Some thoughts regarding our southern border. . .

The situation at our southern border is indicative of our political lives today. Not only is it illustrative of this administration's ignorance, incompetence and corruption. . . and not necessarily in that order. It is illustrative of what could be the biggest change in our foreign policy and simply our politics since the end of World War II.

A quick search on Google pulls up a Snopes fact check asserting that "the Department of Health and Human Services said Tuesday (May 29th, 2018) that it had 10,773 migrant children in its custody, up from 8,886 on April 29". Despite the President's and other's assertions that this policy is based on a 2008 law enacted by a Democratic Congress, it is his policy. It might be law, but the policy prior to this President was "Catch and Release". That is what started this whole controversy. It was this President, or actually his Attorney General announcing a policy of "zero tolerance".

Specifically, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said:

"I have put in place a “zero tolerance” policy for illegal entry on our Southwest border.  If you cross this border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you.  It’s that simple. If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, then we will prosecute you. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law." Snopes, Are More Than 10,000 Children in U.S. Detention Centers?

So a law passed in 2008 and passed by a Democratic congress, and signed by President Bush is being reinterpreted. It is policy. Again, Jeff sessions asserted "Zero Tolerance" is a policy. With that policy change, that law no longer applies only to those charged with felonies, but now to any and all crossing the border "illegally". With this announcement, we have gone from a policy of "Catch and Release" to one of "Zero Tolerance". And both of these policies include those applying for asylum.

Another search of the web brought me to Elle magazine, and an article or essay they published,"I Spoke With the Female Asylum Seekers Being Held in Prison. What They Told Me Is Haunting", For me, Elle is typically more involved with fashion and beauty. Yet here they offered an essay written by US Representative Pramila Jayapal from the state of Washington's 7th District. Jayapal went to one of the detainment camps, which is in fact located in her state of Washington, and is actually a prison. In the essay she recounts her conversations with some of the 170 women she met with there, and who had been arrested at the border, and who had been separated from their children.

It is a powerful piece. What most grabs me is that the article illustrates this administration's disregard for asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are now being treated as criminals. They are treated as are the "coyotes" and those who actually repeatedly cross the border illegally or have a history of criminal behavior. Asylum seekers do not engage in such. Rather, asylum seekers typically arrive at an entry point into the United States and ask for asylum. They look for and present themselves to authorities, the US Border Patrol.

Traditionally, this would lead to a legal review of their claim and if their claim was found true or with merit, they would be granted entrance into the US - they would be allowed to stay in the US. And yes, that did not happen instantly, they would be allowed to stay in the US till a decision was made, and this did take some time. And it should be noted that in most cases, they would appear in court. Most were not disappearing. That procedure, however, has been replaced by one of "Zero Tolerance".  Again, asylum seekers today are being arrested and separated from their children.

And it is this group, the asylum seekers, that intrigues me. Asylum seekers are now seen as criminal. To ask for asylum at the United States southern border does not allow you access to a hearing, but rather gets you into a detention center / prison, and separated from your children.

Now this action of the US government is tragic. The President himself acknowledges that. He has said he does not like it. Now of course he claims he has no choice, that it is the law of the land, but as pointed out, it is in fact his policy, his interpretation of the law. And the cost, the emotional and psychological damage to the children is there. The American Academy of Pediatricians has asserted such in a formal statement.

I do not want to take away from these issues, the pain inflicted, the policies, and the misstatements and even outright lies of this administration. That said, I am interested in the history of asylum seekers and refugees. I feel there is a larger point to be made here. In short that the actions alluded to here are violations of these immigrants' human rights. Specifically, the detainment of those charged, the separation of the children from their parents, and lastly the detainment of the children. Sadly, each of these will take years to sort out, but the assertion that each of these actions is a violation of their human rights can be made. In short, nothing like this policy has ever been conducted in the United States before. The closest we come are the detainment camps set up for the Japanese during World War II, which today are acknowledged to have been human rights violations.

Now the interesting thing is that there were no "human rights" in 1942 or 1944. The concept of such rights, "Human Rights", was introduced in late 1948 when the fledgling United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then the United Nations and its members have reinforced this concept or Declaration in 1951, when it ratified the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. This later document basically defines a set of rights to individuals who are granted asylum and the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum. In 1966, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was adopted by the United Nations. Together, these are seen as an "International Bill of Human Rights".

Now what do I mean that there was no concept of "Human Rights" prior to the United Nations and the above? Obviously, the Bill of Rights can be found on the opening pages of the US Constitution, which was written in 1789. The concept of political rights has been discussed at least since the enlightenment of the seventeenth century. Further, you have the Magna Carta and the evolution of the English and American political systems. The difference is that all of these are the inner workings of a nation-state. The rights of an individual are always in relation to a nation-state. Never before had it been pondered whether these rights were portable, or transferable. Perhaps political philosophers such as Locke pondered such, but certainly never in practice. Never has a state pondered or claimed that its citizens are entitled to such rights beyond its borders. Such is the work of statecraft, diplomacy, and treaties.

