2016
● Friday, 1-1-2016: Desert ride—cut short. I think I was hasty in announcing that I had completed my piece on the Repugnant Conclusion. I keep making little changes, and I feel a major rewriting is coming. It’s frustrating. I keep getting ideas to restructure the piece, but then nothing seems to work. I can sense my brain working hard on the problem subconsciously. When this process happens, I almost always triumph. Part of me wants to cheer my brain on, almost as if it’s a separate entity, something like, “Go, brain! Work your magic!” I’ll let that suffice for now, and hope the brain does its work well.
● Saturday, 1-2-2016: Thank you, brain! I got it! I’m a genius! (but I knew that). (The difference in the piece, by the way, is between version one and version two . . . which numbers, coincidentally, correspond to the dates of composition, January 1 and January 2.)
● Tuesday, 1-5-2016: My right-arm pain was dramatically worse today, probably because of the rain. Then, this evening, I had to lift five very heavy boxes of my writing, in an emergency—a leak from the ceiling. I didn’t notice a worsening of the arm after that, but it didn’t get better, either.
● Saturday, 1-9-2016: Haircut.
● Sunday, 1-10-1016: Desert ride; joyless.
● 1-14-2016: I have what feels like the flu: widespread body aches; headache; loss of appetite; chills. I had a bit of a shock in the last week or so. Attorney David C. Berns, whom I’ve always counted on for forming a partnership around one of my advertising marks, is apparently studiously avoiding me. He’s not responding to my overtures to him to meet and take the next step in forming such a partnership. First, I emailed him, on 4 January 2016—no response. Then I called him, about a week later. His cell phone was off. I called his office; his new receptionist said he was in a meeting and that he’d get back to me. I haven’t heard from him. I’m worried. The best-laid plans of mice and men . . ..
[Later note (2020): On 24 March 2019, I sent this letter to David (he never responded):
Dear David:
I hope this letter finds you well. I’m getting in touch with you in the hope that we can work together on advertising. A few years ago we seemed to be about to do that, but the process was aborted, and we haven’t spoken since. In retrospect, I realize that the situation was caused by my untactfulness, which I very much regret. I apologize for that. I’ve always thought that, if I’d played my cards right, I’d be a wealthy man; I’ve lately come to see that I’m a pretty lousy card player. It would be a shame if we couldn’t get together; between us, we have the ingredients of a very powerful enterprise: you’re the most legal-marketing savvy person I’ve ever met; and I have the best legal-advertising properties anywhere. If you could see your way clear to give this another try, I think it could be good for both of us.
Sincerely,
Richard
P.S. I’m still practicing in the workers’ compensation field. In addition to depositions, I now handle trials (for injured workers).]
● I never understood people’s interest in genealogy, now a fad. The identity or quality or accomplishments of your ancestors has no effect on your own qualities as a person, or on your own accomplishments, which are what matters. If you’re a bully or a fool, say, you’re still that, even if you learn that your predecessors were great. On the other hand, perhaps it enables you to see yourself, or your potential, in a new way, and inspires you to try to better yourself.
● 1-15-2016: It feels like the flu symptoms from yesterday have almost completely gone. I guess it wasn’t the flu. That (their going, not their coming) is a welcome development!
● 1-16-2016: It seems to me that, generally, the prevention or alleviation of suffering should take precedence over the effecting or enhancement of pleasure.
● I was premature in declaring that the flu or cold symptoms of 1-14-2016 had left. My appetite is gone; and I still get chills. But the headache and body aches have disappeared. I’d rather have the former two than the latter two.
● 1-21-2016: I had an interesting headache experience yesterday. A headache started very early in the morning, during the sleep phase. It got worse, but I deliberately forewent taking any medication for it, to avoid a rebound effect. But it kept getting worse, and it got very bad around midnight about 24 hours later. It was interfering with sleep, so I resorted to taking 2 tablets of Aleve (a non-prescription NSAID). It completely removed the headache. So much for abstaining from medication.
● Sunday, 1-24-2016: The idea of unconditional love seems strange. If a person you love, changes and starts treating you in a mean way, and no longer warrants your love, why should you continue to love her? Why should you ever reach a point where the way someone treats you is irrelevant to how you feel about her, and to how you treat her? Any relationship between two people can be damaged or destroyed by the words or deeds of one of them; both of them must continually work at it to maintain it.
● 1-29-2016: The connection between our consciousness and our personality is merely accidental, adventitious.
● Why is Donald Trump so popular? He makes about as much sense as the other Republican presidential candidates (they’re all pretty nonsensical); but he seems to mean what he says, unlike the others; and he’s more entertaining.
[Later note (2020): I guess he fooled me, too!]
● 2-3-2016: I was watching a public-television nature-program about monkeys, and when it focused on one of them, I found myself thinking, “Poor little thing.” And then it occurred to me that we’re all “poor little things.”
● 2-6-2016: My writing is very intellectual, and I’ve sacrificed all other pursuits and satisfactions—in particular, social ones—for it. As a result, my writing has blossomed, and my social life and my social skills have withered. And yet, my work’s opposition to the social is not complete, since the motivation for the work is social. I do it to become great, to be thought of in a certain way by future people—to achieve a certain social standing.
● If a neighbor proposed a truce between us, I would reply thus: “I’m for a truce. The way it will work is simple: You stop attacking me, and I’ll stop retaliating.”
● Tomorrow is the Super Bowl of brain damage.
● 2-7-2016: I ate breakfast at a new restaurant (new for me), called Mouthful, in Thousand Oaks, California. I got the vegetarian sandwich.
● A man should be judged by his most significant accomplishment, good or bad.
● 2-11-2016: I donated $25.00 to Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign.
● 2-14-2016: All living things are vulnerable. The non-living is invulnerable.
● Only when you understand something can you know exactly why you failed to understand it before. (You can’t know exactly why you don’t understand something when you don’t understand it.)
