Intellectual Capital

Rule 1: There is Truth

2011-04-19T17:00:00.018-06:00

There is truth regardless of viewpoint and I define it as a position whose nature excludes one or more other positions. (See formal definitions) From a practical standpoint, it is the foundation for any predictibility and is useful for avoiding pitfalls that hamper or endanger our navigation in life, among other things. If there is some reasonable predictibility in life, there is truth. The academic viewpoint is not more valid. Instead, it attempts to include the impractical, improbable and imagined, which is seldom useful to most people.

Some argue its existence, but to do so they must first presuppose its antithesis. In other words, any assertion first asserts there is truth. For example, the assertion "there is no truth" has a problem: it asserts that it is true. Attempts to cloud this is to make nuances through various qualifying adjectives like "absolute truth" or "relative truth." However, if the answer to the question "Is that true?" is "Yes," then they refuted their own agruement. An answer of "No" negates the assertion itself. Which begs the question why make any assertion at all if the there is no truth. More importantly, it has no practical use.

Any "differences" has to do with the exclusionary nature of a given truth. More on that in another post.

What Kind Of Change Did You Vote For?

2008-11-05T20:00:00.004-07:00

Did you vote for change? Will it be the right change? Lets first take a look at the change over the last 4 years. Are we better off than we were 4 years ago? You may be surprised. Let's see what CNN reported (kind of).

This was first brought to my attention by Glenn Beck's Newsletter, but I wanted to check it out for myself. So I dug into the source info and what was asserted was substantiated in the data. Here is what was affirmed.

"...Noel Sheppard is an author from Newsbusters and he looked at the exit polls. And remember, you know, are you better off. The failed policies of the past. Here are the exit polls. 'The percentage of poor voters showed a huge decrease in 2004 while the percentage of folks making over 200,000 doubled, doubled.' [Noel Sheppard, Newsbusters] ...Add it up. When you look at it from an income perspective, voters did pretty well over the last four years. You wouldn't think that, would you?" by Glenn Beck, 2008-11-05, on talk radio.

Now, lets take a look at the numbers that CNN reported.

Consolidated CNN Exit Poll Results
	2004	2008	Change
Under $15,000	8%	6%	25% ↓
$ 15- 30,000	15%	12%	20% ↓
$ 30- 50,000	22%	19%	14% ↓
$ 50- 75,000	23%	21%	9% ↓
$ 75-100,000	14%	15%	7% ↑
$100-150,000	11%	14%	27% ↑
$150-200,000	4%	6%	50% ↑
$200,000+	3%	6%	100% ↑

The number of folks in the lower income brackets shrank and the number of folks in the higher income brackets increased, both significantly. This data affirms that we got richer over the last four years. Who'd want to change that? Obama said he does. If this is what he calls "failed economic policies," then it stands to reason that Obama considers economic policies a success if we got poorer. I guess we now know what "change" we have to look forward for the next 4 years.

Hold onto your wallets folks. They are about to get a lot thinner -- if he "succeeds".

Sources
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/11/05/exit-polls-show-huge-increase-incomes-04-will-media-care
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/11/05/exit-poll-media-shocker-conservatives-still-outnumber-liberals
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

We Will Not Be Taken Advantage of Again

2008-10-03T19:00:00.003-06:00

FactCheck.org had an interesting analysis of both the political and financial situation we face. (See link below) Also, last night, I really appreciated what Sarah Palin said during the debate:

One thing that Americans [can] do at this time, also, though, is let's commit ourselves just every day American people, Joe Six Pack, hockey moms across the nation, I think we need to band together and say never again. Never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again by those who are managing our money and loaning us these dollars. We need to make sure that we demand from the federal government strict oversight of those entities in charge of our investments and our savings and we need also to not get ourselves in debt. Let's do what our parents told us before we probably even got that first credit card. Don't live outside of our means. We need to make sure that as individuals we're taking personal responsibility [and control] through all of this. It's not the American people's fault that the economy is hurting like it is, but we have an opportunity to learn a heck of a lot of good lessons through this and say never again will we be taken advantage of. [Additions and emphasis mine.]

Like other everyday citizens, there is little that I can do about the national economy. I can only control my personal economy. The national economy contributed to a layoff that I have experienced recently. More importantly, it has contributed to the longest unemployment period that I have experienced in my professional technology career. Though my resume is impressive, I am convinced that businesses are skittish of increasing payroll expenditures. In the meantime I benefit from financial changes that I implemented last year to help me weather this challenge.