The United Nations basically made the assertion with such treaties that individuals had human rights not only within the boundaries of a particular state, courtesy of that nation-state or country's government, but now across borders. Regardless of which border you were crossing, regardless of which country you were departing and which country you were entering, you now had certain inalienable rights.

And there is a reason for all of that happening in the period that it did. Again, this began in 1948, three years after the end of World War II, which was preceded by the first World War twenty years earlier. These were the most horrific and brutal wars ever witnessed. Both truly consumed the world like no other war previously. In no war prior were civilian populations effected as they had been in these two. Especially in the second, where we had massive aerial bombardments, firebombings, and the use of two nuclear devices. Plus the wholesale slaughter of millions, who died in the Nazi concentration camps and beyond. Never had civilians suffered the brunt of war as we had seen in these, especially the second. And with this suffering came massive numbers of refugees both during and after the war. People simply trying to survive. It was in response to these events that we have an International Bill of Human Rights.

In its zeal to protect civilian populations, to protect individuals, the United Nations, it could be argued, diminished the role of the nation-state, and its borders. The individual now has certain rights and privileges, regardless of where he or she is, and what relation, what standing, he or she has in relation to the nation-state or territory he or she is standing in. Further, the state is diminished in that it is now a member of the United Nations, which will impose its edicts, its dictates, upon the state. The state must now be in abidance with the treaties signed at the United Nations.

The point is that this is the core of globalism. Globalism is the disregard of the nation-state and its borders. The United Nations is the paradigm of globalism, (that and international business entities - but hold that thought). Historically, American conservatives have never held the United Nations in high regard, but it was typically due to the UN being seen as bureaucratic. It is a bunch of bureaucrats that consume our dues and fees, take up a big chunk of prime New York real estate, and provide us with little. At times the UN was and is annoying in that it challenges or criticizes US policy. Further, the UN has routinely condemned the actions of Israel, and the US being the ally that it is to that nation, has responded in kind.

Today, however, we challenge not the United Nations, but the treaties and documents, which are at its heart, the International Bill of Human Rights. Whether intentionally or not, the US is in these actions not only speaking to those who would cross its southern border "illegally"; the US is challenging the proposition that anyone has the right to cross that border claiming asylum, claiming to be a refugee, and appealing to such things as the International Bill of Human Rights. In the actions we are witnessing today,  the United States, on its southern border, is making history. With each detainment of those claiming asylum, which each detainment of a child, the United States is asserting that such people have no rights in the United States. The United States today is stating in its actions that it does not recognize an International Bill of Human Rights.

World War II and the long shadow which followed it is being forgotten. That is what we are witnessing. I am suggesting that the impetus for tolerance, and all that it entails, is fading into the sunset. The skirmishes that we experience today, what we routinely witness on our southern border, do not compare to two World Wars. By themselves, today's events, do not stir up sufficient public opinion. And that which did, those two wars, do in fact have have expiration dates. They are being forgotten.

One more stab at the uniqueness of universities. . .

For the past month I have been stuck on the value of universities. It began with a debate I participated in involving the question of controversial speakers at Universities. I was arguing that such speakers brought nothing of value to universities. The debate has happened. It is over, but the topic continues to haunt me. In short, I just feel that the motion debated is perpetuated by the fact that people do not appreciate the value of a college or university.

One of the items I was looking at when I prepared for the debate was the issue that in my few encounters with this debating group, The Motion, narrative or story telling was not used. I realized, participating as a debater this time that the time constraints just do not allow for such. I had two timed segments, an opening statement, which was five minutes, a closing statement, which was 3 minutes, and a few quick responses during the question and answer period. None of them allowed for a good story, unfortunately.

So I figure I will offer that story here. I do believe it offers another argument for the value of colleges and universities.

So the argument, or story that did not make the cut involves a  Professor I encountered while I was at Rutgers-New Brunswick, way back in the late 80's. He might still be there. He was last time I looked a few years back. He was teaching a Philosophy of Language class I had in my junior year. It was in Scott Hall, but in the back, I believe? Early on in the semester he started exploring what was required for a language to work, to function. He offered up to the class, God's little brother, who was building a language. What would he need for that language to work? That was basically the topic of the lecture or a series of lectures, or at least my recollection of it.

So he was going on about that and it was intriguing. I recall I stole one of his arguments and used it in another class, only to realize that other students from that same philosophy of language class were in that class also. Embarrassing.

