The Founding Fathers warned that a "free people" would not remain free without information, or education. Did the Founders mean formal education or information forthcoming from the government (or leadership)? And what is eduation after all? It seems that today, we have had those that have "set a new vision" for change, that is to globalize the "nation-state". And globalization has been done in the name of the environment, poverty, and education.
This conference was led by elite educators, a community college President, a representative from a minority group, an innovative thinker, authors, and administrators concerned in general for our country and citizens's future well-being.
The discussion covered aspects of the changing needs of our society, and the world and the change of the student population. Questions concerning tuition costs, and state budget strains were driving the innovative ideas, as well, as the ethical questions of business taking over such aspects of our culture.
The concern for the students of today, costs of education, the needs of society, and the preparation of the future work-force are all of grave concern. There were no solid solutions, except for the possibility of university "patronage".
University "patronage" is not a different concept, as the university was a "patron" of the Church in the Middle Ages. But, I just wonder how liberal an education might be under the auspices of the Church. We do have historical accounts as to how "open" the Church was to modernity/Enlightenment thinking. And how free are certain forms of learning, such as theology, law and medicine, when they are done under Kant's "form" or structuring of the university?
On the other hand, education under the auspises of government oversight is a centralization, beauracrazation and nothing unlike China's. The Church is a "patron" to the nation-state, as is education, itself in this "model".
Kant believed that the academics in other disciplines, the philosophers, made judgment over these three "higher forms" of education. The practical aspects of 'life', theology, medicine and law were to benefit society's "good", while the leisured philosopher was to "take his time" to understand the "finer things" of life.
Reason or the intellectual aspects of man are what make man different from the animal kingdom, and is to be cultivated, if we believe that civilization is of value. Otherwise, humans are prone to be a pawn of their lower passions. And so it is today, for the most part. The disciplined mind is not valued in our society anymore.
The generation that is facing the university today has been over-stimulated by many media "forms" and information outlets that have impacted how the brain recieves information. The previous way of teaching and learning, via 'content" dissemination is "dull" and "out of date" for most of today's students.
Europe is already establishing "standards" across borders, where information./ education can be shared. This is an 'ideal" concept, but what of the security of the West? How are we to protect against certain information that might be dangerous in certain segments of the world? Or do educators believe that education can be "co-erced" and recieved by these segments, so that change to the students might happen? And what of the governance of education, itself, if it is to be globalized? We see how "mass production" has affected education in our own country, so how do we "do" education in such a "global" context"?
I believe that research has proven that without stimulating the student where he volutarily desires an education, the information is "lost". The information will not be internalized, but disregarded out-right, or defensive strategies of rationalization will occur that support an irrational "worldview". This is what religions do all the time to support their "life".
The recent release of classified information has put many in danger of their lives, because to betray a 'faith" is a betrayal of 'god" which is blasphemous. And such behavior demands accountability and judgment! One will not overcome terror through a naive view of education. Terror is a 'worldview', and an experience of life. Cult de-programmers are needed to overcome such a mind-set.
Perhaps, the view that medicine, law, and theology, as a practical disciplines, should be "useful" under government auspices, since it is to benefit society, instead of individual physicians, lawyers, and individual theologians. Does this mean that those in these disciplines are "pawns of the State" and the philosophers? '
I believe that setting up such a "caste system" does disservice to philosophy itself, as well as underming certain segments of society, because it makes the "elite" more pompous about their certain discipline. And wasn't it the scenario that Nazi Germany set up to do their research? or the Roman Empire? Medicine, law, and theology supported such national ambition. Today, the problem is not with nationalism, but globalism. Whenever a universalization is sought there is a discrimination against another group. This is why the "individual" is important to America's understanding of liberty in individual conscience. A globalized world will be a world run by an identified elite, which will be "out in the open" oppression, because it will be considered "legal"!
I am afraid we are playing into the hands of those that want to destroy America's exceptionalism, as it concerns individual liberties and it will be done in the name of society, or "morality". One will be a communistic leaning, the other will be a theocracy under Shairia.