In 2007, I became a Financial Professional affiliated with Primerica, a subsidiary of Citi. Until then, I could only offer friendly advice to friends and family hoping they would find institutions to help them implement the concepts as I had done. Primerica has taught for over 30 years what Sarah Palin touched on.

Help Families Become Properly Protected, Debt Free, and Financially Independent. -- Primerica Mission

Before then, however, though I had many of the right ideas, the professionals and institutions that I trusted put me in products that helped them first and me second. Not so with Primerica.

Now, as a Financial Professional, I can do much more. Not only have I improved upon my financial plan particularly in the areas of income protection, debt elimination, short-term savings, long-term investments, and reducing expenditures, I have been able to help others.

In terms of what Sarah Palin touched on, Primerica has never sold any of the debt instruments that have hurt homeowners and the financial industry. Sadly, we were outnumbered, which we are continually working to correct, but that is for another post.

Sources
Who Caused the Economic Crisis?
Vice Presidential Debate Transcript

Campaign's Next Move?

2008-09-16T06:00:00.004-06:00

I read an interesting post by a colleague of mine. I appreciate it when another citizen lays out what they think with reasons that are not purely emotional. I have no use for purely emotional diatribes that dilute a real, useful discussion. His is not one of them. His post does make me think of the differences between the campaigns and how the electorate views them.

Before I get into it, I think it is useful to read my general viewpoint. Not surprisingly, I take issue with some of the facts in my colleagues post. It is common in today's political discourse, but many times it is because the candidates are not consistent in their position messages. This appears intentional because of our electorate's behavior. Well, let's take them one at a time.

Barack Obama, a young centrist Democrat...

Various speeches, legislation, rating sites, and books by Obama's own hand place him on the left (or far left) in terms of the spectrum of the country. If Obama were a centrist, the following would not be true.

The far-left and the left have been swooning over him.
DNC and Obama's fundraising have hit record levels which generally comes mostly from the left and far-left.

Now if my colleague is far left of Obama, then I would accept his characterization of Obama as "centrist" relative to himself, but not the country. I would agree that his message has been centrist of late, but I would have to ignore the last 10 years of his discourses in favor of the last few weeks. Sorry, but that would be stupid.

John McCain, a fairly non-ideological 72-year-old Republican who has decided to give up on his centrist inclinations and run far to the right.

Various speeches, legislation, rating sites, and books authored by McCain's place him on the center-right in terms of the spectrum of the country. If McCain were running to the right, the following would not be true.

The right, much less the far-right, has not embraced him.
RNC and McCain fundraising has been down considerably which usually comes mostly from the right and far-right.
McCain selected a right (or far-right) running mate to shore up party support and excite the Republican base.

Now if my colleague is far enough left of Obama to characterize him as a "centrist", then I would accept his characterization of McCain as "far right" relative to himself, but not the country.

Palin is wildly inexperienced ...

I was completely surprised that the politically savvy Democratic Party stepped into that one. Anyone with more than half a lobe would recognize that you'd be digging two graves if that argument gained traction -- the second one being for Obama.

Never-the-less, if the criteria is presidential experience, the only ones that have that are either dead or ineligible. If the criteria is executive experience then compare

2 or more years city council, 6 years mayoral and 21 months governor experience

with

8 years of state senatorial and 3 years federal senatorial experience, which most of the latter has been spent on the campaign trail.

His board experience would qualify, but 1 day every quarter for 2 years wouldn't fill a thimble.

... (and so is being kept from the press) ...

Tell Charles Gibson on 20/20 who interviewed her less than a week after the RNC Convention and aired on 9/12 that he is not part of the press.

... and most of her claims to be anti-corruption are complete lies.

The political record (through elections and resignations) and criminal record (through guilty pleas) says differently.

McCain's plans have been the most nutzoid right-wing proposals: end employer-paid health care, ...

Well, I am more knowledgeable on the health care issue than most voters, but still that statement in inaccurate at best and misleading at worst. I will address this in another post.

... permanent bases in Iraq, ...

I cannot get a solid news source to confirm this assertion. So this is either an extrapolation from a McCain statement clearly taken out of context about "100-years in Iraq" which has already been thoroughly debunked by factcheck.org at least; or a guilt by association about a story regarding the Bush administration that has been repeatedly denied and subsequently unsubstantiated.

... tax cuts for the rich, ...

If you mean not allowing the current tax cuts to expire, granted.

... and head-in-the-sand about energy.

The statement is too general to confirm or deny.

