RightJungle

Members
  • Posts

    158
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RightJungle

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Mary Lee Harsha
  • Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.
    Billy Joel, Toscanini directs Wagner, The cover of "An Island Called Liberty","Galaxy Quest", "Inglorious Basterds", Equus with Richard Burton, House, Monk, 24, Glenn Beck talking to Yaron Brook
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    From Houston to East Bay area to Iowa
  • Interests
    See About me page

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

RightJungle's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. As one of the "independent women" who sometimes posts here: When I was younger I was frequently the object of "attention" in male dominated businesses - and not just by the men either. It didn't bother me at all at the time - I just dealt with it by physically dodging an unwanted pat, or making a comeback joke that showed me to be a player rather than a victim. There may also have been a certain amount of unrealistic conceit on my part that translated into "The poor fellas just couldn't help themselves." In time I got over that conceit. I was just over 40 years of age when Anita Hill made her complaint against Clarence Thomas. At the time I was surprised that she would make such a complaint a matter of public discussion. I felt embarassed for her because I thought that she looked weak and stupid in her victim pose. Maybe given her race and gender and the times there was more at play there than I realized. A couple of years later, during my stint as a project manager, I received training in handling sexual harrassment situations. Much to my surprise the opportunity to practice my training arose when my best male system architect became the target of a married woman's crush. He was being harrassed by personal visits and phone calls during work by this woman who also reported to me. He didn't want to create a problem for the project, but she was making his life pretty miserable. To make matters worse, he was falling in love with another woman from another work group and didn't want to draw attention to himself in that situation. When he brought the problem to me, I turned it over to HR and consented to having the intractible woman transferred to another group within the company. When the system architect and I were having a post mortem discussion about what had happened he was very shaken by what had befallen him. He thought that the public attention paid to the subject of sexual harrassment had actually increased the awareness of all concerned and made settling the issue much more difficult than it might otherwise have been. Well, maybe. As a general rule a person should appeal to a higher authority within the organization to help with a "personnel" problem only when she thinks that her ability to do her work is at stake or that others within the company are under threat, and that she is not equipped to deal with it on her own. In regard to sexual harrassment - real or imagined - I could be wrong, but I see very little in relationships between men and women that does not have some amount of sexual awareness involved. Life's lesson: You may not be able to keep the birds from flying over your head, but you can keep them from building a nest in your hair. Sex is certainly not at the root of all or even most conflicts at work. Each of us is responsible for our own well being at work or at play. We must assume the responsibility of using our own discernment to recognize the difference between playful or inappropriate behavior and threatening behavior. Having made that discernment, if the behaviour is not threatening respond accordingly and move on. You're at work after all. If it is threatening, and you are not John Wayne, get help from HR as quickly as possible to avoid a regrettable outcome.
  2. Sorry to come in so late on this topic. I may not get an audience, but, oh well. One of Branden's points was not that a person has "something wrong" with his self-esteem. It's more like this: "One cannot be too rich and one cannot be too high in self esteem." Of course a person suffering from a low sense of self esteem can use help to raise his sense of self esteem. By the same token, a person of high self esteem can still want to improve either certain areas of his self esteem or his overall sense of self worth. Don't we of the Objectivist persuasion enjoy increasing our understanding of philosophy and its application? Doesn't that have the effect of raising our sense of self esteem because it increases our sense of personal efficacy in life?
  3. You can always go to the Branden Web site and e-mail him your questions about the book. He responds to e-mails.
  4. I've developed a bad habit of using what is meant to be a funny reference: If so and so was alive today he would be rolling over in his grave. But just as a great many people miss that, I just don't get your reference to rolling on Objectivist Living. I know that having to explain a joke can kill it, but I'm so curious about what you meant. ML, I was thinking of "on a roll" and "rocking and rolling" - & also the subtext of your own joke, AR is dead but certainly alive here on OL. Thanks for forgiving my intrusion! Oh, Thank you. I'm having one of those obtuse days.
