- TO PULL UP ANY PAGE, CLICK ON THE SUBJECT CATEGORY, OR ARTICLE TITLE.
- INFORMATION PAGE.
- FEATURE ARTICLES.
- FEATURE ARTICLES II.
- ETHICS AND MORALITY.
- CONSUMER GUIDE.
- MORE LOGIC ARTICLES.
- QUICK HITTERS.
- THE MYSTERIOUS WORLD.
- WHAT A SHAME- A look at the low points in the modern media.
- CRIME AND PUNISHMENT.
- DO YOU REMEMBER...BLASTS FROM THE PAST.
- THE CLASSROOM I.
- THE CLASSROOM II.
- THE CLASSROOM III.
- THE CLASSROOM IV.
- THE CLASSROOM V.
- FICTION- Stories, Myths and Legends.
Friday, May 26, 2017
The showdown at Standing Rock Sioux Reservation revealed the power of Indigenous leadership and the wisdom of the ancestors in protecting Mother Earth. Now in the past few months Native people and our allies have inspired institutions, tribes, and cities around the world to divest billions from the Dakota Access Pipeline.
But the struggle is not over. These same banks are backing more oil and gas pipeline projects across North America threatening our water, our lives, our planet.
The movement of water protectors is growing in response.
Now we need your help to pressure the banks to #DeFundPipelines.
Native Organizers Alliance is joining with People’s Action, Honor the Earth, Rainforest Action Network, 350.org, and other groups to launch a new, multi-national divestment campaign against the banks funding Dakota Access, Keystone XL, Trans Mountain, and other pipelines.
Without loans, bond sales, and other forms of financial support these pipelines won’t be built.
Tell the big banks to stop their funding of dangerous pipelines that undermine Indigenous rights and threaten our environment and health. Together we can pull the plug on these unnecessary pipeline projects that put corporate profit before the people and the planet.
Judith LeBlanc (Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma)
Director, Native Organizers Alliance
Director, Native Organizers Alliance
Monday, May 22, 2017
WHY DO POLITICIANS LIE? PT 1.
It is a Question that has been asked many Times, and by Members of every Society and Form of Government that Exists, or has Existed.
Elected Leaders of a Free Republic, Dictators for Life, Kings and Queens, Military Juntas etc., have been Lying to those whose Lives and Welfare Rest upon the Decisions They Make.
Yes, sometimes the Lies are Transparent and Easily Recognizable, and many times the Leader(s) could care less on Whether or not what They are saying is believed. After All, in many cases, there is little the Citizen or Resident could do about it anyway. Many Totalitarian Regimes, Past and Present, Placate the Population with Hollow Promises and Grandiose Speeches that are nothing more than Window Dressing for Foreign Critics. The Population has little opportunity to do much more then Grin and Bare it, and hope Things get better.
However, what Explanation can be Offered when those who are lying are Elected to Office, and Their Words are Recorded by a Media that has Few Restrictions on what can be Made Public and Known to the Entire World.
With That in Mind, The General Consensus among those in a Free Society, like the U.S., seems to be that Their Political Leaders Lie because They Don't want the People to Know the Truth. It is Believed that these Mistruths are Deliberate Attempts to Hide Immoral and/or Illegal Actions that Harm the Population and Undermine the Very Foundation of the Principles that are the Cornerstone of the Government They are Supposed to Protect.
But is this Always True? Could there be a more Reasonable Conclusion to explain such Behavior?
Yes, There are many examples of Politicians Lying to Cover- Up Illegal Activities that would Lead to Prosecution, or at least Censure and Possible Removal from Office. But these in no way Represent the Vast Majority of Cases where the Lie has no Connection with Criminal Activity or at least Behavior that can Result in Charges being brought.
To Examine this Topic More Clearly, we must first settle on a Few Definitions to separate the DIFFERENT LEVELS OF NON- TRUTHFUL COMMUNICATION THAT ARE USED IN LANGUAGE AND SPEECH.
1) LIE- THE SIMPLEST OF ALL. A LIE IS A DELIBERATE AND CONSCIOUS ACTION, WRITTEN OR SPOKEN, TO RELAY INFORMATION TO OTHERS THAT THE INDIVIDUALKNOWS IS NOT TRUE.
TO BE CONTINUED...
Saturday, May 20, 2017
Now we come to an area that is not often discussed when the definition of a "SOCIOPATH" leaves the World of Academia, and becomes a Practical Matter that Affects the Lives of those Suffering from the Malevolent Behavior of such an Individual.
Diagnosing somebody as Sociopathic isn't Easy. While the Psychiatric Profession may be Equipped to Render such a Judgment, it would not be easy unless the Potential Diagnosee agreed to Sessions that would allow Direct Contact, with Open and Unscripted Dialogue.
However, as we have seen, the Sociopath Doesn't believe they are in anyway a "HAZARD" or "DETRIMENT" to anyone else. If there is a problem, it is the Fault of others, who cannot Handle The Natural Intellectual Superiority that the SOCIOPATH feels sets them apart from "Lesser People." To put it simply, they use others because of the Weaknesses Perceived, and Tough Luck if they don't realize it. It's NOT THE SOCIOPATHS FAULT.
This is also Subject to the Willingness of the Individual under Scrutiny, to be Honest, and Forthcoming about Their Behavior, and how it affects those they come in contact with. Part of the Sociopathic Profile is the Ability to Convince others that they have Feelings, Emotions, and Reactions just like everyone else, when in fact, the SOCIOPATH has none of these.
So, in the end, it could be You, a Relative, or a Friend who is left with the Unenviable Task of Realizing someone close to you could be Sociopathic, and you must learn how to deal with it.
Unfortunately, you may end up confronting such an Individual, who has become an Important Part of your Life. Perhaps they Fulfill a certain need that has been Lacking, and that loss may seem an Unreasonable Price to pay, if you remove them from your Life altogether.
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
Thursday, May 18, 2017
(I AM A MEMBER.- DAVID.)
I am writing today to let you know that the APA board of officers has approved the following statement, which was proposed by the committee on public philosophy and the committee on the status and future of the profession:
The American Philosophical Association values philosophers' participation in the public arena. This includes work that engages with contemporary issues as well as work that brings traditional philosophies to non-traditional settings. Public philosophy may also bring the discipline into dialogue with other humanities, the arts, natural sciences, social sciences, and interested people outside of academia. Public philosophy is done in a variety of traditional and non-traditional media. Public philosophy can be especially valuable when it reaches populations that tend not to have access to philosophy and philosophers. Further, the APA notes that public philosophy raises the profile of the discipline, the scholar, and the home institution.
The APA encourages departments, colleges, and universities to recognize public philosophy as a growing site of scholarly involvement. To that end, the APA encourages institutions to develop standards for evaluating and practices for rewarding public philosophy in decisions regarding promotion, tenure, and salary, so that faculty members who are interested in this work may, if they choose, pursue it with appropriate recognition and without professional discouragement or penalty. Although peer-reviewed scholarly publications remain central to the profession, the APA applauds philosophers' contributions to public policy, to consultation with government, medical, business, and civil society institutions, and to public opinion in general. Public philosophy presented or published outside of standard academic venues has evident value as external service to the profession and/or community. But we also urge institutions to consider broadening their standards for evidence of excellence in research and teaching and to consider whether their faculty’s work in public philosophy is more properly counted as contributing to these latter categories of faculty evaluation.
We encourage you to use this statement as a tool in your own institution to advocate for policies and practices that recognize public philosophy and all scholars who do publicly engaged work.
All the best,
Amy E. FerrerExecutive Director