● 2-19-2016: I had an altercation this morning with two old men at a McDonald’s restaurant who flagrantly tried to cut in line in front of me and another man.
● 2-21-2016: Philosophy Club meeting. Topic: “political campaign financing limitations.” (I didn’t attend this meeting.)
● 3-2-2016: It was reported that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas last week broke a ten-year silence on the bench. It seems significant that this comes just a week or so after Justice Antonin Scalia died. My theory is that Thomas felt intimidated by Scalia; suddenly when Scalia was gone, Thomas felt freer to perform.
● Here’s a(nother) paradox in human life. We’re told we should live for the journey, rather than for the destination. But looking forward to the destination, or to sub-destinations, or events, along the way is a necessary ingredient in our happiness. Looking forward to destinations, enhances the pleasure of the journey.
● 3-23-2016: Physical exam with Dr. Bhat. My PSA levels have shot up to a very high level, and he’s referred me for an appointment with urologist Dr. Finley.
● 4-12-2016: Ahm a gonna bing bing a bing-bing!
● 4-16-2016: Haircut.
● Sunday, 4-24-2016: Philosophy Club meeting. Topic: “Psychological hedonism.”
I may well be a psychological egoist; but I’m not a psychological hedonist.
[Later note (2020): No, I’m not a psychological egoist, either. See my “Morality,” recently revised to more fully address that very issue. . . . but I’m a prudential hedonist, as I explained in the third entry of 1-16-2005, above.]
● If caring for one’s offspring is altruistic rather than egoistic, how do you explain the parent’s care being just for his own offspring, and not for other youngsters, or other adults, for that matter?
● I’ve adopted a new retaliatory strategy toward my next-door neighbors in apartment number one. I used to retaliate as soon as they committed what I perceived to be a hostile act. But now, I suspend retaliation until a certain designated day (Sunday). To know how to respond to a hostile act, you must determine whether the actor is acting in good faith or in bad faith. I judge that he’s in bad faith; he’s deliberately trying to hurt me; and he’s come to be dedicated to carrying out that purpose. Therefore, an immediate angry reaction is counterproductive in two ways: one, it gives him the immediate satisfaction of seeing his hostile act be effective, in getting a rise out of me; and, two, it gives him more precise knowledge about what he does that annoys me, and so educates him on how to more effectively hurt me. A bumper-sticker slogan I’ve seen seems appropriate here: “I don’t get mad—I get even.”
● The example of a soldier’s sacrificing himself (as by throwing himself on a hand grenade) to save his comrades could be described as a result of psychological hedonism, or psychological egoism. You might weigh twenty years’ intense pleasure as more valuable than sixty years’ modest pleasure. The soldier may have thought, perhaps in advance, that he has lived the first twenty years of his life in great pleasure, and that his pleasure will only diminish in future years, and that if he lives another 40 years, his lifetime average pleasure will be only modest. He could hedonically calculate that twenty years of high pleasure capped by a heroic act that will cause others to remember him as a hero is preferable to 60 years’ modest pleasure followed by oblivion.
● Psychological egoism does not entail or necessarily lead to ethical egoism. A psychological egoist could, in fact, be a utilitarian. Would he even believe that he holds utilitarianism because it brings him pleasure? Perhaps not. Maybe he simply believes it to be valid. Does a psychological egoist believe that twice two is four because it’s to his advantage somehow, or simply because it’s true? Indeed, a psychological egoist who’s also a psychological hedonist could be led to utilitarianism by his belief in hedonism; he could think that, if pleasure is what he wants, it’s what everyone wants, and so they should have it as far as possible.
● 4-25-2016: Philanthropy is the rich person’s art of giving away enough to seem generous, but not enough to significantly diminish his wealth.
● 5-3-2016: My greatest fear is oblivion—that my work will be forgotten.
● 5-5-2016: Today for the first time, I had a medical appointment that was covered by Medicare. It cost me only $5.00 for a routine eye examination. The exam was very thorough, lasting about 50 minutes. It was one of the best medical deals I’ve ever had.
● 5-7-2016: I had a very minor car collision this morning. Another car rearended me in a parking lot.
● 5-10-2016: I have a slight cold. My colds always start with a sore throat; the last symptom to go is the cough.
● 5-13-2016: Entrepreneurs are lauded for their boldness, in their willingness to take risks. To my mind, however, a man with two billion dollars who risks one billion, is not taking a significant risk. True, he’s risking a lot of money (a billion dollars). But if he loses it, he’ll still be very rich, with enough money (a billion dollars) to live in luxury and never again have to work. In contrast, a man who risks, say, his life savings of $10,000, takes a real risk: if he loses it, he may be unable to make it back, and will perhaps be impoverished for the rest of his life.
● Sunday, 5-15-2016: Philosophy Club meeting. Topic: “Work, Automation.” I won’t attend, because I’m sick.
● 5-16-2016: If I didn’t know I dream in color, I’d know it now. I dreamed that I was working for a pornographer, ostensibly as a dishwasher, but really I was organizing his business—and very successfully. After a police raid, my father was set to pick me up in his car. I wore my fancy new bright-yellow leather boots. When he saw them, he asked me to change into other, more conservative boots, and I was very angry about that. I complied but complained to him that he never let me wear anything flamboyant.
● The difference between setting your alarm clock for 5:30 a.m. instead of 5:00 a.m. might seem small when you go to bed around 7:00 the night before. But it starts to seem more significant as 5:00 a.m. rolls around.
● 5-17-2016: My writings are a product of muddling through. The writings themselves, I like to think, are efficient and well organized. But my composing them is a seemingly very disorganized process, with many false starts and revisions.
