On Obama and The Extended Values of Decision

In life, accountability for our actions is a necessity and one which directly affects the way we act in any given situation or when presented with any problem. This goes for every one of us and must be a truth under which our elected officials are likewise subject to if we wish for them not to abuse their power while propelling this country in a direction that is beneficial for us all. By the actions of others, predetermined consequential problems may arise, this is true, yet what it does not do is negate us from our personal responsibility when handling these problems, especially when we are in a position to rectify the issues.

Let us for a moment suppose we are hired by a company to take on a task, which the previous employee of the very same position had left in a less than desirable state. The company has let the previous employee go and we have been determined by a vetting process as having the abilities to fill the vacant spot for the purposes of fixing the situation while still furthering the company. Would the company not hold us liable for the decisions we make while occupying that position? Perhaps a different level of responsibility would be placed upon us, let us grant that, but it would be our responsibility from the moment of hiring nonetheless and any arguments concerning the previous employee’s decision making would not grant us too much extra leeway. For even if there is extra responsibility placed on us by the previous employee, we have already been vetted and determined by the management to have the ability to rectify the situation after our resume was juxtaposed with all other applicants. It could still be said that if we are given extra freedom in our position due to the mistakes of the previous employee, such explanations will ring hollow after a short time and in depth examination is still, not only justified, but it could also be argued that it is much more important as determined by the contractual obligations of the position itself, which we ourselves had applied for. In this illustration, it is obviously easy to substitute Bush as the previous employee, Obama as the present employee, and the American public as the management, while still having it all ring true.

Yet, that is not what we are hearing from some. Quite the adverse is being said and various people charge that we are not justified in passing any judgment on Obama due to the previous administrations decisions. Let us consider this true for a quick moment. What does it mean? It means the position has not really been filled, for enough power or fortitude has not been introduced to rectify the previous state, so the applicant remains ineffective. This, of course, is no more an enviable position to be in than the one who is being held to account and to say this fact somehow pacifies the need to be held presently accountable is somewhat of a delusion or misrepresentation of the facts.

Despite all this being said, it is true that presidencies are judged from a historical perspective and immediate decisions are best represented after a progression of time, for it is only after something takes full effect that its true effects can be known. We see this represented in even our own lives and coming from whatever perspective these effects can be changed if one only narrow or broaden the degree of focus. Yet, is this to say we can only judge a person’s decisions based on eventual outcome? If we indeed did this then we could not judge anyone in an immediate instance of what we have determined as being right or wrong, or indeed put any kind of ethical value on it whatsoever. Let us put it into practice and supposed a man running late for work decides to run a red light and does so successfully without anyone being hurt by the outcome. Indeed, let us say after the progression of time and broadening of perspective, he gets to work on time and we see there was only benefit in his actions and not any negative consequence. Therefore, a traffic cop who sees the traffic violation in the immediate is not justified in pulling him over. I think most people would agree it is unrealistic to judge strictly on outcome when applied in this, and many, situations.

This is the real question we need to pose to ourselves: Where can value and judgment on decision be placed? This is a highly debated question and one I think we can see representing itself in pop opinion and news coverage of the Obama presidency thus far. First, as already touched upon, some think the value in decision only lies in the outcome the decision produces. I hope I have already illustrated how unreliable the theory is. The second is that the value in decision only lies in its immediate empirical effects. Lastly, it is thought the value in decision is dependent on the will behind it. It is the last one I feel contains the most value and should be judged accordingly and it is this view upon which we build our system of law and ethics. This is not to say empirical effects are not taken into account, for this would be delusional as well, but rather effect serves as the evidence of the will which is in question.


I would like to demonstrate this point by using another illustration. Let us shift our focus from these values of decision and move to values of aesthetic expression. Where are true aesthetical values placed? Is it in the product of aesthetic desire or is it within the action itself? True aesthetic value is not solely manifest in the final object and how can it be, for aesthetics is a concept generated by human thought and not by any mere empirical object.

