Dubium sapientiae initium.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Decision 2006
I just wanted to put this out there: Nanci Pelosi scares the shit out of me. I don't want her to be speaker just because she's such a moron. If we lose control of the house, that's bad. I doubt we'll lose control of the Senate, but, still.
I think parliamentary democracy needs to happen, now. With lots of "hurrumphing." ¶ 2:20 AM 0 Comments
I think parliamentary democracy needs to happen, now. With lots of "hurrumphing." ¶ 2:20 AM 0 Comments
Friday, October 13, 2006
On Rational Discourse, Emotivism, College Students, and Fundamentalist Islam
College students are, by nature, a very zealous and energetic lot of people. College is a rather unique time for everyone: it signals the end of childhood and the transition towards adulthood, our education has gone from broad and simplistic to deep and nuanced, the world no longer seems as black and white as it used to be. We all see in shades of gray now. It's only appropriate that during this time that college students become interested in politics, some becoming quite deeply involved. I really only began to scratch the surface of the intricate affairs of contemporary American politics when I moved to college and had the time and the resources to read large amounts of political current events every day and take classes that offered explanations as to how the American and global political system came to the point it is today.
College also should prepare people to become useful and productive citizens. In our classes and in the environment that college campuses foster students are forced to learn about all perspectives and viewpoints, the rationales and motives behind peoples actions in the world theater and we are forced not to just accept them at face value, but seriously consider an actors motives, how their arguments are constructed, and what the result of their actions will be. In short, we are given the tools to seriously critique and analyze actions in the world and use our own experience and the values that we have gained over time to decide if we agree with someone's actions or goals. One can never understand an argument fully if due respect isn't given to it.
This doesn't really seem to matter to most people, college students and those beyond equally. Americans have moved beyond rationalism into emotivism. Few elements of modern political discourse fully examine opposing ideas thoroughly which closes all opportunities to examine an idea or philosophy fully. Rather than this sort of constructive criticism, discourse in America, political or otherwise has descended into a non-cognitivism (click the link for a better explanation. in short, it means that an idea or argument has no truth value but is more an assertion of "Boo! Something" or "Yay! Something") Within this framework, deductive arguments and logic have no real place, since everyones ideas are simply just an expression of personal beliefs that have no real intrinsic meaning. Persuasion and coercion become now more useful tools for discourse, since the desired goal isn't an understanding of why an idea is correct, but rather simply to change someone's opinion.
Our fundamental switch in thinking has many causes, the traditional suspects being mass media, poor primary education, and the sixties. Whatever the root may be, we must no longer deceive ourselves into believing that we have honest rational discourse in any realm of the public sphere anymore. Though this isn't entirely bad (there is no rational reason for being an Eagles fan over a Niners fan, or preferring one type of food to another) when it comes to gravely important matters, such as the normative goals of a nation either in domestic or foreign policy, this route is not only undesirable but wholly unproductive.
This undesirable emotivist approach has become a tactic used most often by the American left. A recent example comes from the actions of a group of Columbia University students that attended a speech by Jim Gilchrist, the head of the Minutemen group, an organization that monitors the Mexican-American border. (HT: brain-terminal) Rather than listen to Mr. Gilchrist's argument, the students immediately stormed the stage and screamed and protested his right to even address the group of students who requested his presence. They inherently denied his right to hold his opinions, and failed to engage in a rational, ideological argument about his group, his beliefs, and his actions. This is not the first time that things like this have happened on campuses across America. In fact there was a similar incident involving Ann Coulter at Loyola last spring. I personally don't care for Mrs. Coulter but I have no problem with her speaking here as much as I would have a problem with Al Franken or Noam Chomsky (if he were speaking about politics rather than linguistics). There is no excuse however for people who deny the expression of other's ideas or views solely because they disagree with them. When this becomes an accepted practice, the entire concept of the free exchange of ideas (or even the First Amendment) are crushed.
This is now the norm in many places in the world, especially in American universities. Diversity is only welcome in terms of race and gender, but certainly not in thought. Should I want to support some cause that another finds appalling, that is my business to do so, and they have the right to convince me from my stance using logic, reason, and skill. Denying my right to say what I believe, however, is completely unacceptable. I have yet to come into severely oppressive political climates in my classrooms, but I know that it is inevitable. Being in college is about learning to discuss ideas openly, critique them vigorously, and allow for a better argument to almost force you to change your own ideas. But this sort of coercion and aimless protest certainly is not what collegiate level academics are about, this sort of behavior is fitting for an elementary school playground.