Well, until we can get the facts straight, any policy discussion cannot be tied back to the candidates available to us. As asserted in a previous post, the campaigns and media make it harder, not easier, to get the straight facts. Until then, I am limited to discussions of prioritized principles that would guide policies that I would support in a candidate.

Sources

Political Discourse

2008-09-15T20:50:00.000-06:00

I really enjoy talking with another informed citizen who has a contrary opinion. My friend at American Express, John, is one such person. He and I could agree on the facts most of the time, so we actually spent more time on the policies, which we sometimes disagreed, but we respected each other because we understood about what the other was concerned.

Typically, our policy disagreements were more due to the prioritization of our concerns than completely different concerns. For example, we were each concerned about these same two principles, but had more concern for one than another. For the purposes of this example, "private" is characterized by corporations and the rich who derive inordinate power from the money they control; "government" is characterized by the various levels of government who derive inordinate power from laws and taxes.

My emphasis:

Protect private opportunity for personal and economic growth from governmental interference.
Protect private opportunity for personal and economic growth from private interference.

John's emphasis:

Protect private opportunity for personal and economic growth from private interference.
Protect private opportunity for personal and economic growth from governmental interference.

What can we learn from this about myself and John? We both see government and private interests as potential threats to our personal prosperity. However, I view government as more of a threat in terms of consequence and/or probability, and he sees private interests as more of a threat in the same terms. I think this a good example that describes some of the differences between the sides of our political discourse.

IcQ Question:

Why would someone be more concerned with government interference than private interference? And vice-versa?
Are our political differences truly that different in this country?

Our Electorate

2008-09-15T20:20:00.002-06:00

From what I hear about our electorate, I am unlike most of the electorate. I watch politics outside of the election cycle from multiple sources. I do this not because I am a junkie. Rather, I do this because I want to be informed about those who have potential power over my life and the lives of my family. It does not make me an expert, but I hope it makes me more credible than most.

The candidates are not consistent in their position messages. This appears intentional because of our electorate's behavior (not comprehensive):

Most of the electorate does not pay attention to politics until 60-90 days before the election, which itself may be driven more by increased coverage than actual interest. These voters are at an informational disadvantage and are consequently more susceptible to manipulation, particularly by the media on which campaigns rely. I have seen this way too much and it saddens me because we the people are hurt. Imagine a business where 80% of the officers only pay attention to what the employees are doing 4-6 weeks out of the year. That is our country.

Most of the electorate are loyal to a party brand, half of which are because of party identity instead of actual policies. They will support that party even if the policy proposals are contrary to their personal values.

Some voters use selective listening. They latch onto what they want to hear over everything that is being said. Because of this tendency, scatter-shot policy positions (flip-flops) can work to some degree.

The electorate is limited to a two party system -- either-or. I will expand on this in another post.

Our electorate has changed a lot over our countries history. Much of it for the better; some of it not so much.

IcQ Questions:

What are some other characteristics of our electorate?
If these are the characterics of our electorate, does it make sense that campaigns do what they do? What are the consequences, potential or actual, to the quality of government we will have?
How can we as an electorate mitigate the adverse consequences?

I'd like to hear your ideas.

Bungee Labs Adjusts Direction

2008-09-14T21:51:00.007-06:00

First, these are my thoughts and understanding of what transpired and are not necessarily the position of Bungee Labs. This post is meant to personally address the announcement and related blogs and comments found in the cloud.

As one of the employees affected by the downsize, I am surprised by the vitriol and nay-saying going on here, including the original post though relatively more tactful. Bungee Labs occupies a frontier space where projections are less reliable but potentially more rewarding.

Most of us who were affected were allocated or brought into the company to promote and prepare for the viral increase in business that the business thought possible. The adoption rate was and is encouraging but the trend was shallower than what was expected that justified the need for our contributions.

Those contributions were not for naught, however. Rather, they were paused to allow demand to reach the capacity of what was built. Therefore, the need shifted from increasing capacity and support to increasing adoption and demand. The company is not stupid -- it is adjusting.

On a more general note, I have been a developer on open and proprietary technologies for a very long time. I believe in the Bungee Connect platform far more than any other, whether established or promised. So much so, I am exclusively developing my applications that I am personally creating on Bungee Connect. The technology is so compelling and ahead of the competition that I think it is more likely they will get acquired than they will go under. Therefore, the "risk" is much less than what I have seen expressed here or anywhere else.

I encourage everyone to remember when PCs were emerging as the new platform of the future. Industry insiders scoffed at Apple and Microsoft competing against such behemoths as IBM, DEC, the Bell companies and other blue chips who sought to dominate the PC market as they did the mainframe market. We know how that turned out.