Showing posts with label nationalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nationalism. Show all posts
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Monday, November 30, 2009
Self Interest, Altruism, and American Freedom
American freedom is provided for many "convictions" of consciences, as we believe in the "rule of law". The religious term conscience according to "Tradition", while the Scientists are seeking a way to maintain "peace" in a diverse and global world. Can altruism be "taught" or "should it be taught"?
I believe that tradition can be formative, but does not have to be. Conscience dwells in man as an innate nature. It is only when there has been a conditioning that has diminished or humiliated another where conscience can be deadened. A deadened conscience can be a reactive response to a lack of acknowledgement. Humans want to be affirmed, as they are social beings, and not just physical beings.
Nazism arose as a reaction to the humiliation of the German nation, after WWI. according to some historians. Hitler's rise to power was the "need" of the German population to have a sense of identity and pride in thier nation. Nationalism was borne on the heels of revenge.
I believe because we are self=identifying individuals, that we must become aware of what our identifiers are and seek negotiation with those that have different identifiying factors. This is in the interest of both parties. I do not believe that self interest is wrong or bad, it just is, and it should be, because without a "self" there is no way of protecting against another taking advantage of the other.
So, recognizing our self=interest, being honest about our values and commitments, and then proceeding to make negotiations when it regards one's public life, is the epitome of freedom.
Altruism, on the other hand, is a scientific undertaking, these days. Scientists want to provide peace and are seeking to understand and/or train people into altruistic goals or purposes. To do this, many think that religion is useful. People that identify with religion usually have poor self development or self esteem or they have been taught that it is selfish to seek self interest. These are pawns in the hands of the unscrupulous. This is when America's laws should provide protection from such"preying hands".
If anyone tells you that they are seeking to "turn your eyes outward", instead of "inward" (as Luther termed "sin"), then run and take an interest in yourself. Otherwise, you will become someone else's training ground.....
Friday, July 10, 2009
Justified By Science to Dis-Criminate
I have been following the debate over the energy proposal that passed the House by a short margin and now is to be heard in the Senate. This energy bill would be a financial burden on American families, increasing taxes and limiting resources. It is supposed that there would be another federal agency that would investigate the energy effieciency of a home before it can be sold. Windows, doors, furnaces, appliances, etc. would all be checked to meet federal regulations. Why? Because science says it is best that we limit ourselves for the whole of mankind.
While I agree that limits are necessary in every area of life, one must ask the question why this is to be one of the few scientific "values" that drive public policy....Poverty, and education are others. Whenever a particular scientific view drives policy, we limit the American experiment, because of government's need to control these "suggested" abuses.
It was discussed today on a radio program that there might be federal regulation of smoking in the military, and there has been discussion of regulating our resturants. Why? healthcare costs.
The globalist believes that American is an imperialist country, because they defend their ideology abroad, instead of being tolerant of cultural differences. I find that multiculturalism doesn't want to protect individual liberties so much as protect group identifications. This is what is driving the controversy in the newly nominated Supreme Court Judge, who is Hispanic.
She want to protect individual rights, at the expense of business interests. While obviously, I do not believe in discrimination, one has to question when to discriminate. Where do we draw the lines? All of mankind cannot live under a one world government unless we want to give over our freedom to a regulated and monitored beauracracy. The balance of power will be the "lowest common denominator", as Third World countries compete in a globalized market that is filled with coveting and greed. Many African nations have been known to have corrupt business practices and prey on the uninformed.
Nationalism and national interests are dismissed as narrow-minded, and narrowly focused. Those who believe in our country's ideals should given up their citizenship to a globalized citzenship. This is the paradigm change from modernity to post-modernity.
While there is value to post-modern understanding, it should not drive policy, otherwise it will dissolve national interests, and defense for the 'common good".
There are valid disagreements about global warming among scientiist, but those who are politically connected are the ones that are heard. And just as every other group, scientist live in a culturally driven paradigm of materialistic naturalism in a postmodern context.