At this point, it is very fitting to compare this sort of violent repression of dissenting ideas or alternative viewpoints in American discourse to that of violent Islamic fundamentalists. There is a logical evolution between storming the stage at a speech to violence at a cartoon of a figurehead (Well, you could even say things like the WTO protests actually go that far). It is very frightening that 'civilized' yet extreme American liberals would act so viciously towards dissent, but that seems to be the point where they have come now. ¶ 6:12 PM 0 Comments
College also should prepare people to become useful and productive citizens. In our classes and in the environment that college campuses foster students are forced to learn about all perspectives and viewpoints, the rationales and motives behind peoples actions in the world theater and we are forced not to just accept them at face value, but seriously consider an actors motives, how their arguments are constructed, and what the result of their actions will be. In short, we are given the tools to seriously critique and analyze actions in the world and use our own experience and the values that we have gained over time to decide if we agree with someone's actions or goals. One can never understand an argument fully if due respect isn't given to it.
This doesn't really seem to matter to most people, college students and those beyond equally. Americans have moved beyond rationalism into emotivism. Few elements of modern political discourse fully examine opposing ideas thoroughly which closes all opportunities to examine an idea or philosophy fully. Rather than this sort of constructive criticism, discourse in America, political or otherwise has descended into a non-cognitivism (click the link for a better explanation. in short, it means that an idea or argument has no truth value but is more an assertion of "Boo! Something" or "Yay! Something") Within this framework, deductive arguments and logic have no real place, since everyones ideas are simply just an expression of personal beliefs that have no real intrinsic meaning. Persuasion and coercion become now more useful tools for discourse, since the desired goal isn't an understanding of why an idea is correct, but rather simply to change someone's opinion.
Our fundamental switch in thinking has many causes, the traditional suspects being mass media, poor primary education, and the sixties. Whatever the root may be, we must no longer deceive ourselves into believing that we have honest rational discourse in any realm of the public sphere anymore. Though this isn't entirely bad (there is no rational reason for being an Eagles fan over a Niners fan, or preferring one type of food to another) when it comes to gravely important matters, such as the normative goals of a nation either in domestic or foreign policy, this route is not only undesirable but wholly unproductive.
This undesirable emotivist approach has become a tactic used most often by the American left. A recent example comes from the actions of a group of Columbia University students that attended a speech by Jim Gilchrist, the head of the Minutemen group, an organization that monitors the Mexican-American border. (HT: brain-terminal) Rather than listen to Mr. Gilchrist's argument, the students immediately stormed the stage and screamed and protested his right to even address the group of students who requested his presence. They inherently denied his right to hold his opinions, and failed to engage in a rational, ideological argument about his group, his beliefs, and his actions. This is not the first time that things like this have happened on campuses across America. In fact there was a similar incident involving Ann Coulter at Loyola last spring. I personally don't care for Mrs. Coulter but I have no problem with her speaking here as much as I would have a problem with Al Franken or Noam Chomsky (if he were speaking about politics rather than linguistics). There is no excuse however for people who deny the expression of other's ideas or views solely because they disagree with them. When this becomes an accepted practice, the entire concept of the free exchange of ideas (or even the First Amendment) are crushed.
This is now the norm in many places in the world, especially in American universities. Diversity is only welcome in terms of race and gender, but certainly not in thought. Should I want to support some cause that another finds appalling, that is my business to do so, and they have the right to convince me from my stance using logic, reason, and skill. Denying my right to say what I believe, however, is completely unacceptable. I have yet to come into severely oppressive political climates in my classrooms, but I know that it is inevitable. Being in college is about learning to discuss ideas openly, critique them vigorously, and allow for a better argument to almost force you to change your own ideas. But this sort of coercion and aimless protest certainly is not what collegiate level academics are about, this sort of behavior is fitting for an elementary school playground.
At this point, it is very fitting to compare this sort of violent repression of dissenting ideas or alternative viewpoints in American discourse to that of violent Islamic fundamentalists. There is a logical evolution between storming the stage at a speech to violence at a cartoon of a figurehead (Well, you could even say things like the WTO protests actually go that far). It is very frightening that 'civilized' yet extreme American liberals would act so viciously towards dissent, but that seems to be the point where they have come now. ¶ 6:12 PM 0 Comments
Hopefully, a revival.