Let us suppose then that an individual wishes to create a work of art. The man within his studio then proceeds to splatter paint randomly upon a canvas, as in a nature in tune with the current conception of modern art. This act, henceforth, can be labeled as his aesthetic expression, but again it is not in this act where aesthetical value lies. Furthermore, let us take an example from what is empirical and confer it with the justified truth thereof, which shows us no object can be propelled forward through time and space without some applying force. To apply this with the aforementioned aesthetic example, it’s not the act, but rather, in that which propels the act, where the true value of artistic or aesthetic expression lies in terms of the expressions creator.

Therefore, it can be asserted that the real value lies within the motive and the will, which is personal in nature and this is why we hold people individually to account for their actions. So, what assigns something an aesthetical value is the cause behind which it is created. The value can be changed by those who view it, who subjectively project their aesthetical evaluation upon the manifestation of the artist’s basal motive. Therefore, this illustration also provides us a way to explain the justification in both praise and negative judgments towards our elected officials for they are projections of our own bias and motive. What we find pleasing in people, or in art, are those things we can identify with and in which we see ourselves or our desires.

Yet, to determine what the self, in an external observance of aesthetic products, considers truly aesthetical and how we assigns values to such, is a much bigger issue and one more difficult to reconcile without some underlying postulation, but such inquiries would detract from the issue which I am trying to address: The justification in judging Obama in his decision making and the will behind the decisions. By these illustrations we see there is, not only a necessity of current judgments, but also of immediate results which can be determined as evidence of those motives. So for one to say a person is not justified in passing judgment on Obama or his decisions is absurd. In fact, one could not even begin to praise him at all, if one cannot negatively judge him, for this would be an inherent contradiction. If one says that we must wait on passing judgment, then this simply means no exhortation of his presidency in its current state is justified either.

This raises another issue, for one could not make such a supposition without considering its resolution. When would be the appropriate time for judgment? I have heard everything from 1 to 3 years, but to say this, one would have to admit that perhaps the financial collapse wasn’t a bad thing at all, or perhaps the Iraq war could be a good thing, or whatever, for no true line in the sand can be drawn concerning when to judge. Truth is, one could always claim not enough time has passed for one to gain full perspective on an issue and if this is the case, nobody would ever be justified in any praise or in any negative judgments. That is, if the stock market rises, Obama could take no more credit than could Bush, Clinton or Reagan. Most Obama supporters would find such a conclusion unacceptable, but it is the conclusion that is reached if one supposes that judgments could not be made till an eventual outcome is reached.

It is the will that is most important when judging, and it is this which propels both immediate and eventual effects. Since this is indeed the source of the decision, anyone is completely justified in the values they place on Obama’s decisions. I was watching O’Reilly last week and he had mentioned it was only what he did that mattered and not the will behind it, but I could not disagree with him more. It is the will behind it that matters, for if it wasn’t, the subsequent action wouldn’t even exist at all in its present form, nor could it be molded to a will and would probably even cease to exist if completely independent from it. This will is the first cause of the effect when it comes to decision and it is this conclusion which is the most reliable when judging either decision, or action.

I would assert this very argument, that nothing can be judged till it reaches full effect, is representational of an unease which is contrary to the individual’s bias (I use “bias” here not as something horrible, but rather an inevitability of the human condition). That is, if an Obama supporter feels conflicted or disagrees with a decision, they can still vindicate themselves by saying they cannot pass judgment on it yet lest it contradict with their predetermined view on Obama. It is a means of pacification, but in my view, or in my bias, not realistic. Judgments are based on will and immediate evidence all the time. To say there is no justification in this puts government officials in a place beyond the normal human condition, which they are bound to and which are a necessary, important element in how they govern. Thus I reach the conclusion that those who judge now are not only justified, but it should also be encouraged, for it is a means of communication to those in power that they will be held accountable for their decisions. To base judgments on a future that has not occurred can neither produce an empirical negative or positive result, but it is always dependent on a subjective bias and not the immediate evidence of the will which the will is bound to produce.

On The More You Know

The Heimlich maneuver does NOT include punching the victim in the face.

Trout Flesh Lamp Shades: Not as good of an idea as it sounds.

A tide rip is a great natural tool one can utilize to hide evidence.

Kill indiscriminately. You never know who is out to get you.

Things aren't always as they seem on the surface. Sometimes they are really a man.