● Friday, 5-20-2016: Well, tomorrow is my 65th birthday. I had planned to post my “Thoughts on the Big Bang Theory” on the L.A. Philosophy Club’s website tomorrow. But then I noticed a piece posted on May 3rd by my old foe there, Robert, attacking my own latest piece, “Explanation, Reason, Cause.” His attack on my piece was very hostile, very insulting. He’s been out to get me ever since I posted a criticism of his comments on logic several years ago. I felt devastated. At first, I had planned not to respond, and to go ahead with posting my Big Bang piece tomorrow. I made this decision because I felt I could not successfully rebut Robert’s piece. But then I started to feel better about his attack. First, I felt confidence in the rightness of my own piece that he attacks. Next, I started to think of arguments against his item. Then, less than a week later, just yesterday, I started to write a counterattack. The ideas and the ink started to flow. I then thought that, given that I could come up with a successful rebuttal to Robert, it would be better to finish that and post it on the website before I posted the Big Bang piece. Otherwise, Robert would post an attack on the Big Bang piece. Posting the rebuttal first would act as a shot across Robert’s bow, and discourage his posting attacks on my works—at least for a while. It turns out that I probably couldn’t post anything to the website this weekend, anyway, as the website is not accessible. It’s a great relief to have a rebuttal to Robert. This is a great way to spend a birthday—in creative productivity, writing!
● Saturday, 5-21-2016: Happy Birthday, Richard! I’ve finished a draft of a Rebuttal to Robert . . . a lovely birthday present! In retrospect, it took me remarkably little time to come up with the rebuttal, just about a week after first reading his piece. I thought it might literally take months. In fact, at first, I was afraid I wouldn’t be able to do it at all. Now my rebuttal is better, more powerful, and more complete, than I could have hoped for. [It’s now posted at RichardEisner.com as “Explanation, Reason, Cause: Rebuttal to Robert.”]
● 5-22-2016: Yabish Gabinkum. Yabish Gazinkum. Yabish Gazorkt.
● 5-28-2016: Sometimes I think I’d like to obtain even greater privacy by going to a restaurant in some remote place where no one knows me. I imagine it would be almost like being all alone. But then I get there, and I find that certain other persons and I are catching each other’s attention, that we develop momentary micro-relationships. Other people willy-nilly become significant to us. There are no throw-away people.
● Sunday, 5-29-2016: Inspired by the movie Deli Man, I sought out Jewish delis, and yesterday I found and tried Brent’s Deli in Northridge. I had the matzo ball soup.
● Monday, 5-30-2016: Desert ride. I hadn’t taken this drive for a long time (not since 10 January 2016). It was mildly pleasant, but not joyful. The reason I haven’t taken the ride for a long time is that I stay home on Sundays to retaliate against my neighbors in apartment number one. I went today, because it’s Memorial Day, and I didn’t have work. I ate breakfast at Tom’s #28 in Rosamond. They gave me a dirty glass for water, which I had them switch. The meal, a patty melt, was cold and stale, and, unfortunately, I didn’t have them take that back. I think they did this to me deliberately, to retaliate against me for not coming regularly anymore. At the McDonald’s restaurant in Lancaster on my way back, the car door automatic lock stopped working to electronically open the door. Now it controls only the driver’s door.
[Later note (1-28-2024): The cause of their anger toward me was not that simple.]
● Saturday, 6-4-2016: Yesterday was a day off for me. I drove to Palmdale (California) and ate breakfast/lunch (a patty melt) at Tom’s #27 restaurant. Then I drove back. I called the state bar and then the county bar lawyer referral service and got names of three lawyers who might be able to help me with lawyer partnership/trademark licensing agreements. I’ve spoken to one by email, and I’ll call the other two next week.
● The automatic door lock has started working again.
● Sunday, 6-5-2016: I repeated the drive to Palmdale, and ate again at Tom’s #27 restaurant (had my usual patty melt). The sense of adventure that I felt last Friday, when I went there for the first time, was gone. It was a rather depressing trip.
● Thursday, 6-9-2016: Today, the slippers that I’ve worn for several years finally fell apart, and I replaced them with the pair I recently bought at Sears.
● 6-17-2016: I’ve found that the prospect of publishing my work inspires me to maximally polish it.
● 6-18-2016: Colors; black; white; colors. These words describe the existence, death, and rebirth of our universe. We start with the variegated forms of the universe we know. Then it dies. Then it’s reborn in another big bang. Then it becomes a world full of intelligent life.
● 6-21-2016: New people moved in next-door, in apartment no. 3, over the weekend (6-18/19-2016). I may have gotten off on the wrong foot with the man; I may have overreacted; it was perhaps my fault. I endured many attacks from him today, without retaliating. I figure I’ll give it a few weeks, without retaliating. If by July 4th he’s still attacking me, I’ll conclude that his conduct is not merely good faith retaliation for my misdeed, but simple hostility, and that he’s using my initial slips as an excuse to attack me. Then I’ll begin my own retaliation—in response to his fresh attacks. In other words, I need to reset the relationship, so as to regain, or gain, the moral high ground. Of course, he, too, could take the high road and make the relationship benign, with neither of us attacking the other. But in my experience, that’s unlikely. I want to live in peace, but the neighbor always remains hostile, and keeps attacking me, so I have to keep retaliating.
● 6-22-2016: Today Attorney Sef Krell called me and proposed the idea of what would in essence be a licensing arrangement for my 1-800-SUE-THEM . . . that’s good news.
● 6-23-2016: I had an MRI of my prostate today. The earplugs did not seal well, and ever since I got up from the table, my hearing seems quite damaged, especially in the right ear. I’m very worried about it. I hope it’s just temporary.
● 6-24-2016: I got an appointment with my ear doctor, Dr. Di Tirro, this morning. Problem solved! It turns out the foam earplugs that I wore for the MRI had pushed a clump of earwax into the right ear, and the mass was touching the eardrum. Dr. Di Tirro cleaned out the ear canals, and I hear just fine . . . at least, as well as I did before.
● Sunday, 6-26-2016: Philosophy Club. Topic: “propaganda.”