Just today there was an article in the Washington Times about the EPA official who had buried critical evidence against global warming.
Anyone who has worked in the federal government undrstands that it is easy to set up busniesses, protect special interests, and use federal programs to "milk" the American people of hard- earned money in the name of public good, while privately useing it for cronies, etc. Beauraucracies are too big to be accountable and unaccountability is a primary cause of corruption. The press cannot even be privy to certain information.
America is the freest nation on earth, but will not remain so, if science continues to do the dirty work of political correctness. Most Americans will just accept whatever science deems is a necessary "evil", because most are ill-informed as to the limitations of science. We do live in paradigmic understandings about the world and life. We must protect our own "world" as Americans to remain free.
While I agree that limits are necessary in every area of life, one must ask the question why this is to be one of the few scientific "values" that drive public policy....Poverty, and education are others. Whenever a particular scientific view drives policy, we limit the American experiment, because of government's need to control these "suggested" abuses.
It was discussed today on a radio program that there might be federal regulation of smoking in the military, and there has been discussion of regulating our resturants. Why? healthcare costs.
The globalist believes that American is an imperialist country, because they defend their ideology abroad, instead of being tolerant of cultural differences. I find that multiculturalism doesn't want to protect individual liberties so much as protect group identifications. This is what is driving the controversy in the newly nominated Supreme Court Judge, who is Hispanic.
She want to protect individual rights, at the expense of business interests. While obviously, I do not believe in discrimination, one has to question when to discriminate. Where do we draw the lines? All of mankind cannot live under a one world government unless we want to give over our freedom to a regulated and monitored beauracracy. The balance of power will be the "lowest common denominator", as Third World countries compete in a globalized market that is filled with coveting and greed. Many African nations have been known to have corrupt business practices and prey on the uninformed.
Nationalism and national interests are dismissed as narrow-minded, and narrowly focused. Those who believe in our country's ideals should given up their citizenship to a globalized citzenship. This is the paradigm change from modernity to post-modernity.
While there is value to post-modern understanding, it should not drive policy, otherwise it will dissolve national interests, and defense for the 'common good".
There are valid disagreements about global warming among scientiist, but those who are politically connected are the ones that are heard. And just as every other group, scientist live in a culturally driven paradigm of materialistic naturalism in a postmodern context.
Just today there was an article in the Washington Times about the EPA official who had buried critical evidence against global warming.
Anyone who has worked in the federal government undrstands that it is easy to set up busniesses, protect special interests, and use federal programs to "milk" the American people of hard- earned money in the name of public good, while privately useing it for cronies, etc. Beauraucracies are too big to be accountable and unaccountability is a primary cause of corruption. The press cannot even be privy to certain information.
America is the freest nation on earth, but will not remain so, if science continues to do the dirty work of political correctness. Most Americans will just accept whatever science deems is a necessary "evil", because most are ill-informed as to the limitations of science. We do live in paradigmic understandings about the world and life. We must protect our own "world" as Americans to remain free.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Thinking About the Implications of Nationalism and Globalism
I have been thinking about how we have come to the point we are...
If one is politically progressive, then, our revolution was "right" because of "taxation without representation", but wrong according to conservatives, such as van Prinster, as it was "modeled after the French Revolution. And, after all, Romans tells us to submit to the governing authorities..
The Puritans came because of purification of the Church of England and felt that they could set up "god's kingdom" in a brave new land.
But, as people moved away from their settlements, and "set up house", their "interests" became defined around those settlements. For the South, the interests was the land, and those who worked the land, the slaves. Scriptures affirmed that slavery was "right".
But, the political progressives did not view slaves as property, as slaves were human beings. The great debate and eventual "Civil War" was fought over the issue of slavery. The Civil War ended with the South's defeat and the furtherance of a centralization of government, because States ceased to have the right to slave ownership. Southern States were hindered from pursuing their "own interests" for the interest of "human rights".