Since reason isn't enough to avoid trouble, flip a coin concerning all decisions. This way at least you can blame all your mistakes on chance.

Use discernment when determining what kind of jokes are appropriate to make at an airport.

A "Donkey Show" is NOT a form of Spanish rodeo!

Don't trust clowns with nightsticks, car batteries and air compressors. The air compressor is not for balloon animals!

Don't chew your fingernails after waking in the morning. You never know where your fingers have been during the night.

If you find yourself in a bind, a shower curtain will easily wrap any good sized bundle and minimize leakage.

Striking a walker or wheelchair in your car can cause significant damage and tends to leave evidence behind even though you may take off. Grab the items if you can to avoid your life being ruined just because you happened to glance down at the radio real quick to turn up the newest "Snow Patrol" song.

Never under any circumstances start a new medication before a job interview!

Defecating in your pants when getting pulled over doesn’t get you out of a ticket. The “speedometer is not accurate” excuse works much better.

When in prison, anyone named "Tiny" should be avoided. Furthermore, when people begin to chant "fresh fish" they probably aren't just being nice and trying to tell you what is on the lunch menu for later that day. Rather, it's probably you on the menu.

Supporting your local tricks helps to stimulate the economy.

To increase one's pain threshold, try ingrown toenails.

While cruising the Ave for drugs, never accept "Sweaty Crack." IT IS NOT A NEW KIND OF NARCOTIC! Neither is “Crank Shaft” for that matter.

An extensive collection of Jeff Goldblum memorabilia doesn't impress anyone and won't help you to "get the chicks."

Alarm clock not waking you up? Try meth and just don't sleep.

Sometimes just slipping something into someone's drink isn't enough. Always carry a backup club just in case.

To look cool make up as many acronyms as you can and use them abundantly. –YFBJMY

Slapping around a hobo is a great, harmless way to vent oppressed rage. It's also rather funny.

Ladies: There is no need to snicker about a guy behind his back. We are all better than that.

Make sure you actually research what a "doo-rag" is before you try and make a homemade one for a friend. Here is a hint: It's spelled "Do-Rag," or "Durag." "Doo-Rag" is not accurate.

Don’t Ask For A “Shot in The Dark” From One of Those Back Alley Baristas.

Never order anything anywhere containing both “rest stop” and “casserole” in the name.

Not All Antiques are Authentic. Some are Fakes Made by Sam Donaldson.

A human skull makes a mighty fine doorstop.

Turkey has to be the laziest country in the world. All that Tryptophan and everything.

Insecure with your body? Try cutting back on sweets or murdering all those people who called you fat in the first place. Either way, happy times lay before you friend.

Trendy fashions may come and go, but skin is always in style. Well, unless its all flakey and stuff, then that is just gross.

It is easier to try and sell 14 pairs of pants at a local thrift store if you are wearing some.

The ladies love a guy in uniform, but unfortunately, somehow, this doesn't apply to a Subway getup. I didn't want to talk to her anyways.

People, please. That "Dingo ate my baby" line just isn't funny.

It takes a steady hand to perform surgery. Not so much to commit armed robbery and assault.

Talk is cheap, but it could sure land you in some hot water with the federal government.

Guns and violence don't solve anything this is true, but they do further your ego. Cheers guns and violence!

The “Tennessee Waltz” can get a party started, but the “Jonestown Boogie” can really kill one.

Starbucks baristas do not find the term “coffee whore” to be endearing.

On Cramer, “The Daily Show,” and Stewart’s Great Pedestal

I am going to go against the grain here, open myself up to some harsh criticism, and defend Jim Cramer a little bit concerning his appearance on the “Daily Show.” Before I get into this though, I must say I am really not a fan of either of them, which was all the more reason to tune in. John Stewart’s program I don’t enjoy because of his copy and paste style editing through which he attempts to make everyone he has ideological differences with comic fodder and an object of ridicule. Though he isn’t always off the mark, contextual references are hardly included and whatever the program, news article or any various medium which attempts to do this, I immediately switch off, for it is a contorting of a persons words in order to vilify rather than represent fact. Yet, admittedly he is a comedy show so he gets a lot more leeway than say a true news show, but when you take clips from the news or quote people you suppose a responsibility to do it accurately and fully. When it is not it is simply beyond excuse.

