Writings on History, Science, Reason, Classical Liberalism, the Alternative Future and the Philosophy of Life. Enjoy!! Most of the posts here will largely focus on my Quora Answers as well as the Western History posts that I am working through in sequential fashion. Please feel free to comment.
Monday, July 15, 2019
Amazing Wimbledon Final
It will probably go down as one of the greatest Wimbledon finals of all time (maybe just a notch behind 2008 and 1980) and that is not by any means an overstatement of yesterday's edition of the Gentleman's End Game. As a Roger Federer fan I was saddened to see the Swiss maestro go down to the power punches of Novak Djokovic but if he had to lose to anybody the Serb would be my pick. Overall the match was a tremendous endorsement of the high quality of play that exists at the upper echelon of the ATP tour.
Tuesday, July 9, 2019
The Challenge continues
It has been a while since I last posted a reflection but I have been immersed in the everyday activities of real life. I use this blog as a type of escapism so its always great when I can post with a meaningful input. My biggest struggle over the last few weeks is my ongoing attempt to crystallize a better understanding of the world. I have tried to qualify this in purely scientific terms based on the cold steel of reason but the inner tug of spiritualism (and a belief in a higher power) clouds such an approach, at least from a broader philosophical perspective.
Its not that this ultimately bothers me - but I can't help but wonder how this struggle would be simplified, if one of these two variables were more easily reducible. That they are not could be a blessing, in that it forces me to contemplate with greater intensity, and through this mechanism I am forced to grow.
But I still stare over hills and past valleys, wondering if the ark of truth lies over the horizon. It is both frustrating and motivating...but if I had the answer I doubt whether I would appreciate the apparent nirvana. So maybe I should just let it go, scuttle the inquiry. Yeah right...who am I trying to kid?... I know for myself that this is impossible..
Its not that this ultimately bothers me - but I can't help but wonder how this struggle would be simplified, if one of these two variables were more easily reducible. That they are not could be a blessing, in that it forces me to contemplate with greater intensity, and through this mechanism I am forced to grow.
But I still stare over hills and past valleys, wondering if the ark of truth lies over the horizon. It is both frustrating and motivating...but if I had the answer I doubt whether I would appreciate the apparent nirvana. So maybe I should just let it go, scuttle the inquiry. Yeah right...who am I trying to kid?... I know for myself that this is impossible..
Friday, July 5, 2019
In your opinion, how dangerous is Antifa to the US’s politics and stability?
My answer on Quora.
Antifa in and of itself is not yet a danger to the US politically . However the tactics that Antifa uses in attacking journalists, doxxing opponents and shutting down the First Amendment Rights of its critics most certainly does. Should their approach become the acceptable norm then the nation will indeed be staring into a darker abyss.
The United States of America was and remains a brilliant experiment in liberalism, private ownership of property and individual sovereignty. At its core are the notions of freedom of speech and thought. By extension this implies that ideas should be allowed to enter into the market without mandated barriers, even if the ideas are deplorable (a feature that is usually but not always the preserve of the various extremes).
Antifa does not adhere to this essential nation-building philosophy and by its philosophy of direct action violence is more of a pernicious instrument directed at our liberal core. While a strong stance against Fascism is at times necessary, Antifa has used this excuse to cast the net further by physically attacking both oppositional extremists as well as legitimate critics. This should not be acceptable anywhere in a free society.
The attack on journalist Andy Ngo is just one example of Antifa’s propensity towards violence. We need to pay attention to the attack on Andy Ngo.
Source for picture: Andy Ngo and the violence of political correctness
Those legitimately concerned about the fate of journalists should have been universally concerned about this. Some are - Three suspects sought in connection to Antifa Andy Ngo attack - The Post Millennial.
Others are conflating the issue for political firepower - Opinion: The right want to make Antifa aggression a reason to stop confronting fascists.
