As some people who read this blog might guess, I am an independent with regards to my political affiliation. While I haven't created a blog post that specifically points to the weaknesses in Democratic theories/dogma, I could posit as many problems with liberal ideas as I do with neo-conservative approaches. Both sides often take hard-line stances on issues which precludes rational discourse and reasonable legislation. I could also find fault with all of the well-known, third parties including the Libertarians and the Green Party. With that said, I thought I would quickly outline my ideas for a hypothetical, new party.
Right off the bat, I will acknowledge that no party is ever going to be created using my guidelines. At the same time, any, third party would have to overcome almost insurmountable hurdles in order to actually gain relevance in the U.S. One only has to look at American post-bellum, American politics to realize this fact. The Grangers, the Socialists, the Bull Moosers, Ross Perot's followers (whatever they called themselves), and others could never achieve any lasting prominence. Even so, I think it benefits Americans to try to imagine what a third party might look like; they can compare their construct to the extant parties and thereby gain a better understanding of the methods, philosophies, infrastructures and motivations which define modern, American politics.
I am not sure what I would name the party. The rationalists would accurately describe its philosophical focus; however, rationalism is too closely tied to atheism. I need a more inclusive name...Perhaps the Independent Party; that one has a nice ring to it and may appeal to frustrated voters.
The platforms of all the major political groups, including the small, third parties, represent positions on certain issues. They favor this bill or are averse to this economic policy, etc. By contrast, my party would adopt a method as its key, platform proposal. Politicians from the Independent Party would promise their supporters that they would use empirical methods to create the best legislation and determine the best political strategies, ie. for dealing with foreign countries. The key aspects of this ideology are below:
1) Emotion/Empathy are important but should be mitigated by reason.
2) Rely on data to drive conclusions. Don't pick and choose (and warp) data to make it fit your ideological principles.
3) Political discussion should take into account the desires and needs of all stakeholders--not just one's followers. Two corollaries follow from this view.
A) Focus on discourse with politicians from other parties and not just on debate.
B) Compromise is okay and in fact it is welcomed.
4) Put the interests of the nation over your own interests.
That's a very brief description of my hypothetical, third party. If I were to continue the exercise, I would flesh out the party's principles, organizing strategies, infrastructure, etc. over the course of several months/years. In the end, my final document would be much larger than this one. :)
Saturday
From a Graduate Student Consumer's Perspective--Views on Graduate Education in the U.S.
I have had the opportunity to matriculate in graduate courses in several areas of study and have spoken to post-baccalaureates at numerous institutions. As such, I feel that the views expressed in this post have some merit. In keeping with the my blog's mission statement, consider this post to be a rough draft of my thoughts--a quick fleshing out of my opinions as opposed to a carefully crafted, highly edited paper.
A large percentage of graduate students cheat. From what I have noticed, a large percentage of graduate students cheat. This problem (if we'd like to call it a problem) is not confined to traditionally competitive programs like law and business, it is prevalent in all graduate fields. Ironically, graduate students cheat even when they do not fear failure, ie. in programs that will not flunk even the worst students. While individual graduate students might posit any of a variety of reasons for committing these acts, the high prevalence of cheating is due to a permissive culture. Many students do not believe that cheating is an unethical behavior.
Universities need to standardize their graduate grading systems. University administrators need to request individual schools and programs to adopt the same grading system for graduate students. Grades may not be important for some firms, ie. universities looking to fill academic seats; however, most companies would like a graduate student's grades to reflect that individual's abilities and work ethic. It is difficult for a corporation to put any faith in this variable when post-graduate scoring systems vary widely between programs within a particular school, much less between graduate schools within a university (or between universities). For the same reasons that researchers use standardized measures assay an issue, businesses would like to universities to use a standard grading system for all graduate students.
Some program heads may cry foul if the university moves towards standardizing grading systems at its institution. They will argue that this action limits their program's/school's autonomy. However, in my opinion, the benefits outweigh any disadvantages when it comes to creating standardized grading systems for graduate students.
Graduate programs should use 3.0 as a minimum. Obviously, schools want to promulgate the view (sometimes an illusion) that their graduate students are a step up from undergraduates. At the same time, they want to promote the belief that graduate education is more rigorous and serious than its undergraduate counterpart. Sometimes these hypotheses are accurate and sometimes they are no more than myths. For instance, I can point to numerous instances in which a school's undergraduates are more intellectually capable than their graduate peers.
Be that as it may, it does not behoove graduate programs to enforce a policy of "No C's" or "2 C's and you are out." This policy causes a host of problems, especially for programs who are averse to flunking out any students. Perhaps most insidious are the instances in which professors feel it necessary to pass a student with a 'B,' even though that individual did absolutely nothing to deserve it. I would suggest that programs instead adopt a 3.0 minimum. It would allow professors more leeway in handing out grades which are commensurate with a student's abilities/efforts as well as allowing programs to differentiate between high achievers, middle-of-the road performers, and weak students.
A large percentage of graduate students cheat. From what I have noticed, a large percentage of graduate students cheat. This problem (if we'd like to call it a problem) is not confined to traditionally competitive programs like law and business, it is prevalent in all graduate fields. Ironically, graduate students cheat even when they do not fear failure, ie. in programs that will not flunk even the worst students. While individual graduate students might posit any of a variety of reasons for committing these acts, the high prevalence of cheating is due to a permissive culture. Many students do not believe that cheating is an unethical behavior.