Cramer is quite a different matter. I don’t enjoy his program because he is simply just annoying. I don’t like how he plays with dolls and dances around all the time. It just doesn’t instill in me a confidence to put any trust in him concerning what the markets are going to do or where I am going to place my money. However, sometimes a person’s demeanor when they are confronted can change a viewer’s perception and though I still would never have any inkling into placing my trust in Cramer, I still consider him the better man when compared with Stewart.

Stewart of course just laced into Cramer, who I wish stood up for himself a little bit more, but who took it civilly nonetheless. I kind of felt bad for Cramer and felt Stewart was overstepping his bounds by attacking the wrong person. Cramer has unfairly become the poster child of the bad economy, but it is not his fault really. In fact, if Stewart really felt like attacking those responsible, he would be attacking those who share in his ideology and messed up, but God forbid he do that. No, Stewart would much rather go after a messenger or someone who by his very job description has to make calls on the future as a commentator, than have to attack those who are truly responsible. That is not to say people outside of Stewart’s ideology aren’t to blame either, but I am positive he has no problem raising issue with these people.

Now, there is the big difference between Stewart and Cramer, which made Cramer’s treatment so unfair to me. Cramer does economic commentary and attempts to make picks on stocks. If anyone knows anything about stocks, they know that it is always a gamble, no matter whose advice you follow. Stocks are not based in fact, but rather on statistical data and probability, so errors are going to inevitably occur. Though Cramer said he was an expert, to think this means he is going to get everything right 100% of the time is an unfair expectation. Furthermore, if you base your stock picks on someone on TV alone, you are taking a huge risk and if you feel there is no risk, you should have no business buying stocks. Cramer goes out there night after night making calls on the future and weighing probability, not fact, for no fact can be determined from the market. Add in the one fact we do know, the huge text that appears on the screen on his show saying essentially, “Don’t take this advice to be gospel,” and you have the responsibility going to the viewer who should not have put all their security and money on the words of a mere journalist and commentator. If you do the fault is just as much your own as with anything else.

Stewart on the other hand doesn’t have to put his neck out and make calls on the future. No, he is a comedian and criticizes and critiques the past. Now I ask you, which one is more uncertain in its outcome and which one is taking more of the risk? All the risk falls on Cramer and for Stewart to sit back and attack him in such a way when he offers nothing except critiques and criticisms on that which has already occurred is unreasonable. It is nice to be able to sit behind a comfy desk and insult and spit at people when offering nothing of yourself to criticism. Stewart has the ability to call anyone stupid who disagrees with him and insult whoever when he is questioned. He offers nothing, but comedy and insults, while real news people have to put their butt on the line every night.

Stewart’s family apparently lost money listening to Cramer and the CNBC network, and while I can be sensitive to that, the fact remains where was Stewart? Why didn’t he with his omniscient knowledge and wisdom bestow this deep intelligence towards his own mother or viewers, if he knew so much? Why did he sit on his butt? It is because he didn’t know anymore then the rest of us did and now is reaching for straws to attack and tear apart anyone he can, including news commentators, who do real news and have a responsibility to call what may happen tomorrow by the positions they have. All economic commentators are asked to do this, but one needs to weigh their words with what they truly believe and if they believe a commentator and engage in stocks on those very words alone, then the fault does not lie with the commentator, but rather those who took their words as complete truth.

People make mistakes, even people in the news. Every time you turn on the TV you should always remember to carry a handful of salt to sprinkle about because nothing you see is guaranteed to represent what has really happened, is happening, or going to happen. This you need to figure out for yourself concerning all evidence and if you need someone to tell you what to believe and how to act then the fault really lies with you. Cramer sure had nothing to gain out of being wrong. He had his viewership on the line, his reputation, his career and his respect. What did Stewart have? Nothing whatsoever and if he knows so much then he should have at very least told his mother not to invest according to Cramer, but he didn’t so where does the fault lie? It is only in the sleep of reason that people like Cramer, who merely comment and make calls on the markets, are held to account and judged, while those people who actually affected the markets walk away scot free. This is just another example of the misplaced power we put in our television personalities and our willingness to overlook those really responsible.

