Breakthrough
The crash you hear is the ludicrous self regard of those elite campuses giving way. Their theories of what is possible on the international stage has disclosed the utter vacusosness of their premises. These are cowards. They can't think outside the paradigms bequeathed by their immediate predecessors. They know neither triumph nor defeat in pursuit of great ideals; only the grey of mutual condolence [TR]. From their soft warm inviting homes and faculty redoubtes, they engage in a "counter-culture" masquerading, nay paroding, bravery for which they garner accolades and praise from their chattering colleagues. Oh that they actually faced the possibility of true harm when they assailed the powers that be. The left is dead. 50 years hence we've endured the cascade of fanatical emasculating secularism which offers no credo to replace what they've attempted to extirpated. Fools.
Railing against The Boston Globe
Dear Sir,
I found your piece in the on line Boston Globe edition titled: “Stem Cell alternatives gain key support” very interesting and worthy of its conspicuous placement. I do have one point of reservation. That is, that you find it necessary to disclose the ideological dispensation of both Dr. Leon Kass MD, and Dr. William Hurlbut who you report represent one position. Yet, you fail to disclose the ideological leanings of “two Columbia University professors” Dr. Donald W. Landry and Dr. Howard A. Zucker, or for that matter, you fail to mention the ideological dispositions of Michael S. Gazzaniga or the “number of other biologists” that hold the opposing position you purport to contrast. I was left with the distinct impression that you subtly, if unconsciously, believe that “conservatives” begin from non-empirical “conservative premises” and reason to “conservative political results”, while the opposing position is the result of untainted “enlightened science”, only coincidentally reflecting the “liberal” position. Granted the referenced article does deal with the political milieu of this issue. Nevertheless, I believe the impact of your piece, in terms of its information and analysis would not have suffered had you chose to omit these references or, in the alternative, chose to disclose everyone’s ideology. What audience did you have in mind when you authored this piece?
I’m not someone that will ordinarily take time to write a note like this but your piece really seemed a bit much.
Steady as we go...
There are calls of angst from all quarters in the wake of W's inauguration speech. Its as if they knew not what this man stood for. In the background the tired old international theories of impersonal aggregate conflict inferred from behaviorism's groundless premises lay in tatters. It is one man's vision that moves the legions, not unconscious tendency.
Now the pessimists strain against the mighty forces soon to be unleashed. They seek comfort in the refrain that America will soon be eclipsed. The rising east will surpass her. Rumors of our impending doom have been forecast since the founding. But they misunderstand liberal capitalism to wit: Rising trading partners will only provide new markets for our cultural accoutrements. We here do not fancy power for the pleasure of its exercise, but have graduated to it be the necessity of circumstance.
Quick Thought
Observing the pace and rapidity with which paleo-journalistic articles are fact-checked and destroyed is breathtaking. From columnists to line reporters, many stories reported as news are a mere house of cards when placed under the strict scrutiny of the net's DI [distributive intelligence]. This confirms, albeit in an anecdotal fashion only, that the people who enter journalism via the J-school method are some of the stupidest people on the planet. An indepth review of curriculum and syllabi to ascertain the substantive knowledge and rigor imparted by way of a J-degree is in order. If I'm correct, then we may conclude with complete equanimity that this is a thoroughly useless degree.
Storming the Gates
As two pillars of the liberal dark spin machine have been laid low by the distributed intelligence of the net and the air campaign of talk radio, a new target emerges on the horizon. This target is not the most conspicuous nor has it ever been the most redoubtable. In fact it may be the weakest of the tripartite opposition: The academy.
Too long have the extreme left wing mandarins of these storied halls remained unopposed. Yet there very lack of opposition and engagement may have rendered their ability to undertake combat suspect. These flaccid would be gladiators wield ideologies blunted by history and grown brittle with internal contradiction. Enfeebled Marxian analysis deployed undercover of literary theory or cultural studies cannot match the unyielding remorseless sciences of human nature.
And so it begins....
Approaching Torture
Reading the reviews and cogitations from some highly regarded sources on the topic of torture, I've become puzzled. Why do so many assume a hard solid rule is applicable to all cases? What I see is that the approach taken in this case revives the thoroughly discredited Kantian categorical imperative which has almost no relevance to real world contingency. In truth the Kantian approach saves us, as it did for its author, from thinking about hard choices in the real world. As such it is more a soothing psychological poultice for those agonized by confronting moral issues, rather than a serious attempt to confront them. Once again the Aristotelian approach shows itself more relevant to real world scenarios that the Kantian. A sound Aristotelian would weigh the options "under the circumstances". Given the incredibly extreme case propounded by Senator Spector, and the extreme situation faced by our military and law enforcement, torture is not extreme. Torture would be extreme under nearly all other circumstances.
Thomist at Chicago
You may have heard of the neo-cons rule the roost at U of C, now prepare yourself for a budding alliance between the nascent neo-thomists and the Straussians.
Just a thought.
Brave new world
2005 is here and I believe it to be a good one.
Looking for U of C admission, with a solid recommendation from a U of C prof. and some outstanding GRE scores I should be very competitive.
