheers!

Micheal said: Micheal, I reside in Nevada where "None of The Above" (NOTA) was added to the ballot some years ago. Typically, it receives a larger vote than any third-party candidate and sometimes receives the second-largest vote. Regrettably it has no real influence on the voting process and is largely ignored. Most non-voters here simply don't vote, rather than register a NOTA. I would expect "blank voting" to be common in situations like Brazil's process with mantatory voting. Chris said: Chris, In this day of the internet, there are better ways for like-minded people to contact each other. Certainly Objectivist Living is an example of this! I originally thought much the same as you are expressing, but a review of the history of propositions and initiatives (initiative and referendum, I&R) as they are structured in the U.S. does not leave me particularly optimistic. I once did a paper analyzing the history of the ballot process in California from its inception onward (should dig it out, refine it and publish it sometime-it's quite an interesting history). It is far easier for special interest groups to use I&Rs to gain particular political advantages than it is for a democratic populist group to reduce regulations and increase freedom. Even when local groups use I&Rs, it is far more likely that in the long run, the results will be less freedom than otherwise. A good source is Richard J. Ellis' Democratic Delusions: The Initiative Process in America (Laurence KS: The University Press of Kansas; 2002. 260 pp.) Shayne asked: If I knew precisely what you mean by "anarchist", I could give you a clearer response, Shayne. I generally regard myself as a classical liberal, but that is a very broad term and consider myself in the more radical wing of classical liberalism. I do identify, politically speaking, with people like Thomas Hodgskin, Spencer Heath, Robert LeFevre, George H. Smith and Wendy McElroy, but I think only a couple of them would call themselves "anarchist." I think that I'm at that point where minarchist and anarchist hits, but couldn't give you a better description. Part of the reason why I am less concerned about labels is that I've spent nearly two decades doing family mediation (domestic relations) and have seen legal process from the standpoint of the individual. I've seen what judges and the courts do, and don't regard justice as having much to do with the reality of our justice system. And the laws which people must follow were once set on a local level where individuals have the greatest effect on the creation of the laws that they must follow. Now, the U.S. legal system has become increasingly federalized and micromanaged on the state and federal level. I know that many objectivists seem to believe that one law should be universally applicable in some "One-World" sense (maybe by the U.N.?), but that is the reality of a dictatorship on a massive scale, not the applicable rules for a free society which respects individual rights. Michael said: Absolutely! As objectivists, our selfish concern is for our own life and of those close to us. We should look for better ways of protecting ourselves and defending ourselves than relying upon those with little or no concern for freedom, personal responsibility, and happiness. And we should be ready to shake off support for those institutions which do us no good, whether it be the LP, GOP or the state. Thank you for your kind comment, Michael! Rich said: Thank you, Rich! Acting from anger does not always get what you want. Remember "'brer rabbit and the patch". "brer bear goes further and further into the patch until he's trapped and can't get out. All he wanted was a 'brer rabbit snack and thought he was too smart for 'brer rabbit. This is what happens with us. We become so invested in our anger and in using politics to even the score that we have forgotten our intent--freedom. I think this is what has happened with the LPers. Many have invested their lives in a failed venture, and don't realize (or don't want to realize) that there is less freedom now than when they began their venture. It's a good time to reevaluate the process--and move on to something more productive. Best to you all!