On The Debate Concerning Fox News, Cable News, and The Scope of Journalism

One is unable to go anywhere across the net, or watch TV, read newspapers or even join in everyday conversation without the topic of news coming up. News and broadcasting in one form or another have always played a part in life, but in today’s culture we find it taking on a much bigger central role than perhaps ever before and on a massive scale. A vast array of opinions have been formed concerning each news channel and the very nature of news. Thus, we find ourselves in a natural resulting conflict between the news organizations and viewership, as well as in a conversation about the duties or responsibilities of such powerhouses. Henceforth, debate on these matters becomes warranted. I would like to divulge right at the top that I am big fan of Fox News Channel and I feel it is a reliable source of information and adheres to most of my criterion concerning journalism. My reasoning for this is provided below.

However, before we get into this, there are a couple points I should acknowledge before we engage in the discussion. First and foremost is that Fox News isn’t my only source of information. If I watched Fox News all the time and didn’t question the information or look into it more deeply for myself then I wouldn’t be looking for news at all, but rather something to feed my bias and entertain. News should challenge and not enable if one truly seeks knowledge. I also tune into CNN, MSNBC and Headline News, a division of CNN, and it isn’t difficult to get a wide range of commentary and perspective on issues. There are at least two sides to every story, so for one to truly take a stand on an issue it is beneficial for the person to get all sides before making a judgment.

Now let us reflect on bias for a moment. Bias is an inevitability, its just how things work and it is indeed a filter through which we interpret the world. This is evident even in the most supposedly determined and empirical subjects of science as well as psychology, philosophy, ideology and the like. The very fact we can suppose hypothesis or form opinion suggests a transcendent bias. Thus, all news sources, no matter where you go are going to have bias; from MSNBC to the 700 Club. It’s a part of human condition and like I said before, an inevitability. Therefore, to claim otherwise is not honest and truthful of the facts which transcend news and concern the very nature of man.

So, knowing bias is represented in all media, and the fact media naturally draws constituents of similar tastes, this is in itself not enough to attack media on, for such truths are represented in any faction of society, any television station, government party, book, movie, website and piece of art. This being the case, we then have to provide other criteria in which to judge such news networks other than vilifying bias, for if we do, we vilify a part of ourselves. Now let us move onto journalism itself and quickly make a distinction between journalism and editorialism. They are both based in current events, but more freedom is given the editorialist than the journalist in terms of offering opinion. In fact, it could be stated pure journalism doesn’t editorialize at all, but rather presents raw information in a concise manner. However, when we consider the nature of the human mind and how it is represented in all actions, we find pure journalism is an impossibility, and what we are left with is varying degrees in relation to that mental abstraction of pure journalism.

Another question arises when considering these things and that is: What is the responsibility of journalism? I believe the answer is paradoxical to what one might think and most the responsibility lies not with the journalist, but rather with the readership or viewer. The journalist cannot make a person seek truth behind issues, but only provide information to the senses and it is up to the recipient of the information to formulate it, analyze it and juxtapose it with other viewpoints. The journalist is the means to the end and not the end itself, if one considers the end to be truth.

What does one look for in journalism, or editorialism then? This is the question and by the question we find it is personal in nature. Thus, I will answer what I look for in journalism. First, I look for all sides to be represented in some way. Not that someone needs to withhold their opinion, for we see above this is an improbability, but rather that it is advanced in the discussion or sharing of facts. Fox News is generally rather successful at doing this and one can see both sides of an issue relatively easy, but this is represented somewhat on other networks as well. The second criteria is where I find myself much at odds with many shows at other channels, and this criterion concerns disrespect. In this argumentative culture there a is great disrespect for those who draw other conclusions from the same information and any news network which is able to transcend this and offer both sides, without ridiculing one side or another with arbitrary insults, wins out in my book. Just because someone disagrees with another doesn’t give that other, supposedly bigger person or group, the right to ridicule. Fox is pretty successful at moving beyond this, though admittedly there are a couple shows I skip out on because it encroaches upon this line a little too much. I would mention specifics, but to whom or to what would it benefit? Nobody. I would just be encouraging the actions antipodal to my claim by doing such.