Regardless, what I would have liked to have brought to the debate was one occasion where he, this Professor, was in the midst of his lecture trying to sort out what was going on between him, his imaginary interlocutors, and the class, and in that class (or often enough), his encounter with the chalk and chalk board. He routinely used the board to accentuate a point. He would discuss or lecture and then put the conclusion on the board. It was a method of highlighting or emphasis.

And yet once he would put that assertion up, he would quickly come back and challenge it. It would go something likes this. "So it looks like language requires abc, and a, b, c, all require x." He would then put X on the board. As soon as he put X on the board, he would turn around and say,"But if we believe that abc requires X, then we must also believe Y, but . . . we started by saying that we don't believe Y. So how does that work? Why do we believe X, but yet we cannot grant Y?"

In dealing with such quandaries, and posting them on the board, he would end up covered in chalk dust. Honestly he would just smear it on his forehead, cheeks, and nose, Several folks in the class pointed this out to me afterwards. I had not seen it till after they had pointed it out. He had brought me along in his journey, and neither he nor I had noticed his being covered in dust at the end of the lecture.

That being covered in dust and not knowing or caring, that being absorbed in the problem there before him, was and is a wonderful thing. And for me to not notice that detail till after the fact and just go with him on that exploration was wonderful. That ability to dive into something with that intensity, where one is unaware of the things around him or her is truly of value. That is part of an education and a university.

Sadly, I was not able to sneak this into the debate, so I offer it here.

And thank you Professor Ernest Lepore.

My notes and other stuff regarding Controversial Speakers at Universities

Last Wednesday, May 1st, I did my first debate with The Motion, a group advocating debating as an after-work social thing. Part fun, part toast-masters, part education, and with free beer. . . They happen once a month, with four prepared debaters, and an audience of like 30 people.

Every month it is a different topic. This month it was whether controversial speakers should be allowed on public Universities. I was taking the position that they should not be allowed. Below are the notes I came with and some afterthoughts. 

I do look forward to going back, both as an audience member and debater. 

1^st Round (5 Minutes)

Controversial speakers are NOT good for public universities.

That is what I am defending.

Now despite my wife, and others' disapproval here, this is really not all that controversial.

So let's give it a shot. . .

I start by offering this question: What does a university do? 

(Aside from providing us with March Madness and New Years Bowl games, what do they do?)

What is the function of a university? Public or private. . .

Universities do two things. They perform two functions.

They research. . . they search for truth, and they educate.

These two things were and are the core of a university, past and present.

Regardless of what domain you point to, whether it be literature, sociology, or physics, there are certain things going on at a university which allow for it to research and educate. And it is these things, found at a University, and that provide for research and education. These same things do not allow for controversial speakers at a university, public or private.

Next question. What are these things? What makes a university successful in discovering and researching stuff, whether it be history or chemistry? Likewise, what makes it successful in educating? Again, whether it be in history or chemistry, whatever. 

I offer you several items here:

1.     a faculty, 

2.     a canon (or a set of highly regarded and defining texts), which the faculty respects, embraces, and applies. 

3.     a set of research methodologies, typically found in those texts, and applied by the faculty 

4.     a set of publications dedicated to research in a specific area or domain introduced in the canon and explored by the faculty

5.     With those publications, a process for publishing and getting published, a set of topics or questions each domain largely focuses on, tries to answer, and build upon

6.     Ultimately peer review of both in these publications and various conferences. 

These items are what allow for the fruit of research. They are what allow for truths to be discovered, and education. And again, they do not allow for controversial speakers.

Our controversial speakers typically do not contribute to the above. They are not part of that ecosystem. Rather they are part of our commercial media. They  sell books. they do TV and radio. They have podcasts. They participate in a system not focused on truth and learning but rather primarily advertising and sales. There is a difference between Rutgers University and CNN or Fox News.

And that is my first argument against controversial speakers.

2^nd and Final Round (3 minutes)

Let me first review what I laid out earlier:

Universities offer two things: Research and Education

And those two things are achieved by the list I provided:

·        A faculty

·        A canon

·        A set of methodologies

·        A set of publications

·        And peer review

And the controversial speakers again thrive primarily in a commercial media. They thrive in the selling of books, and ads.

Now in the question and answer period, the one thing I heard or expected to hear was reference to the freedom of speech and how important it was to education.

I offer two responses:

Freedom of speech is a political concept. It is found in our Bill of Rights in the Constitution. It prohibits the state from interfering with the free expression of its citizenry. Again, it is a political concept.

This is not to be confused with academic freedom, Researchers and students can and do pursue various research and educational agendas. They challenge core ideas and beliefs found in the canons of their studies. That is when this stuff becomes fun!

The most interesting idea is the idea that challenges but yet sustains the critique of the canon, the faculty, the methodologies, and the peer review and is ultimately published.