The issue of globalization is similar in intent. Nations have not been "centralized". There has been talk of centralization under the U.N. and for "human rights". In 2005 there was a discussion about the issues at the CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies). The discussion was about "peace", nation development, etc. (Human rights, in general).
The question that disturbs me is; "even though the North and South had different interests in the slave issue during our nation's Civil War, both sides had an interest in the nation, as a whole. With globalization, culture becomes a big obstacle. Culture holds the values of a society and is not easily "given up", as it brings identity.
How are we to seek a unified "globe" when diversity is so profound? And how do we go about meeting such different interests? How do we agree with those who do not believe or adhere to the "rule of law"? And what about cultures that define deference to the "rule of law" differently? And how can we come to agreement about what is in the best interest of everyone in international law?
Case in point: Do all humans deserve equality under law, irregardless of their "intent" to undermine another governement? Then, human rights are universal and irrespective of person or value. But, are there distinctions, like we have in our laws, of intent, etc.? If so, then how are we to define intent, when intent to one culture would be "right or lawful" and to another it would be counted as "wrong or unlawful"?
There is much to be considered and it has nothing to do with "obedience to god", but what is best for "world affairs"?
If one is politically progressive, then, our revolution was "right" because of "taxation without representation", but wrong according to conservatives, such as van Prinster, as it was "modeled after the French Revolution. And, after all, Romans tells us to submit to the governing authorities..
The Puritans came because of purification of the Church of England and felt that they could set up "god's kingdom" in a brave new land.
But, as people moved away from their settlements, and "set up house", their "interests" became defined around those settlements. For the South, the interests was the land, and those who worked the land, the slaves. Scriptures affirmed that slavery was "right".
But, the political progressives did not view slaves as property, as slaves were human beings. The great debate and eventual "Civil War" was fought over the issue of slavery. The Civil War ended with the South's defeat and the furtherance of a centralization of government, because States ceased to have the right to slave ownership. Southern States were hindered from pursuing their "own interests" for the interest of "human rights".
The issue of globalization is similar in intent. Nations have not been "centralized". There has been talk of centralization under the U.N. and for "human rights". In 2005 there was a discussion about the issues at the CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies). The discussion was about "peace", nation development, etc. (Human rights, in general).
The question that disturbs me is; "even though the North and South had different interests in the slave issue during our nation's Civil War, both sides had an interest in the nation, as a whole. With globalization, culture becomes a big obstacle. Culture holds the values of a society and is not easily "given up", as it brings identity.
How are we to seek a unified "globe" when diversity is so profound? And how do we go about meeting such different interests? How do we agree with those who do not believe or adhere to the "rule of law"? And what about cultures that define deference to the "rule of law" differently? And how can we come to agreement about what is in the best interest of everyone in international law?
Case in point: Do all humans deserve equality under law, irregardless of their "intent" to undermine another governement? Then, human rights are universal and irrespective of person or value. But, are there distinctions, like we have in our laws, of intent, etc.? If so, then how are we to define intent, when intent to one culture would be "right or lawful" and to another it would be counted as "wrong or unlawful"?
There is much to be considered and it has nothing to do with "obedience to god", but what is best for "world affairs"?
Nationalism, Globalism, and "Tea Parties"
Yesterday, Obama said that he wanted to build our Nation on the "rock". He used scripture, appealing to the religious conservative. While no one disagrees that our Nation has to be built upon a "rock", most conservatives agree that the "rock" is the Constitution. Others find that our globalized world calls for us to "lay down our own interests", so that "the greater good" can be furthered.
Government in conservative eyes, should be to represent the people, private interests, private business and free enterprise, in general. But, with the "bail-outs" and budget over-spending, the conservative feels that government has overstepped its boundary. Government should be limited, so that there is personal freedom.