Well, we are on the brink of another paradigm shift adoption that dwarfs the aforementioned one in terms of empowering industrious and ingenious individuals in scope and potential. Any company worth their salt will see the opportunity and attempt to compete in this space. I would not discount Bungee Labs. They are in an enviable position. Where their competition must allocate resources to their core market to stay competitive, like IBM and the Bells had to, they can be focused and agile. Additionally, they are already in a lead position.

Finally, of those companies in or emerging into the Platform-as-a-service market, I see Bungee Labs identifying with us, the upstarts, far more than the other "players." Will Microsoft? Google? Amazon? I can identify with Bungee Labs more, too. They are where I hope to be soon -- a leading business changing the world. How about you?

DISCLAIMER: As of this writing, I have no guaranteed stock interest, but is possible.

The New Hostage Crisis

2008-05-16T18:45:00.002-06:00

We are being held hostage on the energy front by our governmental policies at our behest. How have we done this? We have supported, or at least we have not opposed, a policy of protect the environment at any cost. Over the last 30 years, we "protected" the environment by stopping every attempt to build nuclear reactors and oil refineries, prevented oil exploration and many new drill sites, and refused to support viable energy alternatives and solutions.

IcQ* Question: What happens when domestic supplies are kept flat while domestic and worldwide demand increases?

Protected?
I say "protected" like this because other countries have built nuclear reactors (e.g. - France), have built oil refineries, and are erecting new drill sites (e.g. - China) at a record pace. Unless one thinks the American flag flapping in the wind over these facilities hurts the environment more than a French, Chinese, Russian, or Venezuelan flag, the environment is not more protected.

Conservation is Balance
Energy policy cannot be obtuse. Industrialism has no concern for the environment and was a policy for many years in this country. It is responsible for such things as strip mining. Conservation sprung up to address and counter this lack of concern. However, environmentalism has no concern for progress of mankind. Industrialism and environmentalism are policy extremes in our relationship with our environment. Neither policy is good.

Cost
Escalating energy prices due to increasing demand against shallow increases in energy supplies is and will continue to be the cost of the current policy. The price escalation so out paces our ability to accommodate it, something has to give. When increased prices are due to supply shortages and not due to increased costs, "windfall" profits result. In a free market, these profits have a built-in coolant. These increased profits attract competitors and investors to this high return trade to get a piece of it, increasing supplies and competition, and driving prices down. However, we do not have a open energy market in this country. We have made it so costly in time and money to enter the market, we deter anyone from entering.

Compounding the problem, pacts between oil producing countries have formed a worldwide monopoly. The weakening dollar also increases the problem exponentially.

What Now?
Living in the Western US, I love the beauty of our countryside. We need to demand those making the policies and laws in our government to strike a balance between responsibly meeting our energy needs and responsibly protecting our environment.

Our ability to force change in the market is rendered inert by the current laws. Our ability to affect change in the laws is made nearly impotent by the hold of special interest groups upon policy makers and those who would speak the truth. Therefore, until the pain of the cost pushing a majority of Americans to want change more than the desire to be complacent, we will continue to be held hostage by market and political forces to increasingly higher energy costs with no discernible benefit to the environment.

What's Next? The resurrection of the misery index?

* Intellect Capital Quotient

Superman Returns

2006-07-03T08:00:00.000-06:00

My wife and I saw Superman Returns on our date tonight. It was a good movie. I recommend it.

I did leave the movie having been profoundly hit by a couple of lines in the movie. The first was when Superman first spoke with Lois Lane privately. He took her above the city and said, "I hear everything. You said that the world doesn't need a Savior. Yet everyday, I hear them calling for one." The second was the Daily Planet headline, "SUPERMAN DEAD."

Wow! Suddenly, I was thinking of God and Jesus. I don't mean to come across as hyper-religious, but I think my study of atheism recently has made me more sensitive to this subject. I have heard many in the media denounce Christianity and its message of needing a Savior. "More people have been killed in the name of religion than for any other reason," is their mantra. Sounds reasonable when the crusades, the Inquisition, and the like from history come to mind, but it is actually false when history is actually tallied.

The twentieth century has been the bloodiest century ever. However, this was not for reason of religion. Rather, for reasons of ideological differences and geopolitical maneuvering, more death and destruction has been met out than the previous nineteen centuries combined: two world wars, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Gulf wars, ethnic cleansing in Europe, Asia, and Africa, political cleansing in China, Vietnam, mass graves in Iraq, Germany, Russia, etc. The list goes on. None were for religious reasons. Many were for anti-theistic reasons: anti-Jew, anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, and anti-religion.