It is with the above list and academic freedom that we decide which research to embrace and what defines an education. It is the play of these things that bring us to new ideas, new research and new truths. So, the free play of ideas is within the domain that I describe.

This is what a University provides. . . research and education.

Afterthoughts:

The whole discussion that night circled around whether the controversial speakers had the right to speak. The focus was on the political.

Not only that but the discussion was focused on the controversial speakers of today. We did not deal with communist or far-left speakers or anything else. Just the far-right neo-fascists that are out there today - now. And sadly, my partner I feel exaggerated their positions. This was really neither the time nor the place to focus on them. They are only a type of controversial speaker that visit universities.

That said, I was the only one that pointed out that a University is a unique cultural institution that had built into it ways to deal with such speakers.

Lastly and this was perhaps my favorite offering of the evening and was in the midst of the question and answer period. It went something like the following:

“You may sympathize with my partner and his position. That said, you may not be willing to close down speech rights to these speakers. If that is the case-that you are not wanting to just say they don’t have a right to speech. Well then you need to look at my position. We do not need to ban their right to speech here. In this debate the topic is what is happening at universities. Not the general culture, not what is happening in out there, not what is happening here, but at our universities. Allow the Universities to use the tools and methods they have sharpened for decades. . .centuries to deal with such.”

The last item is regarding how we did. Motion Debates does take a tally before and after the debate to see how each side did. We went from 4 people holding our position before to 6 people after. A 50% increase.  

Sadly, the other side had like 22 people supporting their position at the start and that went to 26 at the end. There was a handful or two of those who were uncertain. 

I left thinking no doubt we had been fighting an uphill battle. And my position, where I argued that controversial speakers can be dealt with by the University, few got. More importantly, at least for me in hindsight, was the role of the university and how I see that effecting the equation, again few got. Not to my satisfaction. 

Regarding Controversial Speakers at Public Universities

This past Monday I got an email from the folks at Motion Debates. Apparently, they are short a debater for a public debate they are sponsoring. The topic for the debate is regarding the value of controversial speakers at public universities. Specifically, they were looking for someone to challenge the proposition that "Controversial speakers are good for public universities."

I responded with a quick response as I did find it an interesting topic. I am not sure how the debate will play out or whether I will participate. It is scheduled for May 30th, so we will see. In some respects this essay probably should not have been published just yet. . .

Regardless, I was captivated by the topic since reading Motion Debates email. It is simply provocative. Not because of the issue of controversial speakers, but rather because that topic does unveil some ideas on education and our education system. Specifically, the topic allows some insights into education and the relation of free speech to our education system.

For myself it is obvious that controversial speakers offer little at a university. Examples of such speakers include Ann Coulter who most are familiar with, Ben Shapiro who is an American conservative political commentator and writer. His publications include Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth, which he began writing when he was seventeen years old. Charles Murray, the author of The Bell Curve, a controversial book from the 90's which suggested that IQ was genetic and that it, IQ, was also largely prophetic - it was one's fate. He has continued to write largely in that vein. Lastly, I point to Milo Yiannopoulos, the former editor of Breitbart, again author and conservative commentator. He is interesting in that he is gay and yet conservative, which at least is interesting.

I point to ones that are fairly well known. Most are "conservative". They and their ideas are often discussed and pointed to in the media. You can find them on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox often enough. . They are often offered up as public intellectuals. Are they, however, university fare?

The answer is no.

They are entertaining, but they do not, for the most part, offer knowledge. They are entertainers, not educators. They are commentators contributing to a media and entertainment system. They or their ideas might have some standing in our politics. They are not, however, educators, nor are they researchers or scientists. The former are part of a largely for-profit media versus the later, which includes our system of education and scientific research.

I should point out that I am playing with here another tension, which I do not want to dive into, but should be stated. Traditionally, the media has involved both entertainment and news. Today, that distinction is largely blurred. I would argue that historically it has always been blurred. It was only in the recent past that we bifurcated the distinction, but that distinction does haunt us. Regardless, I do not want to argue these points here. The point that I do want to make is that these speakers are of the media and entertainment world, versus the academic or education and scientific research domains.

I have painted a picture of the "controversial speakers". What of the university. I have already given some hints. It is the University which provides an education and likewise offers up scientific research. Most tenured professors are expected to both teach and publish. And their publications are not published with the intent of selling books or generating advertising revenue, Their publications are within peer-reviewed journals focusing on specific domains and areas. These range from Physics to Biology to Philosophy to Women's Studies. Again, the essays found in these journals rarely make it to any best-sellers list. Rather, these essays focus on reporting and documenting the research and studies performed and considered by these people - the professors and faculty of these institutions.

They pursue the truth. I would guess many of them would protest that assertion. To make the claim that they pursue the truth is a big claim. Many would not be ready to use such claims regarding their own research. Not because it is not true, but because most see themselves as part of a larger project and it is that larger project that in fact unveils and reveals truth, and it is a very slow and often tedious process.