Today, Obama said that we needed to pay our taxes so that government could pay their bills. Joe Biden said during the campaign that "to pay taxes was to be patriotic". No, when the people pay taxes, so that government can pay their bills, while there is outrageous debt and, yet, government does not limit themselves in their spending, then there is moral outrage. Why? because the people support government, instead of government protecting the people! This is socialism! The common good, the public interests, the higher purpose, etc. all are synonyms for government's justification of "doing good" for us. We, the people, cannot do good ourselves, we are dependent on the government to determine and distribute what, when and where. We, the people, loose our power and control over our lives, not just our money!
What do Americans do? We throw 'tea parties". I just heard today that one lady called her U.S. senator to be told that he and the staff would not be able to participate in the local "tea party" because "tea parties" are a protest against government and since he and staff are government employees, then they are forbidden to go. Who says that on one's own personal time, one cannot participate in any activity that is legal? Is it ia conflict of interests? Has the federal government "laid down the law" that this is not a freedom that any government official is allowed? Does government "control" their employees political convictions and opinions? Is this why we have not heard from Republicans? One just wonders.....
The issue is really a complex one, as it is about national vs. international interests. This is like the old argument of individual vs. societal "rights"...where and how do we determine what to do when globalization is upon us. We have no choice. We do have to address it!
Just today I read where the U. N. had had "problems" with contracting out their interests. Humanitarian aid is a money making business, no matter what anyone says. America has limited her power at the U.N. to regard other "dictatorships". America should not give up her understanding of "right" for any "common purposes" of globalization. And, yet, I know we cannot live without our neighbors. This is what disturbs me about how Obama has repected the Arab nations (bowing) without continuing to honor the 'free world" in his behavior.
On one hand, SOS Clinton did agree to limit the "rights" of the pirates, but was this due to America's interests or humanitarian aid. Would there have been the same or similar opinions if it had been a military expedition?
I don't think that destroying our Nation or the "free world" for the interests of globalization is very wise. We have valid interests to protect and we must not let our freedoms slide into the nebulous, undefined "whole" of globalism.
Government in conservative eyes, should be to represent the people, private interests, private business and free enterprise, in general. But, with the "bail-outs" and budget over-spending, the conservative feels that government has overstepped its boundary. Government should be limited, so that there is personal freedom.
Today, Obama said that we needed to pay our taxes so that government could pay their bills. Joe Biden said during the campaign that "to pay taxes was to be patriotic". No, when the people pay taxes, so that government can pay their bills, while there is outrageous debt and, yet, government does not limit themselves in their spending, then there is moral outrage. Why? because the people support government, instead of government protecting the people! This is socialism! The common good, the public interests, the higher purpose, etc. all are synonyms for government's justification of "doing good" for us. We, the people, cannot do good ourselves, we are dependent on the government to determine and distribute what, when and where. We, the people, loose our power and control over our lives, not just our money!
What do Americans do? We throw 'tea parties". I just heard today that one lady called her U.S. senator to be told that he and the staff would not be able to participate in the local "tea party" because "tea parties" are a protest against government and since he and staff are government employees, then they are forbidden to go. Who says that on one's own personal time, one cannot participate in any activity that is legal? Is it ia conflict of interests? Has the federal government "laid down the law" that this is not a freedom that any government official is allowed? Does government "control" their employees political convictions and opinions? Is this why we have not heard from Republicans? One just wonders.....
The issue is really a complex one, as it is about national vs. international interests. This is like the old argument of individual vs. societal "rights"...where and how do we determine what to do when globalization is upon us. We have no choice. We do have to address it!
Just today I read where the U. N. had had "problems" with contracting out their interests. Humanitarian aid is a money making business, no matter what anyone says. America has limited her power at the U.N. to regard other "dictatorships". America should not give up her understanding of "right" for any "common purposes" of globalization. And, yet, I know we cannot live without our neighbors. This is what disturbs me about how Obama has repected the Arab nations (bowing) without continuing to honor the 'free world" in his behavior.
On one hand, SOS Clinton did agree to limit the "rights" of the pirates, but was this due to America's interests or humanitarian aid. Would there have been the same or similar opinions if it had been a military expedition?
