Michael Stuart Kelly

Root Admin
  • Content count

    29,219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Michael Stuart Kelly last won the day on May 20

Michael Stuart Kelly had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

19 Good

1 Follower

About Michael Stuart Kelly

  • Rank
    $$$$$$
  • Birthday 06/09/1952

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Michael Stuart Kelly
  • Articles
    Initial Understanding of Islam on Fundamental Intellectual Issues Thoughts on the 12 Steps and Self-Forgiveness Why the Tolerance and Support? Atlantis in the Wilderness A Hunting Story Moral Perfection Like a Lamb to the Slaughter Letter to Madalena ... An Homage to the Value of Valuing Going Home... A Few Thoughts on Family Values Where Principles and Rights Break Down The Stigma of Addiction Book Review on an Addiction Fraud - A Million Little Pieces Charmed on a Raw Night The Nature of Private Written Correspondence – The Sciabarra Smear Online Objectivist Mediocrity The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth - Part 2 - Moral Ambivalence The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth - Part 3 - Brotherhood of Hate The Ayn Rand Love/Hate Myth - Part 4 - Rand's True Value The Virtue of Silliness (w/Kat)
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

63,922 profile views
  1. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    Jonathan, From what I've seen, she doesn't even know there's anything to get. But she's starting to get a glimpse of how meta thinking works re consistency. Give her time... when the epiphany hits, it will probably be a ways down the road in the future at 3:00 AM while coming out of a deep sleep. Michael
  2. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    Just for the record... Aaaaaaaaannnddd... That's exactly how it goes down with Hillary Clinton fans. But some of us don't forget. The Me Too movement sure as hell won't remember... Michael
  3. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Fake News

    You really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really have to be careful when you get in bed with a powerful establishment elitist. Lookee here: Hillary Clinton Wants to Be CEO of Facebook According to the headline, people may wonder what the hell Zuckerberg thinks of that. To be fair, Clinton was asked if she could be CEO of any company, which one she would choose. So, although I have no doubt Clinton would "handle" Zuckerberg in a heartbeat and sleep like a baby if she could get hold of his power and wield it, and he really does need to think about who he gets in bed with, he is not the one I'm talking about. I'm talking about the mainstream fake news media. The legacy media. And who they got in bed with. Here's a quote from the video in the above link: What are some inferences we can make from this statement? How do I read thee? Let me count the ways... 1. Clinton thinks Facebook is a news platform just like any newspaper or broadcast news company. This is a terrible mistake, but why is another discussion beyond the scope of this post (i.e., the difference between interactive free-for-all Internet platforms versus legacy top-down one-way communication platforms). The main point here is that Clinton presents this idea clearly and her followers will swallow it whole without thinking. In other words, to her, Facebook is a competitor of legacy media. It isn't, but once again, her followers will now believe this. I wonder what the legacy fake-news media thinks of that? Hmmmm???... 2. Facebook is the number one place people turn to in order to "try to keep up with the news." Not the legacy media. I wonder what the legacy fake-news media thinks of that? Hmmmm???... 3. Due to "unexpected consequences of their business model," people are not getting from Facebook "accurate information on which to make decisions." And it is "critical to our democracy" that Facebook get this right according to what she means by that. In other words, to her, people are not getting enough accurate information on which to make decisions" from the legacy media. Whether this is because the legacy media is fake news or whether it has become irrelevant in terms of being "critical to our democracy," she didn't say. She only made it clear she didn't think the legacy media was worth mentioning in this context. I could go on, but is there any need to? Clinton, like the doofus she is, just trashed the mainstream legacy fake news media that has supported her and still supports her (after all, they got in bed with her ). How? Well, her followers take her pronouncements whole and undigested. That means the message in between the lines goes in undigested, too. And that message is: the legacy media is not very important anymore. I wonder what the legacy fake-news media thinks of that? Hmmmm???... I never knew Clinton agreed with President Trump on this point as much as she did here. Michael
  4. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Ayn Rand And The End Of Love