  5. I've developed a bad habit of using what is meant to be a funny reference: If so and so was alive today he would be rolling over in his grave. But just as a great many people miss that, I just don't get your reference to rolling on Objectivist Living. I know that having to explain a joke can kill it, but I'm so curious about what you meant.
  6. I am going to put them here one at a time as I have time. I really would like to know what non-Iowans think about all of this. Here is one from Tuesday, March 22 that roused my competitive spirit a little. Section: Metro & Iowa on Tuesday, March 22, 2011, Page 1 bottom. Headline reads: Debate on economic development bill likely this week By Jason Clayworth. The gist is that last Wednesday the Iowa House debated "a major reorganization of the state's economic development efforts, including creation of a nonprofit group that would operate without the same public scrutiny as typical government bodies. The economic development corporation would be charged with receiving and distributing money from both taxpayer and private sources, to be used to further economic development. It's part of a plan to scrap the state's current Department of Economic Development and restructure it as a public-private entity. (Can we say Agenda 21 boys and girls?) The corporation would not be considered a state agency and would not have to comply with requirements such as Iowa's open records law. Critics worry that businesses could influence the corporation to help them win millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies without public disclosure of their ties to the nonprofit corporation. Advocates say businesses already influence economic development practices (and isn't that what they are supposed to do? except without picking my pocket.) and that the proposed corporation would have distinct duties that would help avoid improper influence. (Really? How?) Here's a breakdown of House File 590: BACKGROUND: The bill reflects Gov. Terry Branstad's campaign pledge to reform the state's economic development department, which he called "scandal-ridden" following an audit that found misuse of taxpayer money in an incentive program for moviemakers. The proposed public-private entity would increase flexibility and incorporate a customer-service mentality so Iowa can make the "sale" to keep or create jobs, he said when unveiling the idea last year. Part of what makes this hard for me to accept is that I didn't know he had unveiled this idea during the campaign. I had low expectations and didn't always pay attention. Also, I voted for the Libertarian candidate. THE BILL: It would scrap the current state Department of Economic Development (this is what the Tea Party members were calling for, not the new organization.) and the Iowa Economic Development Board. It would create the Iowa Partnership for Economic Progress, consisting of a nonprofit economic development authority and a companion economic development corporation. (I immediately thought about the Louisiana Slaughterhouse case. Of course, we now have craven cowards where our State Supreme Court used to be, so there will be no challenge to this in the court system.) DUTIES: The partnership would work as an advisory body within state government. It would have a seven-member board led by the governor or lieutenant governor and filled with business leaders. The authority would have a nine-member board to oversee incentives.(If Ayn Rand was alive today, she would be rolling over in her grave. Who chooses the lucky ones? A nine member board. Yeah, right.) A third board overseeing the nonprofit corporation (wait a minute – non profit? Where does its financing come from? From us, the funders of Government?) would distribute money from both taxpayer and private sources to further economic development. CONCERNS: Democrats on Monday said they planned to offer amendments that would require further reporting requirements by the nonprofit corporation. Democrats said they are not out to sink the bill but think more should be done to avoid potential political or financial headaches. (Headaches? How about out and out rights violations?) QUOTE: "It could lead to some improprieties," said Rep. Roger Thomas of Elkader, the top-ranking Democrat on the House Economic Growth Committee. "In my world, this is a big deal for the state. Who is going to get those incentives?" (Yeah, who? And what is good about Government making those choices?) ADVOCACY: The bill requires the nonprofit corporation to file an annual report about its activities to the Legislature. Possible financial influence from businesses exists in Iowa's current system and is something that lawmakers must continue to deal with, said Ed Wallace, president of the Iowa Taxpayers Association, a nonpartisan research group in Des Moines that represents more than 150 businesses. (Let me see, Ed represents 150 businesses – private industry – and likes this whole program? But of course. Business is business, right?) But he sees benefit in a nonprofit corporation to help strengthen Iowa's business-building structures, he said. SAFEGUARDS: Board members of the nonprofit corporation can't sit on the board of the authority, where key decisions are made about how to spend taxpayer money. (Let's see – the authority that oversees the incentives can't also be members of the third board that actually distributes the money. Hmm. Yeah, no chance of the authority overstepping that boundary, huh?) House Republicans are also expected to offer their own amendments to ensure every taxpayer dollar given to the nonprofit corporation is accounted for, said Debi Durha!)m, director of the state's economic development department. Some of the suggestions came from Bill Monroe, Branstad's transparency adviser. The state, upon advice from the Iowa attorney general, cannot prescribe how the corporation would spend its private money without opening taxpayers to liability, Durham said. (Anyone else having trouble understanding what Debi Durham just said? You know what? I don't want my government funding money to be accounted for by these goons. I want it back in my bank account). QUOTE: "I would stake my reputation that this is far more transparent than what we have today," Durham said." (I wonder what this man's reputation is actually worth. Anyone know?)