To be educated at a university is to be exposed at some level to this project. It is to be exposed to the amount of work required and the potential rewards of that work. One is introduced to the ideas and history, the methods of a domain such as mathematics or political science. Sometimes this is done well, other times it is not. Sometimes what is taught and taken to be true is ultimately wrong. Sometimes what is false is actually taught and embraced. (Another reason why these folks question the value of truth. . .). This system is different in numerous ways from the devices and approaches of media. Both embrace publications, ideas, discussions. Both even offer solutions to ongoing issues and challenges in the world. Yet they are simply different.

Further, I offer that they, the media and the university are mutually exclusive. One is largely truth based and the other is largely profit driven. One must choose between them in some way. The scientific research done in the university simply is not provided via the media. At best, the media reports the facts and offers some limited analysis of those facts. The university not only observes the facts, but it takes those facts and applies various theories and approaches to them, and then tests the conclusions they arrive at again and again and again. And they do this not with the intent of finding an audience but of gaining understanding, of gaining knowledge.

So when I assert that the above controversial speakers distract, I mean they take away from the universities primary mission - to educate. And to educate is to appreciate this process and method of understanding, which the university represents. Now, one could say that these speakers are critics of the university, of the system. A valid and noble point or goal. However, what makes them controversial is less their offerings and more the protests and incidents we hear of happening on campuses and involving their speaking engagements. And it is considering this fact that I say they are a distraction.

In short, the media courtesy, of these speakers, suggest to the public that Universities are corrupt or biased against such speakers, conservative thinkers and the like. I have two responses to that: The first is that those who accept this picture of the University as liberal and biased, and I use "liberal" in the context of today's usage have accepted the media's depiction of the university.; and number two, they are in a certain light largely right, the University is biased and rightly so. As a critic, you come to the institution with different methods, and agendas and you will be challenged. If you want to come and discuss ideas at a University, and be recognized, then submit those ideas in a proper peer reviewed journal and proceed in the way described above. It is a case of when in Rome. Otherwise you arrive for a night of emotional if not Dionysian pleasures.

And it is with that that I quickly turn to free speech. The the right to free speech is a right to not be silenced by the state. It is not a promise of being provided a newspaper column, a Youtube video,  or a microphone. These are in fact rewards and recognition for something already achieved. At the University, the person handed the microphone is published, is a department chair, or at the least a promising student. No one is just handed a microphone.

I would argue that student bodies today have too much freedom regarding who they can invite and the settings for such controversial speakers. They do not recognize nor appreciate the institution they are a part of, nor the challenges of maintaining such. There is a component of brand management here which is being neglected by universities when they allow their students or faculty to invite such speakers and then to have the event result in embarrassment or even violence. And then to have such incidents used by their critics is simply to illustrate the tension between media and academia. And perhaps it is a failure of university administrations to appreciate what they have and what they are responsible for.

I leave you with an example of something or someone the University should be celebrating, as opposed to bringing celebrities authors and the like in. Meet Mike Zimmerman. That is how Nova, the PBS Science program introduces him. He is a Professor of the Practice in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Tufts University up in Medford MA. That does not really reveal the story. For the past five years he has been developing a new "solid" lithium battery, used in our cell phones and other devices. His device is far safer than today's "liquid" lithium batteries which were causing issues such as Samsung's Galaxy debacle.

He is a bit of a showman as he can be found on Nova and on the below Youtube video driving nails and cutting up his battery, but with no flames, no ignitions, no dangerous consequences. He has developed a safe alternative to what is in our cell phones today and keep in mind lithium batteries play a vital role in another new market - electric vehicles.

You read the New York Times article from late 2016 regarding Zimmerman's work that he also has a start-up, Ionic Materials, which was awarded by Obama's Department of Energy $3 Million Dollars to continue to research, develop and ultimately manufacture such batteries. This is the beauty of the university. That a researcher can take a problem such as Samsung's battery issue, which is really not just their problem and spend several years working on it, pursuing a solution, and then if he has something promising, can open up a start up, and work out a deal with the university and in this case with the Department of Energy and run with it. It started with a concrete problem and a researcher in a lab.

I was watching him on Nova as I pondered some of the above. At one point he acknowledged that someone in this race will figure this out - developing a safe non-exploding lithium battery. He did not boast that he would solve this problem. Him and his team could offer up that solution, a solid and safe lithium battery, but we just do not know yet. He would love for it be his team, his start up. It does not have to be. He is pursing this to figure it out. From the interview and exchange, it is for him an engineering challenge. For him it is a search in a way for truth. And in this case, he or she who gets closest to that truth will also make out handsomely.