If the argument against religion, such as Christianity, is the death toll, than that argument weighs greatest against the atheists and anti-theists. I want "Superman's" return and will cheer and thank God when he does!

Lawlessness by Neglect

2006-05-16T22:23:00.000-06:00

Anecdote
My wife and I were visiting some friends not too long ago. I watched as their four year-old son was running through the house playing and yelling. This was not surprising to see since he was excited to play with our then five year-old daughter. It just made hearing each other difficult. So our friend told his son to stop running and yelling. Byassing discussing affirmative vs. negative messages, I watched their son acknowledge her and run off yelling. After five more minutes of this, she yelled to him to stop, which he did for about 10 seconds. A little later, she then told him to stop or he will be sent to his room. He stopped for about 20 seconds. Still a little while later, she told him to stop or he would get a spanking and sent to his room. He stopped for 15 seconds. This was going down hill. Finally, she loses it and grabs him kicking and screaming and takes him to his room where he stayed for I forget how long. The mood now made it hard for anyone to enjoy the evening.

Lawlessness
Lawlessness is typically viewed as the result of no laws or lack of laws, which can be the case. It can also be the result of the lack of enforcement or inconsistent enforcement. As my anecdote demonstrates, simply adding more laws without enforcement will not change the behavior and will breed contempt for the authority. Finally, frustration can boil over into an overreaction that hurts everyone and damages the relationship.

Consistent enforcement must be in place first and foremost, or no rule will be honored by those it is meant to address, no matter how severe. I heard that a child will think it is worth trying to get his or her way if it succeeds as little as one in ten times. The reality is that a person attempting to provide for their family will need fewer successes to think it is worth it but is more successful than one in ten. It is not surprising we are being overrun.

Passing more immigration laws does little to change the situation when we do far too little to enforce the ones we have. The additional laws may not be necessary since enforcement has not been fully tried and may only serve to embitter those addressed.

It Is Simple
We talked with our friends later and they apologized for their son's behavior. They remarked on how they noticed how our child responds to us and wished their child would be as easy. We explained to them that they did not have a particularly rebellious child and that our child would have behaved similarly in the same circumstance. The difference was that we have earned a reputation of following through with our child by being consistent. We have also earned our child's trust by keeping the rules simple to remember and fair. If they earned the same reputation, then their child would behave similarly in time. We worked with them and their child is a joy for them now. Now they help us be consistent, too.

How does the role of a parent have anything to do with immigration? I am certainly not advocating that the government treat anyone as its child. It does serve well in demonstrating effective and ineffective use of authority. To put it simply, enforcement, enforcement, enforcement. When that fails, change the rules and enforcement, enforcement, enforcement. Ask anyone in authority and they will tell you that consistency is the hardest thing, and the most effective.

If only our government would be like our friends and listen to what many Americans already know.

Internal Discord Over Iraq

2005-11-30T14:19:00.001-07:00

What is best?
It is in the interest of Americans to win the war on terror. There is a notable difference between this war and most of the wars in human history -- this one not only benefits our side, but it also benefits the whole world.

What about Iraq?
Iraq is a sector in this war on terror. All the navel gazing and finger pointing is useless and unworthy of our country. Wars are hard to endure and harder still to win without internal political attacks that undermine the military and civilian efforts for victory. If you want to end the bombings, WIN. If you want our soldiers safe, WIN. If you want to have a role in leading our country, WIN. Americans do not support losers. Name one loser that Americans hold in high esteem and trust to have power that affects their lives. There are none. We want leaders that enable us to win. Not all situations allow us to have win-win opportunities. We win and the Iraqi people win. Who loses if we win? Terrorists and a despot. Who could be against that? Not anyone I will vote for. The constant bickering is squandering this opportunity.

What about intentions?
All political "intentions" aside, it is the results that matter. No nation, business, employee, sport, athlete or student remains one because of intentions. Though seemingly more tolerated in politicians, lack of results must be the least tolerable in politicians because of the depth and scope of impact of poor performance. Also, "intentions" that inhibit results cannot be tolerated.

Do everything in your power, such as it is, to win and reject everything that inhibits victory. So spend your efforts enabling us to win in all sectors of this war. Politicians, this is for you: you will do so or we Americans will find and empower those who can.