Next, it is the scope of news I look for. A lot of news shows now comment on other news shows, but to me it makes no sense. I could watch TMZ to get that. Therefore, news shows which offer up attacks to Bill O’Reilly or Keith Olbermann, while putting on the guise of a news show is to me disingenuous. Lastly, accuracy of information and its correct context upon which deeper meaning can be understood and because mistakes happen, a clarification when mistakes do happen. One should also be aware that a news mistake doesn’t necessarily equate to a lie or an intention to mislead. Thus, though I disagree with some of the things which are said on Fox News, concerning all this criteria it comes out above the rest with the CNN Networks running a close second. In the terms I have enumerated, it is successful in objectivity, representation, respect, contextual evidence, accuracy and a civility that surpasses everyone else (Again, I concede there are a couple programs I choose not to tune into unless they have a guest I particularly like, but such programs are also within their freedoms and rights to operate so I don’t hold a grudge; I just don’t tune in). These facts are also represented in Fox’s viewership which is the most equal between Republicans, Democrats and Independents when compared with any other cable news station. So to me Fox News is a great source of information (and concerning Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld, entertainment), but one needs to remember to look to other sources as well for verification. Otherwise, one is following a mob rather than the intellect.

On Being a Victim of Vehicular Profiling

Living in suburbia, it is always frightening when you see crime encroach upon your doorstep. I remember the good ol’ days with the only crime being the occasional pot smoker sneaking into the woods across the street or an underage kid puffing on a cigarette. Well, except there was that creepy “Aqualung” looking guy who hung out at the park down the street, but that doesn’t really have anything to do with the account I am relaying so I don’t even know why I brought it up. In fact, now I am a little disturbed by the whole thing. So, back to the subject at hand.


I got ready for class and all that stuff, including my weekly floss and my bi-weekly shower, then proceeded out to my truck to carry my squeaky clean butt to class so I could take my eagerly awaited quiz. Now, it has been freezing cold recently, you know the kind of cold where the moisture of your breath almost freezes inside your mouth and it bitterly stings all your cold sores? Yes, you know. Well, due to these frigid temperatures, my truck takes a couple hard steady pulls on the door handle to get the vehicular hatchway to open. This was what I was expecting, but not what I got. The door opened quite easily, much to my amazement (I lead a boring life) and I was further shocked to discover my glove box had been pulled open and it’s contents were strewn about all over the cab of my humble conveyance.

Me, being as bright as I am, immediately tried to figure out just what the hell I had been looking for the previous night, which apparently had warranted me to flip into conniptions and fling console and glove box contents all over my truck. I was positive I had brought my meth inside the previous night, so I was at a loss to explain it. Then it hit me, my driver side door was ajar slightly. Great, my truck had just been broken into.

Now you may ask yourself, “Brandon?” To which I would reply, “Yes?” To which you would say, “Why were you entering through the passenger side door rather than the driver’s side?” To which I would pile many exhortations upon you for asking such an insightful question and reply, “I am glad you inquired friend and the reason is this: My truck had been previously broken into before and they damaged the lock to such a degree that it is now impossible to unlock my truck from the driver’s side.” To this you would offer your condolences, buy me a drink and say, “Oh, that is really a shame. It must really be embarrassing when you have to open the door for all your guy friends.” To which I would say, “Indeed.” To this you would then ask if I would like your sister’s phone number, to which I would apply in the affirmative and we would go our separate ways.

Luckily, I learned my lesson the first time and always make sure to empty out my truck of valuables and narcotics before I even go into my abode at night. So, although they got away with some cash, a couple rocks and a massive collection of “Savage Garden” cd’s the first time, all they found this time was my toenail fungus ointment, 27 empty bottles of “5-Hour Energy,” and a copy of Tolstoy’s “Anna Karenina.” They didn’t take any of it, but this very fact alone gives me some clues to their identity. I am currently on the lookout for tired, illiterate teenagers, or adults, male or female, with legs and feet, with healthy looking toenails. Following is my message to them, that though they got something for their efforts the first time, this time, they get NOTHING! NOTHING!