  7. Michael, Replying to your post #192 Michael Stuart Kelley: “….It took me the longest time to ask the following questions: What if there's nothing wrong with me, but nothing wrong with others, too? What if it's just a matter of learning a skill that I have no natural talent for?” Michael, none of us have any natural talent for virtually anything that we do. We love a thing and apply perfect practice to it until we look like a genius at our chosen activity. Such an approach to talent and skill is basic Objectivism. If we keep that in mind, anything we set out to master actually becomes easier because we are not expecting our natural talent to come along and rescue us from our beginner’s ineptitude. It is exactly this “stuff of Objectivism” that makes it so valuable to us.
  8. Mary Lee: Well, were you in this crowd? Adam That was the Smokey Row meeting for Michele, obviously. I'm not there. I was in Des Moines, but skittered out and home around noon. The big deal is tonight with Newt. Couldn't tolerate that, so here I am at home trying to work up a logo to go with a new internet radio show on Objectivism (I'm such an expert) and maybe a logo for our Rational Patriots arm of The Objectivists of Des Moines group. Believe me, after all the discouraging stories in the Des Moines Register this week, this is way more productive an effort.
  9. Jules, Good for you - that you are willing to keep doing your work on Barbara's lecture series in spite of your injuries. I have used it and used it and used it. Please let us know if we can access your work after you publish it. Mary Lee
  10. I know what you mean. We did a litle presentation to Governor of Iowa, Terry Branstad today. It took hours to prepare for a 1/2 hour meeting. We've got a pack of politicians coming to Des Moines this Saturday and that will be an all day affair. I'm just a spectator at that. We need to get this country's and our state's politics back on track so we can go do something fun and non-political again. I will continue to work on it, too when I can. It actually is enjoyable to be learning so much about things that I had not thought much about before. Objectivism makes the study much easier than it would be without those standards.
  11. Mary Lee: I am trying to get my mind around resurrecting nullification and the tenth amendment. Many here will argue that the Civil War settled the issue at great cost to our nation. Lew Rockwell recommended this website, the Tenth Amendment Center, which I have just joined: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/ I have been desirous of a better employment of the Ninth and Tenth as a Constitutional method to reduce and eliminate federal power which has become more distant, more oppressive and more anti-founders Constitutional concepts. "At the core of the debate was the clash between two distinct theories of the Constitution: the nationalists view of a single sovereign people, a modern unitary state were power comes from a central authority, or the compact theorists who believe the United States had been formed when the thirteen original states each acting in its own sovereign capacity ratified the Constitution through STATE ratifying conventions rather than some single American people. Senator Daniel Webster argued that upon entering the Union, states surrender certain powers to the general government and that the general government itself is the final arbiter of their power. However, Senators Calhoun, Haynes and Rowan argued that the states never surrendered, but delegated power to the general government and one does not delegate to a greater authority, but to a lesser one. " The problem facing us today in advocating for the compact theory and nullification is that we will be tainted with the "slaver" label. Or, what do you want to do repeal the fourteenth amendment which extended federal rights through to the states. My answer would be, of course not. I am still wrestling with this concept and I am completely rusty on the case law for the tenth amendment which I will begin to rectify. Adam much more to follow How is your study on this coming along? I have to admit that I wandered off into another area trying to make sure that I understood the process of "Objectivity Confirmation" and haven't gotten back to it. I understand "Objectivity" a little better though. Kinda funny, given the name of this forum, isn't it?