Electronic Elections

2004-11-17T22:00:00.002-07:00

We Vote Electronically Everyday
As a technologist, I am astonished by the issues raised about electronic voting systems. We vote (purchase) many times a day, every day, from a plethora of candidates (products and services) from numerous parties (businesses) using electronic voting systems (registers). The system processes hundreds of millions of transactions and tens of trillions of dollars in tangible assets daily with an efficiency and accuracy that is astounding. Yet we trust the abacus (punch-card) more?

I will demonstrate that such an attitude is unfounded. I do not intend this to be technologically exhaustive.

Compromised?
Opponents assert that a hacker could compromise an elections system with ease. This assertion seems plausible enough on the surface with all the precautions that we have to take at work and at home to protect our systems from intruders. However, let me remind you that the main reason precautions are necessary is the Internet.

A system can only be compromised from an access point. To access the system, the proper equipment, protocols, and authentication are needed. Barriers to fraudulently accessing the system are an isolated network, strong authentication standards, encryption, access point preregistration, etc.

Presuming access is accomplished, an understanding of the system is required. Data will have to be changed in all areas where it is used and stored to prevent the raising of self-auditing exceptions within the system.

It is my understanding that on the most popular systems, there is no network. The system's electronic ballots begin blank and are created by the elections officials, making them different from precinct to precinct. The voting stations are standalone. The voting stations store the accumulated ballots in an encrypted table on the voting station and on a removable storage device (RSD), like a jumpdrive. When voting is completed, the RSD is removed and plugged into the tallying system for precinct-level tallying. When all RSDs have been tallied, the results are sent by the elections officials to the county by whatever process they use.

Disenfranchised?
Opponents assert that seniors are able to use punch-card systems that they may have used at most 20-30 times in their lifetime, depending on when the system was introduced, but are befuddled by systems that are like the ones that they have used hundreds of thousands of times in their lifetime. I don't buy it!

Defending the Notion of Absolute Truth

2004-11-13T23:02:00.000-07:00

I attended a lecture by Dr. Ravi Zacharias Friday, Nov. 13th, at the University of Utah. His lecture was entitled The Basis for Truth: Defending the Notion of Absolute Truth. He was clear, supported his positions well with outside sources, and logically illustrated his points. He was also very funny. He has gone around the world seeking to understand the other religions and philosophies to better present the truth to others and to present Jesus as the truth. Christianity challenges a persons world view, especially those outside our culture. Yet, now our culture's world view is becoming pluralistic.

I found it inspiring and challenging. It is easy to talk with like-minded people. It is harder to talk with those who think differently than you, especially when they communicate emotionally or denigratingy. I often hear things that are not the truth, but am so distracted by the alarms going off in my head that I cannot fully articulate the truth at the time. It isn't until later that I think of how I could have presented a coherent and reasonable counter-point. I suppose it is a step in the direction of being able to do so.

There were 3 interesting points to his lecture:

Secularism leads to no morality (, absolutes, or truth). He defined it as the process of removing religion from social significance.
Pluralism, when taken to the extreme of moral relativism, leads to no reason. Pluralism is good, but can be bad if reason is abandoned or unanchored. Each person is equal, but not every idea is.
Privatization leads to no meaning. He defined it as the removal of morality from public discourse and relegating it to only the private experience.

Now obviously, this is a little succinct for a 2-hour lecture. However, we will leave this as a teaser for upcoming postings since I will be getting the DVD of the lectures and can make more concise notes.

Truth Be Told

2004-11-06T23:30:00.000-07:00

I am very excited about being able to share my thoughts with others and get thoughtful feedback in return. In my discussions with others, I have found many valuing my insights, even if they disagree. I have also valued others insights and have grown from them. In the seemingly growing uncivil discourse in legacy media today, truth and intellectual capital have suffered. Ergo, the name of my Blog. Here are some thought provoking quotes* on truth:

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.
Josh Billings, 'Affurisms from Josh Billings: His Sayings,' 1865
US Humorist (1818 - 1885)

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
Lenin, Russian Communist politician & revolutionary (1870 - 1924)

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.
Sir Winston Churchill, British politician (1874 - 1965)

Truth is truth
To the end of reckoning.
William Shakespeare, "Measure for Measure", Act 5 scene 1
Greatest English dramatist & poet (1564 - 1616)

The history of our race, and each individual's experience, are sown thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.
Mark Twain, Advice to Youth, US humorist, novelist, short story author, & wit (1835 - 1910)

No further comment is needed.

* Quotes provided by http://www.quotationspage.com/