A few are starting to wake up - The assault on conservative journalist Andy Ngo, explained - although they have a way to go. Kudos to Andrew Yang - 2020 Democrat Andrew Yang sends well-wishes to Andy Ngo: 'Journalists should be safe to report on a protest'
The Ngo incident is not a first in Antifa’s history of violence. They were involved in a series of violent altercations in February 2017 at Berkeley (in response to a talk by Milo Yiannopolous), where they were seen throwing Molotov cocktails and destroying property. The Boston Free Speech Rally in 2017 was another event that was violently transformed by Antifa. There are several others. 'Antifa' violence in Berkeley spurs soul-searching within leftist activist community
However it is not just protests that define Antifa’s violence. In December 2018 two US Marines were attacked. BUSTED: Shadowy Leader of Notorious Antifa Mobs Arrested For December Assault on Two US Marines. Neither is this the first time U.S. Marine have been targeted Philly Antifa member in custody following attacks against U.S. Marinereservists
Antifa ‘Activist’ debating the big issues Hundreds of black-clad antifa activists confronted Trump supporters at a violent Berkeley rally
Clearly Antifa’s actions and rhetoric pose a number of challenges to all of us who value our democracy (speaking to both sides of the political equation). In fact they could be empowering the Alt Right further. Pictures like the one above could well serve as a recruitment aid for those on the Far Right. There is enough division in the nation on key issues that we don’t need extremists on either side adding to the tension.
However Antifa’s presence brings up a far bigger question which the left itself has yet to deal with. At what point do those who campaign under the same ideological tent go too far?
Jordan Peterson talks about this notion under the rubric of limits and boundaries. Conservatives figured this out some time ago when Bill Buckley ousted the Birchers - The Inside Story of William F. Buckley Jr.’s Crusade against the John Birch Society | National Review.
Will the mainstream left do the same with Antifa and indeed the other radicalisms that are poisoning it?
Dissent editor Michael Kazzin takes a practical approach when he says ‘Non-leftists often see the left as a disruptive, lawless force. Violence tends to confirm that view’ The case against antifa.
So does this article in the Daily News - Calmer voices on the left must disavow antifa’s tactics — or else they will give rhetorical ammunition to Trump
However what is most concerning is that the case against being made by progressives is largely not formulated within the context of Antifa’s opposition to Free Speech. Was this ideal not once part of the mantra on the left? Free Speech Movement.
If Free Speech is no longer a priority on the left (including protection of the rights of those we abhor) then a necessary common ground to build bridges across the fractured spectrum has indeed been lost. This is the real concern.
At election time do you prefer to hear policies or rhetoric from politicians?
My answer on Quora.
The problem here is that in election time it is difficult to distinguish the two. Politicians put forward policies that are high on rhetoric and short on practicality. This of course is deliberate as nobody wants to be placed on the defensive at election time. It is far easier to defend ‘pies in the sky’ than to descend into the trenches to outline the workables.
Besides it is rhetoric that brings out the base. ‘Medicare for All’ rings well for some. Outlining how you intend to pay for it. Not so much. It is no wonder that Bernie Sanders ran from this question in the last debate while slipping on the Walter Mondale banana skin of ‘tax increases.’
Donald Trump saw the value of rhetoric with his ‘Make American Great Again’ so did Barack Obama and his mantra of ‘Change’. Both were high on voice bytes but lacking in specifics. It is for this reason that listening to campaign speeches is largely a waste of time. Debates are only one step better (although you wouldn’t think so with Round I and II of the recent Democratic free-for-all). The best you can get, if you value informed policy, would be a one-on-one interview with no soft ball questions. They are rare for a reason.
Elections are popularity contests not moments of intellectual swagger. They are the domain of the marketer not the technician. Brand is all that matters with complications around policy relegated to the realm of the after thought,lest they detract from the end goal of victory.
This is the tragedy of the election. It exists everywhere. The trouble with American politics in particular is that the nature of the system has set up a continuous election cycle with virtually no break from recourse to the partisan denominator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)