    Robert, I have a really good feeling about you. You sound like my kind of people. Michael
  5. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    Tony, I saw this from the beginning with President Trump. And that leads me to conclude that the people in certain O-Land circles would not know a concept if it bit them on the ass. That's why I don't participate too much in any "Objectivist movement." I am interested in helping to change the world for the better. I am not interested in playing at it, but in reality, only playing clique games by people who don't know what the hell they are doing, but preach to others how wrong they all are. They use the "criticize first, then try to identify" axiomatic method of thinking when they come across an anomaly to group-think and power structures. And since President Trump is the anomaly supreme to the scripts running in their heads, they add "rationalize the hell out of the criticism and refuse to identify" corollary. I use the "try to identify correctly before evaluating" method. And reality, not predigested scripts and storylines, is my foundational standard. I look at a person who molds reality to his vision by accepting the laws of reality first and leaves a trail of achievements across the world, and that is a person I call conceptual irrespective of how he talks. Ayn Rand never got tired of saying, "Nature to be commanded must be obeyed." It sounds good, but what happens when someone lives it instead of just talking about it? Do you get all those essays and lectures we see all over the place in our subcommunity that no one remembers after they are presented, or do you get President Trump and his massive high-end achievements that literally changed the world for the better and--in many places--the very face of it? (btw - Ayn Rand lived this saying, not just talked about it. And she was talking about getting the concepts right--that is, getting the concepts aligned with nature. Look at her novels and try to write one like that. One must accept the nature of fiction, the nature of what in the human mind makes fiction resonate, before one can command it.) In many O-Land circles, I see people passionately trying to command other people and get them to obey, but little of the commanding and obeying nature part. Maybe they feel working with nature is beneath them... It's feels better to issue moral commands to other people and to hell with their nature, then criticize those who mold nature to their visions and dreams as "anti-intellectual"... (Yup, elitism has infested our subcommunity to the gills...) Michael
  6. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    Carol, This is where I start to lose interest. You clearly said you denounce certain women, included a woman who was not being discussed and left out the one who was being discussed, asked how on earth I could construe your words to mean an inference I made (as a quip), then said you did not mean what you said. yawn... What part of denounce did I misunderstand? This one? So one minute you denounce and in another you don't really, but you are certain the people who read you don't understand you. Bullshit. All this blah blah blah gives me the clear impression that you approve of Hillary chasing down the rape victims of her hubby to destroy them since you won't denounce her for her "public complaisance," but opt for blah blah blah when asked. Maybe it's not that you approve of Hillary persecuting a former president's rape victims, but, from the way you discuss (and don't discuss), it's clear you give her a pass that you don't believe the other two are entitled to. After all, Hillary Clinton is a famous liberal politician who breaks glass ceilings, champions women's rights (except those of her hubby's rape victims, of course ), and our fearless big sister leaders are to be admired, not criticized... This kind of "I said but you are wrong because I didn't really say" stuff gets boring beyond tears for the reader, so I am not going to continue this conversation. I'll talk about other stuff, but not this anymore. Agree and disagree is fine, but there has to be some minimum of tracking of what one says to hold my interest, and, frankly, the reader's. Tracking one's own words is a skill worth learning... Michael
  7. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    btw - President Trump issued a full posthumous pardon for the first black heavyweight champion boxer, Jack Johnson, who suffered an unfair racist sentence in the first half of last century. (From Fox:) Trump posthumously pardons Jack Johnson, boxing's first black heavyweight champion President Trump is slipping. He needs to do some study or something to get his racism back on track. What the hell is going on here? Michael
  8. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    Korben, And there's this. I probably should amend my statement that President Trump is different in private than he is in public. I was talking about the public persona he cultivates to provoke outrage in his haters so he can manipulate them and lead them around by the nose like he does the media. He's not like that in private and there are innumerable stories in the press by people who say that with both surprise and admiration. President Trump probably is the same as that persona in private as he is in public, though, with elitist establishment Republican fools who want to boss him around. And even then, President Trump put up with folks idiots Joe Scarborough a lot before he decided they weren't worth being nice to anymore in private. btw - High-powered NY businessmen do cuss a lot in their inner circles. It's a cultural thing, but it's not malicious like the Trump-haters try to imply. It's more like a runoff from an excess of testosterone. One doesn't have to like it to identify it correctly. I doubt you will get correct identification of much of anything in elitist rags like New Yorker magazine. Well... maybe they identify folks like them correctly, but they go off the rails when they constantly pretend folks like them are superior to the rest of mankind. Michael