Last point, the spirit he exhibits is not exclusive to the university, but it remains a core value of the institution. Further, there are those in the media who engage in similar quests. The difference is that the university, despite their sports teams, and the like, have retained some component of this. Further, they have developed processes, where if you develop something that is of value in the market, they will work with you, but the primary driver, which seems to have propelled Mike Zimmerman for several years, was just looking at an engineering challenge and trying to figure it out. It was and is a quest for truth.

It is with these points in mind that I assert that controversial speakers are of little or no value to the university. Considering the function of a university, and that people such as Mike Zimmerman, who continue to populate universities, I offer that controversial speakers simply distract from something we sadly take for granted or even worse neglect.

A Post-Truth World - My Take

I am currently working on another essay which ultimately compares two sub-cultures found in America: the media and the university. That essay focuses more on one part of the media and the University's response to it. That is in process.

While working on that though, I discovered or rediscovered the tensions found with in the media. Those include a focus on truth in journalism versus profits, and journalism versus entertainment and more recently journalism as entertainment. All are common issues.

Meanwhile I do continue to read a book now and again. I do try to get away from my technology and do something else! Really, I do! And two books on my list are Post Truth by Lee McIntyre, and Us vs Them: The Failure of Globalism by Ian Bremmer. Yes they are real page turners. . .

The second, Ian's Bremmer's is more regarding economics and the challenges of free trade, yet I suspect it will bring us back to the challenges of truth. The former, Post Truth by Lee McIntyre is a philosopher's take on the state of truth in the world today.

All of these make me pause regarding the topic. The value of truth in today's world has diminished. That seems to be the case.  Anyone who is on Facebook and attempts to discuss politics pretty much knows that. Rarely is any agreement or consensus arrived at there. Often times it is a struggle to just agree on the basic facts.

So what follows is my stab at exploring this topic, my two cents, before reading up on the subject. It is a listing of various threads that point me again to the question of what is the value of truth. I offer them up to myself and anyone else reading, to keep in mind as we read the above and as we continue to encounter the events and trends that I have listed below play out around us.

The position I offer is that this uncertainty and the challenges to the truth, are in fact more the norm. Normalcy might just involve a world where truth does not reign supreme. Each of the items on the below list could involve a post. . . a chapter each, but I will only barely hint at each here.

Philosophy 
There are at least two major movements in American and Anglo philosophy. In the beginning of the 20th century it was Pragmatism. Positivism came to dominate mid-century. Those two have continued to battle it out for the most part. Challenging those two movements was and is Continental philosophy, which dominates in European culture

Each of these has its take on truth. Truth plays a role in each of their tales, but the importance of it, the place that it takes at the table varies. The easiest way to see the placement of truth at the table is where and how each considers science. Not only must one look at how they deal with science, but what they consider science.

The postivists were interested in things that could be objectively observed and based on those observations truth can be determined. They looked to the achievements of science and the scientific method and built on that. The challenge of course is that much of our lives and our world cannot be objectively observed. Truth plays a prominent role in this system, as did a reliance on science. Sadly this reliance though limits us.

Pragmatism values truth but but reassesses the scientific method and the domain of truth. In short, truth is now tied to consequences. This approach is much more focused on action. We must test what are the consequences of certain actions and then proceed accordingly. This provides a method of proceeding in the social sciences, which could not comply with the demand for objective observations. They loosen the definition of truth allowing for more to be considered, but also at times leading us to conflicting truths.

Lastly, we have the Continentals, who are skeptical of scientific achievements. They are critical of our modern industrial landscape and the value or diminished value for human life, replaced with an emphasis on technology and science. They see science and technology as taking away from what is human. We lose our humanity in technology. Truth here is not a scientific truth but a bigger larger truth. Almost a theological truth - perhaps mysticism.

In this overly short sketch we have several ideas on truth and its place in each of the three systems. Truth plays a role in each but a very different role. The positivists look to science. the Pragmatists, acknowledge such achievements but want to roll out such to the social sciences and beyond, changing or stretching the definition of truth to achieve such. And the Continentals are not having any of it. They do not look to observation statements and the like for truth. They would rather turn to literature and poetry for truth.

I simplify, but there is no clear defining picture of what truth is in philosophy.

History
What I offer here are again snippets of what I consider important to a tale of truth. I look to three areas: media, politics, and again technology

Starting with the media, I will then go to politics and technology and back. Regarding media, I point to three periods. the first of those takes place in the 18th century. Specifically the time of pamphleteer. This goes hand in hand with the American Revolution. People such as Thomas Paine. Basically anyone who had access to a printing press, and who was able to write and respond to the events of the day. Paine was only one of many. A quick search of the web illustrates this. You have people such as Samuel Loudon or John Dickinson's series of pamphlets, "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania". For a fuller reading check out "Pamphlets of the American Revolution, 1750-1776, Volume I: 1750–1765", edited by Bernard Bailyn and Jane N. Garrett.