● This morning I found a car (Toyota, 7KGE546) parked right in front of my garage, completely blocking my exit. I called the city (at 311), and the parking enforcement people came out and gave the car a parking ticket and called a tow truck to tow the car away. When I came out in an hour or so, the car was gone. I don’t know whether the owner came back and drove it off or it was towed. I hope it was towed.
● 6-27-2016: Following up on my note of 6-21-2016, above, the neighbor’s attacks on me continue. I await July 4th, to begin retaliating.
● 6-28-2016: I’ve decided to give it more time before retaliating against the new neighbor. Although his attacks have continued, they’ve also diminished.
● Friday, 7-1-2016: Desert half-drive (only into Lancaster, and back).
● Saturday, 7-2-2016: I have a theory about sugar. I know that sugar in the diet is very unhealthy. The opposite of sugar is salt. If, in a given meal, you eat just as much salt as sugar, the two substances balance each other, or cancel each other out. So I needn’t eat less sugar; I just need to eat more salt.
● Monday, 7-4-2016: Desert ride. Pleasant.
● It’s time to discard a piece of memorabilia when you no longer remember its significance.
● Tuesday, 7-5-2016: I got the trademark on 1-877-RIDE-LAW! (My mark doesn’t include an exclamation point.)
● 7-7-2016: Most of the day today I’ve had mild muscle aches all over my body. If I were looking for an excuse to take narcotic pain medication, this would qualify. But I’m trying hard to avoid using that. I just hope I’m not getting sick.
● Following up on my above note of 6-28-2016, the attacks continue. They’re no longer diminishing, but seem to have reached a plateau. For now, though, I’ve decided to continue not to respond. I actually think that will hurt them more than my responding, since they’re looking for a response from me, proof that their attacks are effective. Also, their continuing to attack me, together with a total absence of attacks by me on them, vitiates any moral high ground they may have thought they had, and may in fact replace it with guilt. These two processes, the bad feeling of their objective being frustrated, and a growing sense of guilt, may in time cause them to stop attacking me. We’ll see.
● 7-8-2016: Today, after a night’s sleep, no more muscle aches; I’m fine!
● Sunday, 7-10-2016: Today I posted to the Philosophy Club website my Rebuttal to Robert, on the Explanations and Causes topic. I’m very proud of the piece. I find it doubly satisfying; it’s a devastatingly effective refutation of Robert’s attacks on me, which caused me considerable pain. And it’s another fine piece of work under my belt. I actually posted it to the site on Friday, 7-8- 2016. Then, late Saturday, I noticed a typo in it; I asked Brian Gould, the Club facilitator, to delete it, so that I could fix the typo. He did so promptly, and I straightaway re-posted the corrected version of the piece.
● Monday, 7-11-2016: Desert ride. Very pleasant. I ate at Tom’s #27 in Palmdale. I took a road I’d never driven on before, 50th Street East.
● Wednesday, 7-13-2016: Am I wise, or just clever (. . . or neither)?
● Saturday, 7-16-2016: Today I got a scalp treatment (essentially, a head massage) at Marinello School of Beauty in Reseda. The person giving the treatment was Tessa. I paid $7.00 for the service and gave her a $5.00 tip.
● On the way back home, I went into a McDonald’s Restaurant for coffee and ran into my old employee, Jenny Casco. She looked so much older since the last time I saw her, decades ago, that I didn’t recognize her until she introduced herself, saying she used to work for me. Then I recognized her.
● I’ve avoided counterattacking the new neighbor(s) in apartment 3 practically ever since they moved in. But he (or they) have continued to attack me relentlessly. My turn-the-other-cheek mode isn’t working, either in mitigating his hostility, or in helping me deal with it. And it’s not my style. So I’m going to change my approach. I’m going to start retaliating. But not immediately, not in the heat of anger. Instead, I’m going to sleep on it, and think out a strategy, rules of engagement.
One possibility is to have a designated time of day (or a time range) when I make my angry-sound. It will be a judgment on the past 24 hours. If they’ve been hostile toward me, I make the sound. If they’ve not been hostile, I forgo it. If necessary, I can escalate to two or three times a day. Having a designated time relieves me of having to retaliate every time they commit a hostile act. Instant retaliation is problematic also in that it educates them about what they’re doing that works (that hurts me), because it gets an instant response. It also risks my making mistakes. That is, sometimes I’ll mis-characterize individual sounds. I’m more likely to be right about a 24-hour period, because my being right requires merely that I correctly judge as hostile even just one noise during that day, rather than my correctly judging every single instance. And a lag time in retaliating gives a “cooling off” period, in which an ill-advised planned retaliation can be called off.
That sounds like a good plan. I’m going to start the retaliation tomorrow night, Sunday, 7-17-2016. He’s already given me more than sufficient grounds, even just in the last few minutes.
● 7-17-2016: I had tentatively decided to put my plan into effect this evening, even if only on the strength of yesterday’s attacks. But the hostility today seems considerably diminished, and I think it would be wise to wait to start the retaliation, until another very bad day, to make it clear that my attack is truly retaliatory, not merely gratuitously hostile, to make clear the justice of it. But even just having my plan in place gives me some comfort—I’m ready.
● When a government official asks the public to pray for the families of victims of a tragedy, does that not constitute a violation of the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state?
● 7-18-2016: I had no work today. So I took a drive to Palmdale, and ate, again, at Tom’s #27. On the way back I got gas. I forgot to replace the gas cap and left it on the trunk of the car. A policeman pulled me over and put the cap back on for me.
● 7-19-2016: Almost always, when I act toward a bug, it’s to kill it. But just now, on my walk, I saved one (or at least tried to): an earthworm was wriggling on the sidewalk in the blazing sun. I took a leaf and moved it to a piece of moist, shady soil. If it had been a kind of bug that I dislike, say a spider or a cockroach, I would have left it to suffer and die.
● Last Sunday, I felt disappointed that I had missed my opportunity (Saturday evening) to retaliate against the new neighbors, in No. 3. But subsequent events have made me change my mind about that. These people live to get my goat, to get a rise out of me. The greatest punishment I can give them is, not to show hostility, but to avoid reacting.