I don't think that destroying our Nation or the "free world" for the interests of globalization is very wise. We have valid interests to protect and we must not let our freedoms slide into the nebulous, undefined "whole" of globalism.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Abraham Lincoln's Impact on My Thoughts
Today was my friend's birthday, and so, we decided to visit the National Portrait Gallery, where they have special exhibit honoring Abraham Lincoln.
As I read about his life as president, and looked at the pictures, I couldn't help but think of what principles his life laid bare. He was committed to "a universal rights of men", as "all mean were created equal". He felt he was the "bearer" of our Founding Father's vision. And though he did not want to see the inevitable conflict between the North and the South, he lived to see the conflict end in "war". But, the end of the war resulted in his vision, and he got to pronounce the "abolition of slavery".
His life was cut short by an assasin's bullet, just after his second inaugeration. His assasin did not see that the "war had won" any better society, he only saw a man that stood in the way to his way of life.
I found myself reflecting back over one of my professor's musing over Lincoln's life. In his opinion, Lincoln created a centralized government. He did not give room for a division over slavery, as he was committed to unity. States had no right over the "United States". Federalism was born. But, the problem with centralization of government is the balance of power, which the states bring. Each state is given senators (equal representation) and representatives (numerical represetation) to help give an equal opportunity to the state's interests and the people's interests. The federal government is composed of these diverse interests. But, what happens, as in our world today, when global interest play into our sphere of concern?
These prinicples are not easy ones to address, as people are convinced differently as to which "side" is best. Do states have rights at the costs of federal interests? (think education, or other laws)...the same principle holds true for the individual and society. Do individuals have rights against corporate, society or group interests? Where do we draw our lines, and understand how these rights and interests intersect?
There is no simple solution to these concerns, as there is no balance of power as it concerns the world scene. And there is no divying up the different interests groups, when nations, cultures, and interests, collide. Religion only complicates these concerns to those seeking solution for unity. The fundamentally zealous are not open to diversity, where it concerns unity. Bad news for political solutions.
I don't know enough about foreign policy or international relations to come to any conclusion. I am reading, listening and learning. Any opinions or comments are welcome.
As I read about his life as president, and looked at the pictures, I couldn't help but think of what principles his life laid bare. He was committed to "a universal rights of men", as "all mean were created equal". He felt he was the "bearer" of our Founding Father's vision. And though he did not want to see the inevitable conflict between the North and the South, he lived to see the conflict end in "war". But, the end of the war resulted in his vision, and he got to pronounce the "abolition of slavery".
His life was cut short by an assasin's bullet, just after his second inaugeration. His assasin did not see that the "war had won" any better society, he only saw a man that stood in the way to his way of life.
I found myself reflecting back over one of my professor's musing over Lincoln's life. In his opinion, Lincoln created a centralized government. He did not give room for a division over slavery, as he was committed to unity. States had no right over the "United States". Federalism was born. But, the problem with centralization of government is the balance of power, which the states bring. Each state is given senators (equal representation) and representatives (numerical represetation) to help give an equal opportunity to the state's interests and the people's interests. The federal government is composed of these diverse interests. But, what happens, as in our world today, when global interest play into our sphere of concern?
These prinicples are not easy ones to address, as people are convinced differently as to which "side" is best. Do states have rights at the costs of federal interests? (think education, or other laws)...the same principle holds true for the individual and society. Do individuals have rights against corporate, society or group interests? Where do we draw our lines, and understand how these rights and interests intersect?
There is no simple solution to these concerns, as there is no balance of power as it concerns the world scene. And there is no divying up the different interests groups, when nations, cultures, and interests, collide. Religion only complicates these concerns to those seeking solution for unity. The fundamentally zealous are not open to diversity, where it concerns unity. Bad news for political solutions.
I don't know enough about foreign policy or international relations to come to any conclusion. I am reading, listening and learning. Any opinions or comments are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