  9. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    Carol, I don't. The magic word for me was "denounce." I made an inference based on you denouncing Georgina and Melania, but not Hillary, even though the post you were responding to asked about Georgina and, specifically, Hillary, but not Melania. I wondered why you did that and the only rational reason I can come up with is you approve of Hillary on a level you do not Georgina and Melania. It's probably an condescension thing or sumpin' inherent to the class you belong to... Michael
  10. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    I just saw an interview between Ezra Levant and Conrad Black. This was published on YouTube on May 22, 2018, a couple of days ago, so it's current. Frankly, I had not seen enough of either of them before to have an opinion of them, but I enjoyed the hell out of this interview. Conrad Black seems to have the best overall grasp of who President Trump is of anyone else I have read. (I have a feeling Salena Zito will rival him, but focusing on Trump supporters instead of President Trump per se. Once I read her new book, The Great Revolt, I will let you know.) I already have Conrad Black's book and I will read it. Here's a link for those who might want it--it just came out a few days ago: Donald J. Trump: A President Like No Other. btw - I looked up Conrad Black and read a bit because of his legal troubles. From what I was able to discern, and this is my opinion, he is a businessman in the "killer in the boardroom" category who must have seriously stomped on some toes of people we don't even imagine, but who had contacts in powerful places. So they railroaded him as payback. The only things that stuck on his conviction were of a gotcha legal technicality nature and that is an indication to me of why I think he was railroaded. The best thing I like about him, going on this interview (and another small video I saw), is that he consciously uses the cognitive before normative way of thinking as a form of speech. In every word he says, you can almost see him make a conscious effort to make sure he is correctly identifying the facts he observes before he issues an evaluation. Epistemologically and regarding this specific process, I have yet come across someone who I resonated with as strongly as I do with him. What a joy... I will be digging into Conrad Black's other works. Even the one on Franklin Roosevelt. I have a feeling he will be factual as all get out and meticulous in his evaluations, even if I may disagree with them. As an aside, I loved the way he characterized the progressive elitists. He said (my paraphrase from the video) they care about and have compassion for the lower classes as groups, but they would hardly associate with individuals in those classes on a regular basis because they feel superior. LOL... He nailed it. As one who has associated, and still associates, regularly with folks in "oppressed classes" almost exclusively on an individual basis, I now have the words for a truth I have always stated in terms that never satisfied me. As to Ezra, I found him far less charismatic, but thoroughly likable and agreeable to my way of thinking. Michael
  11. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    Carol, In other words, you approve of Hillary's way of "staying with her man" in public, but privately going after and destroying the women Bill raped to keep them quiet? Michael
  12. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    This is to the reader: I don't know if the following will help, but here's a video of Greenhall giving one of the foundations of his kind of thinking. I chose this video because it's relatively short. Now apply this to politics and we see why the Savior Obama did not fix the world with his hope and chance or even leave a lasting legacy other than gay marriage and, possibly, legalization of pot. Savior Obama tried to do everything from the top down and the will of the people be damned. President Obama said, after losing both houses of Congress: "I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward..." He didn't want to work with Congress. He wanted agreement from Congress. Big difference. Sadly for Obama (but great for the country), the people did not want to give him a Congress that would agree with him. So he didn't even try to work with Congress. He stamped his foot and demanded everything be his way. And, after seeing the ease with which President Trump dismantled all that pen-and-phone work, we see Obama simply was not a good leader. He did not understand his job. But that is the danger in top-down structuring. If you get a sucky boss, you get sucky results that don't last. What's worse, after 8 years of many people worshipping at Obama's feet, they learned to think in the manner of the structure he operated and they find it hellishly difficult to do normal cognition. They think declaring they are science-oriented makes them science-oriented as they act like fundamentalist religious fanatics. They think controlling the narrative enables them to make others believe that narrative. Hell, many think narrative replaces reality and whoever tells the best victimization story becomes the bearer of the true facts. They think shutting people up is akin to converting them. And so on. President Trump's appearance on the political scene and administration is akin to the effect of the Internet on broadcast media. Oh, there's an element of top-down, but Trump regularly interacts with his followers. If the media gatekeepers try to stifle something he wants publicized, he simply takes his ideas directly to the population on social media and they respond. Then the mainstream media talks about it because they can't not talk about it. There are only a few outlets in the mainstream top-down media that like Trump as President. The vast majority of the mainstream media hate him. Yet his domination of interactive communication allows him to lead the legacy fake news media around by the nose. They can't stop talking about him and he knows how to keep that running. He knows this reinforces his influence with every word they say. They know it, too, but they still can't help themselves, poor things... It's not just the ideas, although--I believe--ideas play the lion's share. It's also the kind of thinking structures people develop by imitating what is prevalent in their communication environment. People automatically run structural scripts in their minds because that's the way they learned how to organize their communicable knowledge of the world, but they run content scripts on top that pop out on cue like kneejerks when keywords are articulated. And that is nothing but parroting their daily media indoctrination... Er... Is this clear or confusing? Suddenly, I feel like I am surfing on a massive tangent... Michael