These were how the American Revolution was communicated and came about. They were not in agreement regarding what were the primary issues or challenges, nor how to proceed. Each had a position. Each probably shared in the frustration, but regarding what it was that was causing the challenges - that varied. In the end I guess enough of them agreed that much of their frustration and problems were caused by an English presence. It started with a printing press.

I would argue that the reformation would have been very different without Gutenberg preceding Luther by 70 years. There would not have been a reformation without Gutenberg's printing press. One cannot come to know the Lord without the Bible in hand. Before that time, one connected to their God by partaking in the Eucharist, as the priest performed the service in Latin, a language few understood. Language and words meant little until the printing press. Connecting to one's God was to accept the body and blood of the Christ in a church with your family and fellow townspeople surrounding you. That changed with the printing press.

By the time the American Constitution is being debated, newspapers have begun to replace the pamphlet. Hamilton, Jay and James Madison do not publish pamphlets, but provide their essays to the newspapers of the time. Newspapers such as the Independent Journal, the New York Packet, and The Daily Advertiser. By 1835 there are 1200 newspapers in the US.

They start out as political tools. The political parties embrace the idea of a pamphlet and out of it evolves the newspaper. Again, it was in such an environment that Jay and Hamilton thrived. We know of them today as they were the victors. What was the truth in the course of that debate and discussion? Today, we accept their logic, but at the time, their principles were not seen as so obvious.

Jump ahead to 1935 or 1965. Now we have radio in the former, and TV in the later. Newspapers have already begun to consolidate and play a diminished role. You have the newsreels. Before a movie or series of movies at the local cinema would be a newsreel, updating viewers on the War in Europe during the 2nd World War. They highlight what President Roosevelt or the first Lady are busy with, and tell of what Greta Garbo and Bogie are up to. Mass media has arrived, and news is part of that. With that comes a steady diet of standardly accepted facts and details.

Technology and political context allowed for mass media to thrive. All could listen to and see the facts presented to them on the radio and or the big and little screens. With these there was no room for a differences of facts. We might have a difference of opinion but facts are established. Everyone aspired to have a radio and go to the movies. And when TV was offered up properly in the 50s, it too was embraced. We were in this progression perhaps experiencing progress.

Further, considering the series of events in the world, this was not a time to challenge and dispute the facts. We had the Great Depression. There was the Second World War, and then we moved right on into the Cold Ward for the next 40 years. Each of these required or demanded that we do not challenge what was being presented. And there was the Great Depression, which we struggled with. Likewise, the the armies of the Germans under Hitler along with the Japanese in the Pacific did require a response. Mass communication helped drive home those messages. It unified.

You can see the cracks in the 60's and 70's, with the various protest movements. The new forms of music that embrace technology and electricity, but likewise challenge the status quo, and what people accept as the truth. Political protest comes out full force in the late 60's with the demand for civil rights, and the protest over Vietnam. The threat of nuclear annihilation hang over us but even so, opinions become more varied and facts become something to discuss. This might be the impact of the blues, Bob Dylan and amplified music. We found a way to challenge the standard facts and opinions offered up by mass media outlets and largely enforced by the FCC.

It was Reagan in the 80's that loosened that bridle, allowing for cable channels to not need to follow the ways of broadcast media, not be regulated by the FCC. We have initially the rash and youthful MTV. Roughly ten years later, however, we have Fox News. MSNBC follows suit.

In all of these truth begins to be seen in different lights again. What was restrained and constrained by the mass media in the 30's, 40's and 50's begins to crumble. New outlets allow for new ideas and new approaches. Technology both limits and broadens the truth. Likewise, the Cold War in 1991 is done. D'Souza does offer a certain insight here.

No doubt, this is an overly quick list of poorly constructed views of history and ideas. I know I can be challenged on numerous points and angles. I would welcome some of that. Yet the basic point is there. Truth does vary. Philosophically and historically what we believe and hold dear does change. It is much more driven by the moment than what we would like to claim. Eternal Truths are a challenge.

That said, our reliance on science does challenge this, and our faith though waning is still there too.

I look forward to those two texts I began with and what they offer. We shall see.

Human or Citizen? It Use To Not Be An Either / Or

Watching Fareed Zakaria this morning provoked the below. In short you can see our attitudes towards refugees and human rights changing. To be more specific you can see both refugees and human rights being abandoned. Further, considering the renewed focus and interests on nation states today, it is or should not be surprising.

Syria, one of the biggest producers of refugee populations in the last five to ten years is in the news currently, not because of the refugee problem, not because it's government continues to bomb and attack is own people, but because in one instance they used chemical weapons as opposed to the usual barrel bombs they are known for. And then of course there are several handful of attacks involving chlorine gas in between to further muddy waters. I digress.

