November, 27, 2014, #378 – Bill Cosby – Separating the artist from the art / Objectivism’s Catch-22
00:07 Bill Cosby – art vs artist: boycotting Bill Cosby, confusing the art with the artist, personal lives of actors, boycott injustice
14:30 Just beCos: allegations against Bill Cosby, Spanish fly, taking allegations seriously, victim responsibility, court of public opinion, the court of due process
34:30 CULT-ivating a rational philosophy: cult vs philosophy, Objectivism as a cult, Ayn Rand, followers
40:03 Objection to Objectivism?: Simon O’Riordan commentary, Federal Aviation Authority, Ayn Rand Institute, philosophy of Objectivism, Leonard Peikoff, cultish view, Catch-22s, truth and bromide, Randroids, cults that aren’t, Who is John Galt?
January, 08, 2015, #382 – Bill Cosby – The two courts / Childhood’s End – Arthur C. Clarke revisited
00:07 The two courts: Bill Cosby in London, allegations against Bill Cosby, court of public opinion, court of law, presumption of innocence, political opportunism, Jane Piper
19:20 Court of no defence: Megan Walker, Anne Bokma, Bill Cosby, Andy Oudman, court of law vs court of public opinion, courting no defence, lack of evidence, feminism and feminists, public lynching, reputation
29:30 Childhood’s End – Arthur C. Clarke revisited: 2001-A Space Odyssey, Arthur C. Clarke, science and science fiction, retrospective view of earlier science fiction, Clarke’s view of humanity
41:20 Heinlein vs Asimov vs Card: individualism vs collective, Robert A Heinlein’s view of the heroic man, Heinlein’s political views, Time Enough For Love, Isaac Asimov, Orson Scott Card, Ender’s Game, audio books vs written word
January, 22, 2015, #384 – Bill Cosby vs the tabloid press / Do animals have rights?
00:07 UFOs vs Bill Cosby: continuing allegations against Bill Cosby, critical mass, playing the numbers against Cosby, UFO sighting comparison, unidentified feminist objectives behind the Cosby controversy
10:45 Consider the source – tabloid trash: Cosby allegations are not new, checking the facts, feminism, Megan Walker, London Abused Women’s Centre is a feminist centre, Cosby performance in Denver, Chloe Goins’ toe-sucking allegation, guilty until proven innocent, Goins’ allegation demonstrated false, Beth Ferrier allegation bought by National Enquirer for exclusive story
29:50 Animals – rights, status, or property: animal welfare, animal rights, torture of animals, giving animals status in law, Ayn Rand’s theory of rights, Craig Biddle of the Objective Standard, God – government – nature, inalienable rights, observation-based morality, process of life
41:55 Don’t ask Alice: Why Alice the chicken doesn’t have rights, volition vs instinct, reason and rights, social context, the nature of the object, animate vs inanimate objects, status for animals, status for humans, sentient, custody of animals, gradation of ownership principles, humane treatment of animals
February, 05, 2015, #386 – Affirmative offence / Affirmative conspiracy / Who is Ayn Rand?
00:07 Affirmatively offensive: feminist boycott of Fifty Shades, affirmative consent, Kathleen Wynne’s sexual education curriculum for Ontario, media updates on affirmative consent, negative consequences to affirmative consent
14:42 Affirmative conspiracy: Ontario Human Rights tribunal, allegations proved false when conspiracy uncovered, Katherine McKee’s allegation against Bill Cosby, redefining rape, obliterating the concept of consent
29:35 Who is Ayn Rand?: Ayn Rand under attack, personal vs principle, philosophy is an unknown field, ridiculing Rand, hating the good for being good, rejecting the discipline of being objective, many philosophers to ridicule – only one ridiculed
46:45 The Ayn Rand haters: videos featuring Ayn Rand, lack of reputable criticisms against Rand, critics ignorant of philosophy, rational self-interest as the moral standard, the Rand haters, capitalism vs force, a philosophy for living life on this earth
February, 26, 2015, #389 – Bill Cosby’s shady accusers / Consent vs ‘affirmative consent’
00:07 Shady Characters – Cosby’s accusers: Bill Cosby lawsuit, a review of Cosby’s accusers, Lachele Covington, Shawn Brown, Carla Ferrigno, Joyce Emmons, Chloe Goins, Beth Ferrier, Cidra Ladd, Kathrine McKee, attorney Gloria Allred, women now empowered
17:15 Thirty-three shades of one allegation: more Cosby accusers, Linda Brown, Lise-Lotte Lublin, Tamara Green, Linda Joy Traitz, Therese Serignese, patterns of allegation, patterns of complainants
30:20 Fifty shades of grey – bound to consent: Fifty Shades of Grey, feminist protests, bondage, consent, legal definition of consent
39:40 Two shades of black and white – consent vs affirmative consent: Freedom Party red alert on redefinition of consent in Ontario Curriculum, ‘yes’ does not always mean consent, children knowing vs understanding, affirmative consent, political monopolies, state education