  13. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    Carol, In a certain manner, yes. President Trump uses words to cripple vicious enemies who attack him. Everyone of those former presidents used guns. Michael
  14. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    Carol, I should have mentioned the kind of thing he creates: goods for peaceful purposes. He is a wealth creator (wealth being much more than money--it's the stuff money is based on). Now that he is head of the government, he invests US taxes in the US military (not his own money to my knowledge), but no longer in the boondoggles the Pentagon cronies so dearly love and not in a steady stream of blowing up costly stuff like with Obama's drone wars (that the media conveniently ignored). As to acknowledging others, their rights and so forth, seriously, you need to take a peek outside your tent. The stories of his kindness and generosity abound. They exist everywhere except in the bubble of the anti-Trumpers. And there are many. I'm not trying to be snarky, either. All you have to do is look outside the tent and it's all there. In fact, with truly needy people, President Trump practices the kind of charity I admire. He resolves their problems and doesn't talk about it. You should see how many people come forth at times to try to thank him for something he did for them in a bad time of need. President Trump has a media personality that is in stark contrast to him as a private individual. And given the vicious state of the media, why shouldn't he? This is very well-known in the world outside the bubble you live in. But he's pretty ruthless as a counterpuncher. So, if in your bubble, someone decides they are big enough to insult Trump in main media venues, then gets smacked harder than they give (which is what usually happens), they start playing the victim. To you it might seem they are being bullied, but out here in the rest of reality, we notice their provocations. We see what they do. In short, they are not getting bullied. They are getting comeuppance for being bullies themselves. Let me give you a good example pre-election. Trump has had in a long standing feud with Rosie O'Donnell. Do you know why? Back in 2006, he owned the Miss America Beauty Pageant. Miss USA that year, Tara Conner, had some trouble with drug and alcohol addiction and the yellow journalism press went after her with a vengeance. Trump, who lost a brother to alcoholism, gave her a second chance, even saying in public he believed in second chances, let her keep the crown, and she went into rehab. She cleaned herself up. Rosie O'Donnell had a shit fit in public about this. She wanted Tara's scalp and made no bones about it. (I have no idea why, but it was ugly and unprovoked.) When the nastiness reached a certain point, Trump thought she was acting like a bully and stood up for Tara. He went after Rosie counterpunching hard in public and the feud started. Of course, Rosie painted it all as if Trump was coming after her over nothing and she was the innocent little victim. Then Rosie had a heart attack and Trump could not have been more gracious to her. This shocked her and everybody else. After she got better, he resumed the fued. You despise a propaganda version, not the reality. For example, he was hiring women to run his businesses in real estate when no progressive in the same business would ever dared to have done that. And if you look at some of those executives, you will see they may dress nice, but they are no beauty queens. He has always encouraged women to do and be their best and he put his money where his mouth was when nobody else did. And he kept doing it for years. I can't think of any woman he despises except Rosie. And even then, the heart attack episode showed he wasn't running on the kind of hatred someone like Kathy Griffin did holding up a decapitated head of him as a "joke." I've never seen President Trump ever do anything of that nature in public, nor in private (leaked) for that matter. For his own romances, he's loved beautiful women. Why shouldn't he? He's a billionaire, for God's sake. Beautiful women seem to gravitate toward money. Inside the leftwing tent, I'm pretty sure I would despise Trump the way you do. But there are things called eyes and life outside the tent. And the tent version of Trump simply does not correspond to reality. It's a fiction. A nasty one that that, but I'm not complaining. After all, Trump won, he is winning and he will be winning for a long time. In fact, I believe there will not be much of a tent when he gets through. I probably should use a different term for tent, though. I like the term Blue Church by a guy named Jordan Greenhall (look him up--he's wicked smart). In his version, when people are inside the Blue Church, they run Blue Church scripts in their minds rather than using their own independent verification and thinking. That doesn't just apply to the left, it applies everywhere, but these days, the High Priests of the Blue Church are the mainstream media. They even have a term for new scripts as they arise. They call them "talking points." What's worse, all they can talk about these days are the insurgent "Red Religion." I have to admit, you do peek outside the Blue Church, though. The light might hurt your eyes, but you do peek at times. After all, you post here. Michael
  15. Michael Stuart Kelly