● 7-20-2016: I’m having second thoughts about not retaliating. But I’ll let it play out a bit longer; I’ll see whether Saturday is another very bad day.
● Sunday, 7-24-2016: Philosophy Club meeting; topic: “The Ethics of Surveillance.” I didn’t go. I was busy editing my essay “Some Reasons Not to Use Drugs.”
● Tuesday, 7-26-2016: Today, getting out of the elevator at Scott Warmuth’s law office, where I go most days to handle workers’ compensation depositions for him, I tripped on an uneven surface at the threshold to the elevator, and I fell on the floor. I think I’m okay (uninjured). [Later note (2020): No, I was not uninjured.]
● 7-27-2016: If you would refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, because you can’t bring yourself to vote for an evil, I would ask you this—Would you vote for the eviler candidate, to keep the less evil one from winning? No? What if you could check a box on the ballot to indicate: “I want it to be known that I’m voting for the worse candidate to protest the lack of better electoral choices.”? Still no? Well, in refusing to vote for the lesser evil, you’re essentially doing just that—the effect is the same: your action, or inaction, makes it more likely that the greater evil will prevail. Take a city with 50 eligible voters in a mayoral election. Say the election is between two candidates: Hillary Clinton, whom you think is disappointing, even somewhat bad, and Donald Trump, whom you think is very evil. Twenty-one persons intend to vote; the other twenty-nine will abstain. Of the twenty-one intended voters, eleven intend to vote for Clinton; the other ten, for Trump. You and your spouse are among the eleven. If the people vote that way, Clinton will become the mayor (by a vote of 11 – 10). If two of the non-voters decide to vote for Trump, Trump will win (12 – 11). If, instead, you and your spouse decide that Clinton is not good enough to vote for, and both of you don’t vote, Trump will likewise win (10 – 9). In that situation, your non-votes had the same effect as votes for Trump—they caused him to win. A refusal to vote for the lesser evil is a vote for the greater evil.
● Thursday, 8-4-2016: I met with Attorney Scott Warmuth about my 1-888-ACE-ATTY.
● Friday, 8-5-2016: Palmdale ride; I again ate at Tom’s #27. I had intended to eat at Gezziny’s Famous Pizza, but they didn’t open on time (11:00). I’ll try it again.
● Saturday, 8-6-2016: I’ve reached a point in my life where I’m fairly content. My financial situation, after an adult lifetime of financial insecurity and worry, is stable, and facile. My work (defending workers’ compensation—applicants’—depositions) is easy, gives me plenty of free time, and is allowing me to effortlessly pay my bills and even to save money. I’m on Medicare (so I’m saving money on medical services). I have a significant cushion of money. And my prospects are excellent for an even greater financial advancement: I have many law-related trademarked advertising properties, and I’ve finally found a lawyer who can advise me about arrangements with other lawyers for licensing or partnerships. Attorney Sef Krell has recently expressed interest in licensing one of my marks (1-800-SUE-THEM). My health is excellent; my mind is in fine condition; I’m still writing excellent new work that I’m proud of. I just recently published, or posted, a superb rebuttal. And I’m about to post (if and when the Philosophy Club website comes back up) two of my most important pieces: “Thoughts on the Big Bang Theory” and “[My Solution to] The Repugnant Conclusion”.
● Sunday, 8-7-2016: I had intended to take my Palmdale drive, but got too late a start. So I ate at a local restaurant: Barone’s Pizzeria Express, in Woodland Hills. It was very satisfying.
● I’ve decided finally to retaliate against the new neighbors in apartment no. 3. I’ve been forgoing it, hoping that my lack of response would discourage the attacks. It hasn’t. The attacks have been unremitting. I also hoped that I’d feel better by not attacking; I reasoned that, since these people are looking for an angry response from me, my best counterattack would be no response at all—to deny them the satisfaction of a response. Well, I’ve given it a more-than-reasonable chance, but it hasn’t worked on either count: It hasn’t stopped the attacks, and they still smart. My retaliating won’t stop the attacks; those will continue no matter what. But I think that at least I’ll feel better counterattacking, at which I’m pretty good.
. . . Just about 10 minutes ago, at 5:30 p.m., I struck the first retaliatory blow against the new neighbors in no. 3. It felt good! Lesson: when a bully hits you, hit him back.
● Friday, 8-12-2016: I took my kitchen chair to BIF’s (Borneo International Furniture’s) service department to replace the gas spindle. I rented a pickup truck, which cost me almost $90. I learned that BIF would have come to my home to do the repair for an extra $30.
● Sunday, 8-13-2016: I got a massage today. Actually, I got two. Two places in Encino advertise themselves as foot massage, but it’s actually whole-body massage. They’re an hour-long massage. I went from one place right to the other. The second massage was so vigorous it was unpleasant. Perhaps it was therapeutic, but it was painful, and I’m not inclined to go there again.
● Tuesday, 8-16-2016: I had no work today, so I took my recently-accustomed Palmdale drive. I ate a patty melt at Tom’s #27, because the pizza place was closed.
● 8-21-2016: If you find yourself saying, “I’m going to do this despite my better judgment,” ask yourself why you shouldn’t always act according to your better judgment. . . . On second thought, here’s why: The statement is not necessarily the self-contradiction that it would be if you were making a decision only for yourself. Instead, you may be with another person, or with a group, and the statement is elliptical for something like this: “I think this a bad idea. I’m going along with it only because you are demanding it. If this turns out badly, remember I said I was against it.”
● How happy are clams?
● Tuesday, 8-23-2016: I finished my little piece “Oblivion.”
● Friday, 8-26-2016: I ate at Tom’s #25 in Palmdale for the first time. (This is a different location than Tom’s #27, also in Palmdale.)
● 8-29-2016: Would you rather live for 50 years (and then die) as an intelligent, very rich, but only moderately happy man, or 50 years as an equally intelligent, poor, but very happy man?