July 16, 2015, #409 – Still be’Cos / The immoral of the story / Breaking the law…of causality
00:07 Still be’Cos: Bill Cosby new revelation, re-cap of Cosby circumstances, a red herring – the statute of limitations, guilt before innocence, defamation accusations
22:05 The immoral of the story: double standards on drug and alcohol use, Cosby under attack because of his conservative politics, Cosby’s pound cake speech, court punishing Cosby for being a public moralist, public interest used as grounds for opening sealed court documents
36:05 Breaking the law – of causality: time travel and its implications, preventative history, killing Hitler fantasies, fascist Germany a product of philosophy, time travel paradox
48:30 No time for space, no space for time: space-time or time and space, difficulties with describing the nature of the universe, speed of light, theory of relativity, the fabric of space, the limit of the universe, size of the universe
July 30, 2015, #411 – Feminism’s cause is feminism’s ‘Cos / Bill Cosby allegation invalidations
00:07 Feminism’s cause is feminism’s ‘Cos: Bill Cosby, New York Magazine on Cosby, same old stories and allegations, feminism’s unmentionable agenda against Cosby, smearing Cosby’s defenders
28:10 Allegation invalidation: New York Times release of Cosby’s deposition, Cosby’s reactions to Andrea Constand’s allegations, once seduction now rape, not justice but validation
35:20 Feminism’s double standard: Camille Paglia on Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby, feminism’s support of the left and attacks on the right, demonizing masculinity
49:20 Bill Cosby – summary convictions: feminism’s exploitation of the Cosby allegations, keeping the allegations in the court of public opinion, making unproven rape allegations socially acceptable, somebody’s lying or the issue is consent
August 20, 2015, #414 – Black Sails / From anarchy to self-government
00:07 Power in the telling: too much scripted TV, scripted TV programs, fixed audience, finding good television shows, TV listings, 300-400 scripted TV shows currently in production, no fixed markets, the power of scripted television, editorializing by script, TV recommendation – Black Sails
18:40 Sailing from anarchy to self-government: Black Sails – the TV series, masterful storytelling, review samplings, adult content, story-driven plot and theme
36:20 Some things are black and black: Black Sails – a story of power, piracy, voting, turning plunder into trade and profit, law, order, establishment of legal authority, monarchy, libertarian ideal, no governance vs good governance
50:25 Courting the public court: latest Bill Cosby allegations, Gloria Allred’s call for a public debate, three more women make allegations against Cosby, Cosby’s philosophy on sex
September 10, 2015, #417 – Affirmative consent / Campus courts & jesters / Politically cracked / The farce estate
00:07 Consent clearly defiled: conflicting definitions of consent, affirmative consent, legal definition of consent, verbal – not affirmative, myth of the rape culture
17:20 Politically cracked ideology: sex as a biological imperative, men view sex as an end in itself, women view sex as a means to an end, the ‘Consent Conscious Kit’, affirmative consent is impossible consent
30:30 Campus courts and jesters: campus sex courts, American Department of Education rules on affirmative consent, sexual violence and alcohol, restoring presumption of innocence to college campuses
41:55 The farce estate: ABC news Network Forces Whoopi Goldberg to reverse her support of Bill Cosby, Goldberg has nothing to apologize for, censoring the discussion about affirmative consent and presumption of innocence
January 14, 2016, #435 – George Jonas – A farewell / The right vocabulary / Bill Cosby and the corruption of justice
00:03 Bye George! in praise of George Jonas, National Post, journalism, Jonas on immigration as invasion, competing identities of the new immigrants, Justin Trudeau’s hypocrisy, Jonas the poet, aboriginal science, ideological fanatics in universities, Jonas on international courts
15:55 The right vocabulary: terms of experience, losing our understanding of culture and politics, Donald Trump vs Ted Cruz, a vocabulary of freedom, freedom misunderstood, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, Freedom Party of Ontario, freedom in a political context, freedom is not freedom from government, right and rights are moral concepts, individual rights – not group rights, no such thing as animal rights, Constitutional rights vs natural rights