On Another Random Philosophical Blog Concerning Intelligence

Due to a lack of friends or social contact, I frequently find myself dwelling on completely arbitrary subjects within my scattered, moronic brain. The following is no exception. As I ponder such things, I find that writing about them helps me to keep my thoughts and mental formulations more linear and better organized; which is a huge plus if you have ADD, or whatever it is that is wrong in my head; surely its something. However, once I find my ponderings to be completed, or at least when I reach a reasonable stopping point, I find myself flooded with a desire to share it. Don’t know why exactly, for this is not the initial intention. Well, at least not in this particular installment. Yet, it’s hard to find adequate reason to do so, but then I realized the title of my blog gives me all the reason I need, much to my pleasure and your umbrage. It seems that the internet is so lacking in random fruitless text nowadays, you know?

On Intelligence

Intelligence is the ability to analyze, retain and apply data towards any question, situation or hypothetical, while in collaboration with a self-aware consciousness. It is this process, and its subsequent conclusion, which are considered intelligence. Even raw data alone at times can be labeled as intelligence. For example, a recon party may be deployed by the military to gather intelligence; that is information about enemy tactics or positions, while another group takes that information and utilizes it to their advantage. This does not show that any one piece of information can necessarily be considered to be intelligent, rather that there is a likewise relation between the raw data, analyzation and application as it applies to the conception of intelligence.

However, there is a difference between intelligence and consciousness, for intelligence is subservient to consciousness. That is, the more conscious or self-aware something is, the bigger it’s capacity for intelligence. If we look at a shrubbery for instance, we find it’s self awareness, if it indeed exists at all, is miniscule at best and so too then is its ability to acquire intelligence. It may have basic skills as it relates to self-preservation like bending towards a light source, but it is not capable of any self- reflection or weighing of possible consequence.

We determine something is intelligent by an apparent ability to objectively analyze information, retain it, and utilize it whenever a certain circumstance deems it necessary. This is manifest, in words or actions, which are the only way we can determine the degree of intelligence an individual holds, for the exact processes of the mind cannot be known without some external manifestation, for one cannot see thought alone, but only its effect. Even when examining brain activity, a manifest similarity between the apparent states needs to be observed before the state of the brain can even be attributed to that corresponding intellectual state.

Four main elements to intelligence are:

• Analyzation
• Application
• Consciousness
• Pliability

Human beings have a consciousness beyond any other being and are thereby, the most intelligent. We can by the faculties of the mind, transcend ourselves and reflect upon our natures or the nature of external things beyond our carnal, most basic needs. We can weigh consequence, hypothetical outcomes, and employ the use of the imagination to help us determine what actions we wish to follow.

Concerning which is more valuable, the consciousness or intelligence, this is a rather difficult question to answer, for I feel both are completely and hopelessly intertwined. Yet, we see that consciousness doesn’t necessarily equate to a high degree of intelligence in humans, for there are varying degrees of intelligence in people, though they all may be equally self-aware. So, we find they aren’t completely linked, and all that an advanced consciousness seems to guarantee is the possibility for advanced intelligence.

In terms of importance, we find that intelligence guides people more than consciousness alone, but due to their link, it is hard to say which one is more important, for without consciousness completely, the mere existence of intelligence would be nullified or lessoned to some degree. Yet, when it comes to interaction within the world itself, and intelligence’s ability to guide man into choosing his actions, in any given circumstance; more duty falls upon intelligence, rather than the consciousness.

Using the above criteria for intelligence, I will attempt to enumerate each examples intelligent capacity:

Cat or Dog: A cat or dog has a very limited ability to analyze data and most of this occurs in collaboration with an inherent need for self preservation, the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Objective analyzation is nearly nil, if at all, and its ability to learn is only based on cause and effect. A small degree of pliability, which could be aptly called association, does take place. For if a dog is punished for a misdeed several times, it will associate that misdeed with punishment. A dog’s intellect is moldable to the degree that destructive traits can be weaned out of the pet by punishment and desirable traits can be encouraged by reward.