I know no one reads this, and I've come to terms with this. This is probably why Dave and I stopped posting as frequently as we were back in the spring. But now I really think it's time for a comeback. I've brought some fresh blood in. Brantley, truly a vir bonus, will now be contributing to this website as he sees fit. He fits more of, at least what I think to be, a 'Paleoconservative' view of the world. Slightly different from Dave's 'Neoconservativism' and my right-winged libertarianism. There is certainly a lot going on in the world, especially in the realm of domestic and foreign politics that could fill books. I'm not quite that ambitious, hopefully a couple of paragraphs here and there.
I guess now I'll mull about the internet and think of some things that would stand as a good reemergence into the zesty world of political blogging.
--Sean ¶ 5:41 PM 1 Comments
I guess now I'll mull about the internet and think of some things that would stand as a good reemergence into the zesty world of political blogging.
--Sean ¶ 5:41 PM 1 Comments
An Introduction and Discussion
I am the new contributor to this blog, an old friend of the two current authors. I describe myself as a staunch conservative on both social and economic issues: I subscribe to the economic theories of Adam Smith and the policies of administrations such as Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan. As a sort of expository statement, I find America to be a troubling country today - where more Americans vote for American Idol rather than the presidential election; where the the leading opinions on academic campuses are often vehemently anti-American; where the youth of America are largely apathetic and often indifferent to politics and current events.
While I have little power to change these shortcomings, I intend to at least express my opinions on the public forum. As for my background, I am a freshman at Richard Stockton College in New Jersey and intend to either major in Classics or Political Science, with possible careers being politics or education.
But I think that's quite enough of my overall background and opinions, and I think it's time to dive into the quagmire of political events that define our nation most dear. The issue at hand right now is the acquisition of nuclear arms by North Korea. Such an issue is intolerable, quite obviously.
What we have is an upstart nation that desires international recognition run by a short, balding, bespectacled man with a Napoleon complex.
On countless occasions Korea has defied the United Nations, and has now finally delivered the coup de grace. The fact that still no sanctions have been put on Korea is outrageous. Kim Jong Il does however state that if sanctions are placed upon his country, he will regard them as a declaration of war. As a result, the UN is foundering: they have softened up the draft resolution against Korea, and both China and Russia have opposed critical pieces of it. This brings on a larger debate about the inefficiency of the UN, a point that I bring up often in personal debate.
As for my personal solution to the issue - the issue lies with the past, and especially the Clinton administration's tolerance and allowing the Koreans to do whatever they please. I highly encourage you to check out an advertisement criticizing the Clinton Administration (and Madeline Albright). To solve the issue, immediate and decisive actions needs to be taken. If our military weren't stretched already in Iraq, I would recommend invasion. But we must settle with diplomatic action in this case and hope for the best. In any case, the United States cannot be nuked, for the missles that North Korea has are only capable of short to intermediate range - which is good news for US, but doesn't say much for Japan and other US allies in the region.
Unfortunately, we must wait to see the reaction of our government and as the adage states, 'Only time shall tell.' ¶ 3:57 PM 1 Comments
While I have little power to change these shortcomings, I intend to at least express my opinions on the public forum. As for my background, I am a freshman at Richard Stockton College in New Jersey and intend to either major in Classics or Political Science, with possible careers being politics or education.
But I think that's quite enough of my overall background and opinions, and I think it's time to dive into the quagmire of political events that define our nation most dear. The issue at hand right now is the acquisition of nuclear arms by North Korea. Such an issue is intolerable, quite obviously.
What we have is an upstart nation that desires international recognition run by a short, balding, bespectacled man with a Napoleon complex.
On countless occasions Korea has defied the United Nations, and has now finally delivered the coup de grace. The fact that still no sanctions have been put on Korea is outrageous. Kim Jong Il does however state that if sanctions are placed upon his country, he will regard them as a declaration of war. As a result, the UN is foundering: they have softened up the draft resolution against Korea, and both China and Russia have opposed critical pieces of it. This brings on a larger debate about the inefficiency of the UN, a point that I bring up often in personal debate.
As for my personal solution to the issue - the issue lies with the past, and especially the Clinton administration's tolerance and allowing the Koreans to do whatever they please. I highly encourage you to check out an advertisement criticizing the Clinton Administration (and Madeline Albright). To solve the issue, immediate and decisive actions needs to be taken. If our military weren't stretched already in Iraq, I would recommend invasion. But we must settle with diplomatic action in this case and hope for the best. In any case, the United States cannot be nuked, for the missles that North Korea has are only capable of short to intermediate range - which is good news for US, but doesn't say much for Japan and other US allies in the region.
Unfortunately, we must wait to see the reaction of our government and as the adage states, 'Only time shall tell.' ¶ 3:57 PM 1 Comments