28:47 Corruption of justice: Bill Cosby charges, still innocent until proven guilty, feminist Megan Walker, feminist Gloria Allred, allegations vs the known facts, fourteen things you should know about the Cosby controversy, affirmative consent is an anti-concept, principle of justice under attack
49:35 Many women do lie: a brief review of a few Cosby allegers, Gloria Allred’s legal strategy and political objectives, Cosby’s defence, Cosby’s counter-suits, the judgment vacuum
February 11, 2016, #439 – Feminism – The uncivilizing force / The court of gender bias
00:03 Parallels – Cosby and Ghomeshi: stunning testimonies at the Jian Ghomeshi trial, a brief account of the collapsing case against Ghomeshi, complainants all lied, parallel profiles of Cosby and Ghomeshi
14:50 Court of gender bias: denying the evidence to promote a cause, innocent until proven guilty, siding with the wrong victim, determining guilt by numbers, feminist Megan Walker, lawyer Gordon Cudmore, complainant Lucy DeCoutere, the unconscionable court of public opinion
29:35 Uncivilizing force – Feminism: male feminists, feminism’s objectives, civilizing sexes, differences in sexual attitudes are cultural – not gender based, lying as the new normal
42:40 Gender morality? Angus Reid gender poll, differences in gender attitudes, differing moral views on pornography, Gawronski Study – University of Texas, moral dilemmas – differing gender responses, women identify with victims, moral condemnation of male sexual motivation, subjective moralities vs objective morality, legitimacy of feelings, consent as a condition
August, 03, 2017, #516 – Intentional omissions of truth
What do Bill Cosby and Donald Trump have in common? More than you might think.
One thing they have in common is the way in which the “establishment media” has been delivering the narrative on each of these two individuals’ on-going public stories.
The other thing they have in common is that both Trump and Cosby are under attack by the political Left – which is the primary source of their problems.
Regrettably, many members of the Left can be found in Republican circles, as Trump learned when Republican Senator John McCain voted against Trump’s plan to “repeal and replace Obamacare.”
Similarly, in the wake of this past June’s Bill Cosby hung jury trial, we felt it only fitting that some of the little known facts, contexts, and circumstances about this very political story should be brought again to the attention of everyone.
Following the trial, Mrs Camille Cosby hit the nail right on the head when she issued a statement summarizing much of what we have already illustrated and documented on past broadcasts of Just Right (all directly available via the Bonus Links associated with today’s show):
“How do I describe the district attorney? Heinously and exploitatively ambitious.
“How do I describe the judge? Overtly arrogant and collaborating with the district attorney.
“How do I describe the counsels for the accusers? Totally unethical.
“How do I describe many, but not all, general media? Blatantly vicious entities that continually disseminated intentional omissions of truth, for the primary purpose of greedily selling sensationalism at the expense of a human life.
“Historically, people have challenged injustices.
“I am grateful to any of the jurors who tenaciously fought to review the evidence, which is the rightful way to make a sound decision. Ultimately, that is a manifestation of justice based on facts, not lies.
“As a very special friend once stated, truth can be subdued, but not destroyed.”
From all the facts we ourselves investigated, and that you can hear for yourself, Camille Cosby was Just Right.
April 12, 2018, #551 – Still negative on ‘affirmative consent’
What do ‘affirmative consent,’ ‘indigenous knowledge,’ and the trial of Bill Cosby have in common? In addition to being our discussion topics of the day, each controversy revolves around an epistemological war of words.
It’s a battle of definitions, as efforts to change or affect the social and political environment stretch beyond the political sphere. From the world of TV fantasy, monsters, and superheroes, to the real world that sometimes seems more unreal than the fantasies, the promotion of anti-concepts like ‘affirmative consent’ has already produced a host of real world injustices, not the least of which have been those directed at Bill Cosby.
Just as ‘social justice’ is not justice, so too, ‘affirmative consent’ is not consent.
And so too ‘indigenous knowledge’ is not ‘knowledge,’ particularly in the context of being used as an argument that ‘scientific knowledge is offensive.’ Nor are ‘indigenous’ rights true rights accorded to the individual. Yet these are the very things being asserted by Quebec’s indigenous leaders, at least two Quebec cabinet ministers, and several university law professors.