A computer: I would theorize that giving a computer self-awareness would be impossible outside of science fiction movies. Due to this, I don’t believe a computer can exhibit intelligence as a human being, for it would lack an amount of pliability. It is true, an independent programmer could come in and alter the programming, thus molding its abilities in accordance with the programmers desires, but the computer isn’t given the freedom to choose if it should or should not follow the commands; for all his functions or how it applies its programming, is predetermined. What the computer does have is the ability to do, is store memory and make calculations at high speeds, but it is more so the speed that makes the computer appear smart, and not so much the intelligence of it. In fact, it has been stated the computer is nothing more than a “fast idiot.”

Children: The intellect of a child is in the process of being molded and it has all the abilities an adult intellect has, but due to its young age, the state of the intellect is constantly changing and growing at a rate not as frequently observed in adults. The pliability is in hyper drive as it learns to properly analyze, apply, and memorize the data it comes in contact with. Due to the fact the intellect remains underdeveloped, many parents will resort to methods of teaching which are understood by the most basic of faculties, by appealing to their corporal natures, for reasoning with a child due to the minds immature nature is a difficult task indeed.

Vine: The plant climbs, due to an inherent nature that is not based on any reasoning, but rather just mere instinct for purposes of self-preservation, which represents the most basic needs of life. The plant has no ability to objectively analyze data and its motion, or scaling of the wall, can only be molded by an outside force.

On Conservative and Progressive Terms

One night as I lay here bored and trying to name my individual phalanges, it suddenly occurred to me the amount of power that is in a name. First, I thought about the names I had given my fingers (didn’t get to the thumbs): Steven, Bruce, Lance, Viggo Mortensen and Chevy. Yet, my thoughts began to slowly transcend those kinds of names, and I moved onto other things like: butterscotch, Trans fat, Buffalo Bills and the Saint Lawrence Seaway. However, as I slipped further into a sleep deprived delirium, I began to reflect on that which one should never dwell upon before he turns in for the evening: Government and Politics.

I considered the names “Republican” and “Democrat” for a while, but because they were just too frightening in their present form, I relinquished to ponder instead, “Progressive” and “Conservative.” Delicious, for it was in this instance the power of names became abundantly clear unto me and understood, that by mere names or titles alone, Progressives win out over the Conservatives. Yes, I know I have had a couple “witty” (according to my mother) entries recently concerning word usage, thus I will not go too far into detail in this installment of my blog, for I am just way too tired and still have a couple thumbs to name before I crash out.

“Progressive” is a very positive term. It connotes an expansion of ideological values and a social evolution towards a great utopia, which seems to be within mankind’s grasp. By promoting this form of social evolution, society can encourage virtue within every man, and bring this utopia eventually into being. If anyone, by sheer accident, detects any sarcastic tone here, let it be known, I am quite serious and no attempt to be rude is being made. This is what a lot of Progressives I have talked to tend to agree upon. There is a conception of a noble world, full of virtue and philanthropy, which can be perfected by determined social conditioning. For these virtuous values need to be encouraged with it’s very foundations, built upon the Jeffersonian inherent goodness of man.

“Conservative” on the other hand is a very negative term. It connotes a suspension of the advancement of social values and seemingly, almost completely, ignores social evolution by basing all its ideology on the past and such a viewpoint can only lead to holding the world back from this utopian society. Thereby, it must be discouraged wholeheartedly in society, and such an ideology should be eradicated. I again don’t say this to be mean, and am not being sarcastic, for I consider myself to be part of the latter group. Yet, Conservatives feel the idea of some huge utopia is unrealistic, and believe people aren’t inherently good or virtuous, but rather will look out for themselves, way before they consider the greater needs of society, which points to Adams’s fallibility of man. Thus, safeguards and absolute values are needed to promote individual prosperity and responsibility, and any true social advancement requires a system of checks and balances to counteract man’s inherent faulty nature.

These are the things that occurred to me by just pondering the words themselves. Words do have power, and I am not suggesting they be changed, but wrote this only to show that when it comes to the words themselves, again, Conservatives are at a disadvantage. I will withhold any defense of my viewpoint or critique of the Progressive viewpoint for another time, but felt the two terms needed to be reflected on somewhat, for some unknown reason. Arbitrary? Yes. Useless? Yes. Probably extremely wrong? Most likely, but sleep deprivation will make you write some odd things, as I believe my latest entry can attest. Now on to my thumbs…