New Fog Walking?
I am The Columbian, a pretty bad epithet, but then again creating a name at 2am slightly inebriated will lend itself to such a mild, boring, a bit cliche appelation. It references my departure from Yale, at least, seeing as I do go to Columbia, but I know Nate from High School, so many of Pittsford kids will recognize me as Keith.
I've enjoyed posting comments on this page before, it is fun and great to engage in debate, so for any of my posts, I highly encourage you try to shut me down. But content wise, I probably will depart a bit from Nate; not just because if we both post on something it may just seem repetitive, but to most likely widen the scope of liberal topics. I, at least at this time, have a particular interest in cultural and social constructions. I like to talk about how people manifest truth, create that kind of truth and believe it to be real. It is a very elementary sketch, of course, I am not a Philosophy PhD, and in fact I will be coming at it from what I am...a history major. I think contextulalizing at a wider level the problems of any absolutist doctrine could perhaps elucidate the issues in contemporary politics, economics and society. Being held captive for no good reason is never something worth any of our time, and yet we are, and worse than that (from the perceivably minority end) we cannot rationalize why it is wrong. What does it mean for something to work, and something to be right, and something to be useful. All these crazy ideas sometimes intermix not because they are really there, but because people attribute them to being there. The Iraq situation both boggles the mind and warms the heart; when we get confused we tend to not know what to do, and side-step issues. How can someone come out against Iraqi "democracy?" How can someone also articulate that Iraqi democracy is but an intermediary for a wider plan without seeming conspiratorial? Could there in fact be no ulterior motives? Could this be paradise in government? That even if today's US government is the world's greatest friend abroad, does that excuse their malignancy to their own people?
As you can tell I write with a lot of questions, and I tend to end with a lot of questions. Mostly because I believe life to be too complex to ascribe a final point with a final nail in the coffin. Which I think is the problem with democrats/liberals today. The constant fear to ever acknowledge something as absolute kind of lends itself to ridicule. Incertainty is beautiful, accurate and true to life, I could argue. But it makes a bad ad campaign. That even with what I say, and how I say it I'll be treading the line between these kind of pompous self-confidence, and the more realistic notion that I don't know. I think as close as I can get to that point, along with good posts on mostly current events and my analysis of them, this should be a fun experience. I hope people read and enjoy.
I've enjoyed posting comments on this page before, it is fun and great to engage in debate, so for any of my posts, I highly encourage you try to shut me down. But content wise, I probably will depart a bit from Nate; not just because if we both post on something it may just seem repetitive, but to most likely widen the scope of liberal topics. I, at least at this time, have a particular interest in cultural and social constructions. I like to talk about how people manifest truth, create that kind of truth and believe it to be real. It is a very elementary sketch, of course, I am not a Philosophy PhD, and in fact I will be coming at it from what I am...a history major. I think contextulalizing at a wider level the problems of any absolutist doctrine could perhaps elucidate the issues in contemporary politics, economics and society. Being held captive for no good reason is never something worth any of our time, and yet we are, and worse than that (from the perceivably minority end) we cannot rationalize why it is wrong. What does it mean for something to work, and something to be right, and something to be useful. All these crazy ideas sometimes intermix not because they are really there, but because people attribute them to being there. The Iraq situation both boggles the mind and warms the heart; when we get confused we tend to not know what to do, and side-step issues. How can someone come out against Iraqi "democracy?" How can someone also articulate that Iraqi democracy is but an intermediary for a wider plan without seeming conspiratorial? Could there in fact be no ulterior motives? Could this be paradise in government? That even if today's US government is the world's greatest friend abroad, does that excuse their malignancy to their own people?
As you can tell I write with a lot of questions, and I tend to end with a lot of questions. Mostly because I believe life to be too complex to ascribe a final point with a final nail in the coffin. Which I think is the problem with democrats/liberals today. The constant fear to ever acknowledge something as absolute kind of lends itself to ridicule. Incertainty is beautiful, accurate and true to life, I could argue. But it makes a bad ad campaign. That even with what I say, and how I say it I'll be treading the line between these kind of pompous self-confidence, and the more realistic notion that I don't know. I think as close as I can get to that point, along with good posts on mostly current events and my analysis of them, this should be a fun experience. I hope people read and enjoy.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home