What if the rich man was unhappy?
Would you rather live for 50 years as an intelligent, very rich, moderately happy man, or 50 years as an even more intelligent, much happier, but poor man?
● 8-30-2016: My deposition for Attorney Scott Warmuth for today got cancelled, and I just happened to get an offer from another attorney to make a court appearance in a traffic trial, so I took the assignment, in Simi Valley. On my way back home, I stopped at the Social Security Administration office and had them change my name in their records, from Richard John Eisner to Richard J Eisner. I don’t know how they ended up making my middle initial into “John”; but I have a theory. My mother used to work for the Social Security Administration. My father’s name was Jerome. My parents used to tell me that they gave me only the middle initial, so that I could choose a name for it (one starting with J). My father never said it, but I always suspected that he chose the J hoping that I’d choose his name (Jerome) as my middle name. Of course, that would be the last name I’d choose if I picked one (which I’ve never done). My mother, I imagine, to spite my father, put “John” in my record, to negate the possibility of “Jerome.”
● Thursday, 9-1-2016: I had another road rage incident this morning. A big tow truck came up very close behind me and blew its horn at me—I was going too slow for him. I gave him the middle-finger gesture. We turned right (from Ventura Boulevard) onto northbound Topanga Canyon Boulevard. About a hundred yards away, I was in the rightmost lane, and he came into my lane just ahead of me, causing me to brake abruptly to avoid hitting him. Of course, I did (as angry as I was, it wasn’t worth getting into a collision over, even if I could have put the blame on him). I drove fast and later caught up to him and wrote down the license number of the truck and the name and phone number of the towing company. A driver’s willingness to engage in road rage when he (it’s always a man) is driving a vehicle emblazoned with his employer’s name and phone number is curious. . . . I called the towing company (Swink’s) and left a brief message, with my phone number, the same day. They told me the supervisor would call me back. I heard nothing. Then I called on 9-6-2016, and talked to the supervisor, Tom, who told me he had called me back, but I didn’t answer, and that the driver was no longer there, because of this. I simply said, “Thank you.”
● Friday, 9-2-2016: Desert ride. I stopped at Tom’s #25 and had my usual patty melt. This was the second time I’d eaten at Tom’s #25. The food and service were so good that I left a tip, even though tipping is optional there (you order at the counter and get a number to put on the table so they can bring the food to your table). I noticed money left on another table, which gave me the idea of possibly leaving a tip (I left a dollar).
● Monday, 9-5-2016: Today I took a ride to Bakersfield, then to Mojave, then back home. It was pleasant, if not pleasurable.
● Tuesday, 9-6-2016: I revised my piece on the Repugnant Conclusion. It needed a lot of work, but it was just a lot of small details, line-by-line editing, not restructuring (which is always much harder). It was easy, all done within 24 hours.
● Saturday, 9-10-2016: I get a manicure every other Saturday. I’ve been giving the manicurist a $3 tip; today for the first time I gave her $4. I’ve used this particular manicure place for over 14 years, and I’ve never requested a particular manicurist. Last Saturday for the first time I requested a certain one.
● Sunday, 9-11-2016: Philosophy Club meeting. Topic: “Virtue Ethics.”
● Tuesday, 9-13-2016: This evening I posted on the Philosophy Club website my “Thoughts on the Big Bang Theory.”
● 9-17-2016: I’m alone but not lonely. I like being by myself.
● Sunday, 9-18-2016: Palmdale ride. I ate again at Tom’s #25. I had planned to forgo retaliation against the neighbors in no. 1, but last night he attacked me (I felt attacked), and so changed my mind, and I’ve continued my tradition of Sunday retaliation against them.
● I’ve learned to carry a butterfly net with me at all times, to capture any butterflies of thought I may spot flying about. I’ve gotten pretty good at spotting them, catching them, and displaying them in interesting and attractive patterns.
● Wednesday, 9-21-2016: I’d been playing around with three short sections of writing on the general topic of ethics and virtue ethics, and trying to think of a way to combine them in one piece. Finally, but far sooner than I dared hope, the solution came to me on Monday, 9-19-2016. I’ve been editing and polishing the work ever since. Another striking compositional success!
(On Saturday, 10-1-2016, I decided to break the piece into two separate ones. The first two paragraphs fit together beautifully, but the third paragraph seemed just tacked on. The first two paragraphs don’t need the third and the third doesn’t need the first two. So I made the third paragraph its own little piece. I’m calling the first piece “The Unexamined Life”; the second, “Virtue Ethics.”)
● Saturday, 10-1-2016: I ate at Barone’s Pizzeria Express in Woodland Hills. I had the small plain (“cheese”) pizza, with extra cheese.
● Sunday, 10-2-2016: Palmdale ride. I ate again at Tom’s #27.
● On Saturday, 10-1-2016, a significant event happened with the next-door neighbors in no. 3. I retaliated harshly that morning. They were out of the house from Saturday afternoon until the afternoon of the next day, Sunday. And they haven’t attacked me since. I can’t rule out mere coincidence, but I think it’s because of me. At least the woman there has finally come to her senses and decided that it doesn’t pay to attack me.
● I had a significant disappointment today. At a deposition, the beautiful young Spanish interpreter whom I’d hoped to date, and whom I hadn’t seen in perhaps 5 or 6 months, was pregnant. But she’s not wearing a wedding ring. I assume that she’s in a committed relationship with another man. I suppose I can ask her about that sometime. There are more fish in the sea.
● Saturday, 10-8-2016: I treated myself to a new leather briefcase today. It’s dark brown, something like British tan (officially described as “cognac” color). I paid $416.15 for it. I thought I needed a spare to use when my main one is unavailable, as in the shop for repair, where it is now. Just one small problem with that plan: One thing I need the alternate case for is to use when it’s raining. But this new one is far too luxurious to use in the rain. I’ll go back to the shop and see if they have a very cheap case.