    Donald Trump

    You'd prefer a community organizer who bullied and threatened, and who failed to deliver anything anywhere near to what he promised, and in fact, delivered the opposite? Jonathan, I'm glad you highlighted this. Donald Trump is one of the most moral men ever to run for the presidency. It's our good fortune he didn't just run, he won. When you look at President Trump's philosophy, you will see reality at the base of everything he does and says. What you don't see is a pile of words people can pick at and shame him with. Trump towers don't fall. This is just one example, but it's a good one. For people who have read Atlas Shrugged, there is a passage on the opening run of the John Galt Line where Dagny was looking at the way a locomotive was built from the inside as the train was running, with every detail a precise answer to an existential question, "Why?" And she came to the conclusion she was before the product of the finest morality on earth. (That's my paraphrase, not Rand's words, but this is the essence of that scene.) Once again, Trump towers don't fall. That is not the product of a philosophical cynic. That is a product of the finest philosophy on earth. Leaving the realm of metaphysics only, as to President Trump reversing himself on social positions, he takes the reality of human nature into account and works with people the way they are, not the way he or anybody else wants them to be. For example, if some slimeballs are trying to take him out through a corrupt media and a loose organization of ill-intentioned intelligence bureaucrats, he sees he owes them no allegiance in practice and he takes them out instead. He is not the savior of the corrupt. He is the builder of the "Make America Great Again" vision. Hell, when politicians have been in Trump's way before he went into politics, he simply bribed them to the legal extent he could to get them out of his way. That's not only dealing with reality, if that isn't a highly moral act when a Trump tower is the foundational value, I don't know what is. According to his critics, playing fair with politicians who don't play fair with him is their version of morality. It may be fair to some storyline in their heads that they prefer to reality, but it has nothing to do with the reality of the character of most politicians, nor their intentions. In other words, the aim of politicians is their own power, it is not a Trump tower in the end. And not one of them has the capacity to erect such a building. Not one. This is not because they lack the experience or intelligence to do so. It's because they don't hold high enough moral values to pull it off. Michael