When efforts are being made, not to define or offer clear alternatives and choices, but rather to obliterate opposing and real concepts, then you can be certain that choice simply isn’t on the agenda of those creating the fake definitions.
The Left has long known that definitions are the mind’s operating software, the programming that determines how one thinks and acts. Control how an individual thinks, and that individual has already become a member of the collective, however defined by he-who-controls-the-definitions.
Racism and sexism are but two of the natural consequences that arise when governments legislate status according to one’s group identity, instead of protecting everyone’s rights as individuals. Racism and sexism are also quite natural results of thinking with false definitions.
In our age of scientific advancement and progress and given the dismal history and condition of collectivist societies everywhere, one would have expected that tribal thinking and its destructive consequences should have faded away ages ago. But that hasn’t happened, and collectivism continues to move us all further in the wrong direction.
For those wanting to move in the Right direction (towards freedom and not away from it), the rule as always is: “Define, or be defined.” Because without knowledge of the alternative correctly defined – individual freedom – there is simply no way for those trapped in their tribal web of despair to ever discover what is Just Right.
May, 24, 2018, #557 – The gender gap in logic
In the world of identity politics, common sense, logic, justice and reason do not rule.
Feminism is one form of identity politics – politics specifically motivated by sex and gender issues. Whether it’s the #metoo ‘movement’ or the ‘gender gap,’ feminism’s goals are all directed against the assumed superior status of men (referring to individuals who are male and possess a penis, for those confused by various ‘gender identities’).
On the social front, feminism’s success in ‘convicting’ selected males in various arbitrary courts of public opinion continues to undermine justice, both in the social sense and in the criminal sense.
On the economic front, feminism’s calls for closing the ‘gender gap’ is in fact a ‘gap’ in logic and morality. There is no such thing as a ‘gender gap.’ It’s a fiction.
A given ‘difference’ in economic status – whether in income, wealth, property, or productivity – is just that, a difference. It’s not a ‘gap.’ This principle applies not just to gender, but also to race, culture, language, intelligence, physical traits, or any other ‘group identity’ that one might imagine.
As soon as somebody calls a simple difference a ‘gap,’ you’re dealing with sinister intentions, and not with economics, nor with any injustice implied in attempting to correct the ‘gap.’ So before someone senses a contradiction, rest assured that even when it comes to logic, there are no ‘gaps.’ All that exists is a difference between the logical and the illogical.
It’s the very WORD ‘gap’ that needs to be eliminated, not the differences between people that these ‘gaps’ represent.
In order to prevent these self-evident truths from surfacing, apparently levelling arbitrary accusations of sexism, racism, and of having various cultural ‘phobias’ is now an acceptable way of debating one’s ideological opponents. These tactics are the weapons that the Left uses to ‘close’ its imaginary ‘gaps.’ It has had chilling effects on the freedom to speak out and challenge these so-called ‘gaps’ (and other fictions) in a rational way.
“Identity politics” is, frankly, simply another way of saying “racist and sexist politics” – politics based on the Leftist notion of group identities rather than on recognizing the sovereignty of the individual.
Consumed by many hatreds based on group identities (which can only lead to more irrational hatreds), the Left blames these collective hatreds on the Right in the hopes of, once again, levelling yet another imaginary ‘gap’ – a morality gap. But even here, the ‘gap’ is not a ‘gap,’ only a difference – a moral difference (i.e., between moral and immoral).
Unfortunately, Leftists’ hurling of ‘hate speech’ accusations has been most effective in silencing those against whom the accusations were made, irrespective of the facts. After all, who wants to be associated with ‘hating’ and isn’t ‘hate’ always something to be fought and eliminated?
Well, actually, no.
The belief that ‘all hate’ should be eliminated is both wrong and hypocritical. Even ‘hating hate’ is still ‘hate.’ What those intent on ‘eliminating hate’ really mean is eliminating free speech.
When it come to ‘hate,’ the Left hates individualism, freedom, free speech, private property rights, justice, and capitalism, to name but a few hatreds of the Left. Worse, the Left doesn’t tolerate anyone on the Right talking about those hated things.
Once it’s understood what the Left hates, then it should also be understood why hating what’s Left is Just Right.
[Bill Cosby topic begins at 37:20 into the broadcast]
Source: Just Right Media
This article is revised from time to time.