● 10-11-2016: Well, I’m on a briefcase-buying spree. Today I spent over $1,150 on two new luxury leather briefcases, even more luxurious than the one I bought on Saturday. I bought two of the same one: one to use every day, and the other just to keep in reserve. That’s over $1,500 in a week. I lack the money for big luxuries, like a house or a car; so I buy small luxuries, and very seldom.
● Crooks and Nannies
Where do crooks and nannies hide? They hide in small spaces, corners, alcoves, tiny recesses, hidden places, secluded spots, tiny openings, crevices, the interstices. Did I leave out anything?
● 10-20-2016: I got a promotion of sorts at the Law Offices of Scott Warmuth. Rodolfo Garcia, the workers’ compensation expert, has left the firm, and they wanted me to take his place. This means that I’ll do much more (paid) work, not only handling depositions, but also attending all the hearings, and doing other work on cases. I’m still waiting for Scott’s decision on using my 1- 888-ACE-ATTY. He says that should be soon.
● 10-23-2016: Summer used to be my favorite season. I liked the warm weather, and perhaps I liked it, too, because it was the time of vacation from school. But now Fall is my favorite season, and I like Winter better than Spring or Summer. I hate Summer. The reason for the shift is that the weather in all seasons has gotten much hotter, so that Summer is very uncomfortable, and Fall and Winter are the most comfortable (or the least uncomfortable) times.
● Today I got a pedicure for the first time . . . in so long that I can’t recall if I indeed ever got one before. It was the best deal I’ve had for a long time, $13, and my feet feel so much better. My toenails were very long, uncomfortably long.
● Tuesday, 10-25-2016: Today I met with Attorney Susan Garrett, and presented her the package on 1-877-THE-ATTY, proposing a licensing agreement.
● The only significant vote fraud that happens in the United States consists in preventing persons from voting who have a right to vote, not in people voting who have no right to vote.
● Sunday, 10-30-2016: “There’s gold in them thar hills!” . . . Why in the world would you announce it?!
● This is the first Sunday in it seems well over half a year when I haven’t spent the afternoon retaliating against the next-door neighbors in apartment no. 1. It’s not because I’ve changed my rule of procedure; instead, they didn’t attack me last week, or at least it was much less—it was below the threshold for retaliation.
● 11-2-2016: I just won an Ebay auction for a gold vermeil Montblanc ballpoint pen! The listing describes it as used, but never used, in the box. I got it for $326.00. I had put in a maximum bid of $800.00. So I figure I got a good deal . . . assuming it’s in excellent condition. I collect Montblanc ballpoint pens. I already have two of those gold vermeil pens (one is barely used, in the box), and two solid gold ones, which I never use anymore—they’re too precious to actually use. But if I keep this new vermeil (if it’s in good condition), I will use that; I’ll keep it in my briefcase.
● 11-3-2016: I have more intelligence in an hour than my next-door neighbor has in his entire lifetime.
● 11-6-2016: I’m on a luxury-pen buying spree. I just recently discovered that the Montblanc vermeil ballpoint pens are on sale on Ebay auctions. I’m going crazy buying them. I just got my first one, a pinstripe pattern one. It has a slight flaw, but it was still a good deal at $325.00. I’ve just now ordered two more, for about $700 apiece. I can afford it because I’m making enough money for it.
● 11-7-2016: I understand the angry attitude of Trump voters. In fact, one reason why I hope Hillary Clinton wins the election tomorrow, is that, if Trump wins, I’m going to be a citizen with a very ugly attitude toward my government; I’ll despise, and refuse to respect or recognize, the president. I won’t get over that. It would take constant restraint to avoid saying out loud inappropriate things, like . . .!
● 11-9-2016: To all those who hated Donald Trump, but thought Hillary Clinton wasn’t good enough to vote for, learn this lesson: When you refuse to vote for the lesser evil, you get the greater evil! . . . And remember: however bad you think things are—they could get worse. God help us!
● 11-10-2016: My favorite metal is . . . gold! I like gold very much.
● Saturday, 11-12-16: Haircut.
● I heard a paraphrase of Kant’s categorical imperative to the effect of “In an ideal world, no one would lie at all. So if the Nazis came to your door and asked, ‘Where’s Anne Frank?’; you would tell them, ‘She’s upstairs.’” But it occurred to me that, in an ideal world, no one would need to lie; in an ideal world, there would be no Nazis; no genocide . . . But in the real world, morality compels hard choices, and in some circumstances lying may be the least bad of several bad options.
● Sunday, 11-13-2016: I just opened the two vermeil ballpoint Montblanc pens I bought (I opened the packages they were in). Both are virtually flawless. I’m very happy with the purchases. I was going to leave this feedback for the seller of one of them (I had to shorten the text considerably to fit the feedback format):
I bought a gold pen, the condition described as “new.” It was expensive, but worth it to me if the pen was truly new. I got it promptly, but I procrastinated opening it, because I figured I’d be disappointed and would have to go to the trouble of returning it, for even a small flaw. I’m keeping it. It’s flawless! I’m very pleased.
● My gold Montblanc is jewelry in the form of a pen. An elegant pen is a writer’s scepter; it’s functional jewelry.
● I’m a fine-pen collector, or, more accurately, a hoarder. I can’t be content using a pen unless I have one or more better specimens of it stored away. It’s a sickness, a neurosis, and a little inconvenient—to enjoy a pen, I have to buy not just the one pen, which would be sufficient, but at least two of them, which compulsion, when it comes to fine pens, can be expensive. . . . On second thought, I just looked up “hoarding disorder” in the encyclopedia (on the Internet, anyway), and I don’t think I have true hoarding disorder. The problem isn’t out of hand; it doesn’t significantly adversely affect my life. My collection of pens is very limited, all fitting in one file cabinet drawer. I think I’m a collector, with just a tinge of hoarding compulsion.