Of course Syria is complicated. With ISIS having attempted to build their caliphate there, plus the Iranians and Russians propping up up the Assad regime, it is a mess. No one really wants to jump into that. Talk about a pit into which, one can lose one's treasure, both lives and gold. That said, we have now twice made a commitment, an assertion there regarding chemical weapons. And yes we did largely clean up ISIS, but twice now we have also spoken out about and responded to the use of chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are inhuman and will not be tolerated.

That is where we have drawn the line. Chemical Weapons will not be tolerated. Regarding the use of 'normal' munitions such as barrel bombs and the like, or the disputed claims of hospitals being attacked and bombed. We will not visit these. Nor the fact that these bombings are on Syria's own people. We are not going to challenge any of these items. And it is noted that to raise these would require some investment, and it is proper that if you cannot or will not put your money where your mouth is, then perhaps do not bother. Yet, in the end, something more should be said and done.

And this does not mean purely military action. I include diplomatic, humanitarian, and military action. We have pretty much done nothing. We have sent a hundred cruise missiles or so and that is it. And diplomacy and humanitarian aid is needed as much if not more. There goes that treasure. . . We have done nothing there. Nothing.

Syria illustrates our inability and our disinterest in diplomacy and humanity. Yes I said humanity. There is a growing trend to focus not on humanity but on citizenry. Our lack of action in Syria goes hand in hand with the nationalism that is discussed today. It goes hand in hand with the dislike, distaste and fear of globalism and globalization. There are two concepts under attack there. Free trade as in international trade, and human rights.

I have supported free trade previously but I have not touched upon human rights before. Not directly. My essays on the "two freedoms" does approach the issue, but I want to comment on the idea of human rights here briefly. Syria becomes an example, it becomes the canary in coal mine, of our abandonment of human rights, in our lack of interest in its refugees, and with that our lack off interest in humanity, humanitarian causes.  They are all one in the same.

Our disinterest is these refugees, which so far this year we have allowed eleven into our our country. confirms our disinterest in human rights, which can be seen in our diplomacy. It can be seen in the resignation of the UN Human rights Chief, the High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Hussein. His resignation and those refugees are tied together. And part of it is the cost of human rights. To properly defend human rights does require a budget, but that budget was never a major piece of the US Government's budget. Cost is part of why we walk away from refugees, and human rights. It is not the primary reason we walk away from such.

The reason we walk away is our current acceptance of the idea of taking care of those within. It is said today that we need to take care of our people. take care of our homeless. take care of our veterans, our children. . . all noble causes and propositions. Previously we have felt that we could work on all of these, and help those outside our borders. . . and chew gum at the same time. We no longer accept that. we have come to accept that we cannot serve both those in need in and beyond our borders.

That is again an argument based on wealth and riches. We do not have enough to share with all. At no time in the past did we ever believe that we could solve the problems of the world. If we did, that was a mistake. I believe we for the most part believed that we could improve the situation in and beyond our borders, but that no where could we solve anyone's problems. They are not our's to solve. And then of course there are other motives for helping others, both in and outside our borders. I focus not on these here.

Here I point to two words: human and / or citizen.

Do we have rights as humans or do we have rights as citizens? Do we recognize the other as a human who is entitled to certain rights, or do we first ask of their nation of origin, and their personal history and then make a decision as to how we proceed? Further, what is a right? Seriously, how does a human have a right if not under a government. Can one have a right without some type of political force, a state or the like, to protect and serve that right.

That is today's challenge. Previously it was a mix. You were both, and people could be creative regarding their answers. That solution seems unacceptable today. You are today either a citizen or a human. You no longer can be both.

Who are my Russian fans?

There is something going on in Russia. I experience it first hand. I maintain this blog where I today mainly post about politics and philosophy. Nothing too exciting. Now when I post I have a few hits. those mainly come from the US. Not many. I am talking maybe 50 for a good post. I write them for myself and a handful of folks and anyone else who might trip over them. Now if I do not post then I just get random visitors. This week I posted nothing. The last post was regarding the EPA and was posted on March 27th. This past week I had a total of ten visits to the site. Eight of those were from Russia. And unless I post that is the common consequent. The majority of visitors for weeks where I do not posts are coming from Russia. Regardless of whether I post or not, the Russians, probably bots check out my site and it has been that way for awhile. Interestingly, Russian visitors do not bother with the Wild West, just my political blog. No idea who or what they are. I am posting this here on this site. I want to see if I get any response, Who knows maybe some Russian Poli-Sci student is a fan. I doubt it. If I have such a fan or fans. . . please identify yourself! If I see no response, I am going to look for some way to at least eliminate "bot" traffic. Thanks. Bob Schaffer