Universities need to standardize their graduate grading systems. University administrators need to request individual schools and programs to adopt the same grading system for graduate students. Grades may not be important for some firms, ie. universities looking to fill academic seats; however, most companies would like a graduate student's grades to reflect that individual's abilities and work ethic. It is difficult for a corporation to put any faith in this variable when post-graduate scoring systems vary widely between programs within a particular school, much less between graduate schools within a university (or between universities). For the same reasons that researchers use standardized measures assay an issue, businesses would like to universities to use a standard grading system for all graduate students.
Some program heads may cry foul if the university moves towards standardizing grading systems at its institution. They will argue that this action limits their program's/school's autonomy. However, in my opinion, the benefits outweigh any disadvantages when it comes to creating standardized grading systems for graduate students.
Graduate programs should use 3.0 as a minimum. Obviously, schools want to promulgate the view (sometimes an illusion) that their graduate students are a step up from undergraduates. At the same time, they want to promote the belief that graduate education is more rigorous and serious than its undergraduate counterpart. Sometimes these hypotheses are accurate and sometimes they are no more than myths. For instance, I can point to numerous instances in which a school's undergraduates are more intellectually capable than their graduate peers.
Be that as it may, it does not behoove graduate programs to enforce a policy of "No C's" or "2 C's and you are out." This policy causes a host of problems, especially for programs who are averse to flunking out any students. Perhaps most insidious are the instances in which professors feel it necessary to pass a student with a 'B,' even though that individual did absolutely nothing to deserve it. I would suggest that programs instead adopt a 3.0 minimum. It would allow professors more leeway in handing out grades which are commensurate with a student's abilities/efforts as well as allowing programs to differentiate between high achievers, middle-of-the road performers, and weak students.
Tuesday
Is Peak Oil a Worry?
Below, I have copied my response to "The Future Can't Pay Its Bills" by the John Michael Greer. It is located at the blog, The Arch Druid Report, http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2011/12/future-cant-pay-its-bills.html. The response, like most of the ones I post on here, was written fairly quickly and thus has weaknesses (perhaps a lot of weaknesses); however, it represents my "honest" opinion on the subject. Oddly enough, I responded to his blog post several days ago; however, I don't think he has yet posted my rejoinder.
I am not sure your hypothesis is correct. You tie the current, worldwide economic malaise to a shortage of cheap energy (ie. easily obtainable oil supplies). However, it is quite possible that developed countries will transition from using oil as a fuel to utilizing some other source. We (the world) have ample supplies of coal and we are quickly reaching the point where we can tap into clean sources of energy from the sun and from wind. Who is to say that once the price/industrial requirements of oil reaches a certain point, society won't invest the resources necessary to make the shift?
I am not sure your hypothesis is correct. You tie the current, worldwide economic malaise to a shortage of cheap energy (ie. easily obtainable oil supplies). However, it is quite possible that developed countries will transition from using oil as a fuel to utilizing some other source. We (the world) have ample supplies of coal and we are quickly reaching the point where we can tap into clean sources of energy from the sun and from wind. Who is to say that once the price/industrial requirements of oil reaches a certain point, society won't invest the resources necessary to make the shift?
In short, the economic issues we face right now (in the U.S. and throughout much of the developed and developing world) might more closely resemble the Gilded Age in America than the late Roman Empire (which also suffered from resource shortages). Whereas the economic problems in the U.S. during that period (and again in the 1930s) signaled a shift from the 1st Industrial Age to the 2nd Industrial Age, the current economic woes are only a hiccup between economic modal types. In this case, from the Information Age, which itself started up during the 1970s stagflation period, to the Internet/web-based Age?
Sunday
The E-Publishing Revolution Is Advantageous both for Readers and for Writers
This entry is a copy of my response to a post a on 'Official Blog of Joslyn Corvis,' which is titled, "Is an E-Book Still a Book?” The author of that post is Joslyn Corvis. You can find it here: http://gothicgenie.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/is-an-e-book-still-a-book/#comment-40
Speaking as a reader (of books), I prefer electronic literature, including e-books, over their paper based predecessors. For one thing, a collection of e-novellas don't take up much space and they are quite portable. It is much easier to transport a 1-2 pound notepad computer library from place to place than it is to move a collection of books around. Additionally, assuming an individual maintains his/her on-line service or download the necessary computer updates, that person won't have to worry about misplacing books or losing them in a fire, flood, or due to wear and tear. One caveat, as e-publishing becomes the norm, it will become more difficult for people to save money via buying second-hand books. This will be problematic for some; however, I think the pros outweigh the cons on this issue.
While the shift to e-publishing will make it easier for people like myself to carry and store volumes, that is not the chief reason that I prefer electronic media. Rather, by using the computer keypad, I can easily locate specific passages or topics when perusing an e-book, which compares against the vast amounts of time I have to spend flitting from page to page to find specific passages in paper-bound copies. As such, it is much easier and efficient for me (and for anyone) to research papers, projects, and other things using electronic media. That being said, you and other authors might also eventually come to prefer e-publishing.
I can posit numerous reasons why an author would prefer an e-publishing platform over a paper-based one; however, for the sake of brevity, I will only mention one reason here. Namely, an e-book writer has more freedom to create a dynamic, interactive literary piece. With a book, the author's views/visions are limited by the linear, one-dimensional nature of the medium. In an e-book, the author can include videos in the novel, or he/she can create multiple endings (letting the reader choose the ending). Perhaps most importantly, the writer can easily go back and update the volume if new information comes to light. This is particularly important for science fiction writers, as many of their views/ideas/background which are feasible/logical this year will become outdated/impossible in a few years (given the pace of scientific progress).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)