● Friday, 11-18-2016: Yesterday I had my annual hearing test followed by a meeting with the ear doctor. I saw Dr. Frederick Di Tirro, M.D., for the last time; he’s retiring. My hearing in my right ear deteriorated in the high frequencies. The hearing in the left ear was unchanged.
● Thursday, 11-24-2016: Mental concentration requires memory. If you’re concentrating on a thought, and you forget what you were thinking, there’s no longer anything to concentrate on. It’s as if you’re exerting your upper body strength to try to open a stuck door, and you suddenly find yourself in an open field, with no buildings and no doors—your exertion ends.
● Friday, 11-25-2016: I’ve heard that Chick-fil-A has an excellent chicken sandwich. I’ve resisted eating there, because I hate the owners’ political stance and activities. But I desperately need to expand my very limited meal choices, or I risk not being able to eat at all. I’ve decided to try eating at Chick-fil-A; I figure that, since I have only about 4 or 5 meal choices, but I’d be just one of millions of Chick-fil-A’s customers, my eating there helps me more than it helps them. I ate there this morning for the first time. I had the grilled chicken sandwich. I didn’t like it.
● Saturday, 11-26-2016: My favorite pen now is the Waterman Exception ballpoint. I discovered it only about a week and a half ago, on 15 November 2016, when I bought one at Flax Pen to Paper, in Westwood, California. It writes nicely, and it feels wonderful in my hands, with its square design and perfect heft. Since then, I’ve been on a buying binge with them. I now have four of them, three black and one red, both with gold-plated trim. Yesterday I bought two more, online. One is black; the other is solid sterling silver, for which I paid $800.00. If I like the silver, I fear I’ll feel compelled to buy at least one more of them.
● Sunday, 11-27-2016: Some lawyers choose to work for a certain class of clients because they believe in their cause, like working for personal injury plaintiffs because you want to help injured persons get justice. Logically, though, the lawyer’s reasoning about that should include a further step. He should ask himself whether, in terms of his skill and effectiveness, he’s an above-average lawyer, or a below-average one. If he’s above average, then, indeed, he should work for those he wants to help. But if he’s below-average, he should seek to work for the opposition—in this instance, the defendants, like insurance companies. That way, he’s more likely to help whom he wants to help.
● 12-2-2016: Goldman, Sachs . . . the man with the sacks of gold.
● 12-3-2016: I don’t use the clip on a pen, because I don’t put it in my pocket. For me, the clip is just ornamental; the one function it has for me is, not its ostensible one, but merely as a structure that keeps a round pen from rolling away and falling off the edge of the desk.
● Tuesday, 12-6-2016: Did you ever notice that when someone says he wants to be a better person, less selfish, the reason is rarely, “because it would make the world a better place.” Instead, it’s usually, “because I think I’d be happier that way.” In other words, they want to be less selfish, for selfish reasons.
● I handled my first workers’ compensation trial today. I don’t have the judge’s decision yet, but I feel good about my performance—I did as well as I could have, given that it was a bad case.
● Thursday, 12-8-2016: Today, the Los Angeles Philosophy Club announced this Sunday’s topic: “the repugnant conclusion.” And my piece on the subject was given as one of the two readings for it!
● Friday, 12-9-2016: I’m sick; as usual, the first symptom is a sore throat.
● 12-12-2016: In the Philosophy Club meeting last night, a Buddhist asserted that happiness is the lack of suffering. I replied that this couldn’t be true, because dead people don’t suffer, but they’re not happy.
● 12-17-2016: Today for the first time I ate at California Pita and Grill. I had the lamb shish kabob.
● 12-19-2016: I’d like to write a novel set in the Old West about a gunslinger named Doodle von Dool (or Von Duel).
● Wednesday, 12-21-2016: Here’s my annual year-end reminiscence of the high points of the year. 2016 was the year of . . .
○ The Repugnant Conclusion.
○ The (2016) Rebuttal.
○ The finishing and posting of “Thoughts on the Big Bang Theory.”
○ The expansion of legal work for the Law Offices of Scott Warmuth.
○ The “senior coffee” discount at McDonald’s.
[Later note (2021): For many years I eagerly awaited turning 65 so that I could get the “senior discount” on coffee at McDonald’s. Soon thereafter, I found out that the discount was available starting at age 55.]
● I’m a jabixdagid!
● Saturday, 12-24-2016: I just got the sterling silver Waterman Exception ballpoint pen. It’s magnificent! I’ve ordered another one.
● 12-27-2016: Many people speak of learning a new task as involving a “steep” learning curve. I imagine they’re using the wrong word. Steep implies that one learns the task quickly. But I think they mean that the learning task is difficult—and slow, which would be a gradual learning curve. The confusion perhaps comes from thinking of traversing a steeper incline as being harder, more arduous. They probably picture climbing the steep slope slowly. But the kind of graph they refer to doesn’t accommodate the idea of a slow, steep rise; on that kind of graph, a steep rise is a fast rise.
● 12-28-2016: Several months ago, as I was getting in my car in a parking lot in Woodland Hills, a young woman called out my name and bid me come to her car and speak with her. She told me she knew me from the Ralph’s market, in that shopping center, where I used to shop (I did shop there) and where she used to work as a cashier. She said she was now a registered nurse, and she wrote her name (Sara) and telephone number on a piece of paper and gave it to me, suggesting that we have coffee sometime. I gave her my 1-800-SUE-THEM card, and I said I’d call her. I didn’t get a good enough look at her to know whether I’d find her attractive. I had intended to call her this week to meet her for coffee, and I’ve had it on my daily calendar for several days. But I haven’t yet gotten the nerve to call her. I’ll transfer it to tomorrow’s calendar.
● 12-29-2016: I finally got the nerve to call Sara, and I dialed her number (just now). I was both disappointed and relieved to get a message saying the person I called was unavailable at the moment. I’ll try again tomorrow.
● 12-31-2016: Today I ate at Dickey’s Barbecue for the first time. It was disappointing.