  12. Hi, Mary Lee. I share your wish that there were a similar project underway for Barbara's POET lectures. The transcriptions have been completed for over a year now, and they await Barbara's decision to have them published essentially "as is," or to incorporate them into an expanded book on how and how not to think. If Nathaniel's book of lectures does well, as it appears it will, Cobden Press may have a definite interest in publishing Barbara's lectures as well. We will see. Best for the New Year, REB Roger, the last time we were here was back in May, 2010. Any word about Barbara's publishing plans? Does she think that the book needs a lot of updating? If so, can she get some help from her friends to get it done? Mary, since my family and I moved from SoCal to Tennessee last summer, I have heard very little from Barbara, and nothing in several months. I have not heard that she is seriously ill, and my wife spoke with her a few weeks ago, and she seemed all right over the phone. SO FAR AS I KNOW, there is nothing to report about Barbara's publishing plans. If I hear anything about which I am not sworn to secrecy, rest assured that I will post it here! The original lectures have all been transcribed, so it is really up to Barbara whether she wants to publish them as is, or to revise them first, as well as whether to add some additional material on new, but related topics. She ~was~ interested in having Cobden Press publish her book, since Cobden also published Nathaniel's Vision of Ayn Rand book last year. I don't know what she would need in the way of help we might give her. Becky (my wife) and I discussed several lectures with her, offering suggestions and seeking clarification on some points. But I think that she is simply working on her own time frame, and we will just have to be patient. REB Roger and Mary Lee: My work on the Efficient Thinking lectures has been slowed up both by illness and by other projects that I couldn't pass up.. But part of my brain is always working on the lectures, and as soon as I can, I'll get back to them. Barbara I am very glad that you responded so quickly. I have been talking about your lectures quite a bit lately and have started actively waiting for the book. Don't ask me what that looks like - it just means that I think about it quite a bit. I understand about new projects grabbing your attention. I hope that all is well with you, now.
  13. Hi, Mary Lee. I share your wish that there were a similar project underway for Barbara's POET lectures. The transcriptions have been completed for over a year now, and they await Barbara's decision to have them published essentially "as is," or to incorporate them into an expanded book on how and how not to think. If Nathaniel's book of lectures does well, as it appears it will, Cobden Press may have a definite interest in publishing Barbara's lectures as well. We will see. Best for the New Year, REB Roger, the last time we were here was back in May, 2010. Any word about Barbara's publishing plans? Does she think that the book needs a lot of updating? If so, can she get some help from her friends to get it done?
  14. I came here because of Hansen's request for Rand's self-contradictions that we could discuss. I asked that somewhere else, too. What would be helpful is to keep doing the list of the contradictions as was done above, along with the explanations. But first a complete list. Everyone who comes up with one could just add their example to the list rather than creating a new entry on the thread. What do you say?
  15. Wrong, the law of causality is that the actions possible to an object depend on its nature. She does not accept determinism. Wrong. Axioms are not a priori. They are propositions which must be accepted in any logical attempt to deny them. The denial of an axiom is self-refuting. Wrong. If your statement means anything, you conflate epistemology and metaphysics. A concept is not a physical box. "If the shoe fits" is not a literal call to find Cinderalla. Wrong. These are not Rand's words and she obviously recognized the need for a cassus belli. ]That's just incoherent. Good job Ted! Saved me a lot of work. Thanks.