On this glorious 4/20 (Hitler/Stoner Day), two of my articles have been published around the web. While I normally don’t do this, since it’s hard to promote two different ones in the same day, I have aggregated them here as well. Check them out!
The Moral Conservative’s Case Against Torture (Right On)
It is not uncommon to see image macros online (particularly amongst mainstream conservative circles) that display a picture of a wounded solider with the caption, “This is why I don’t care how we interrogate terrorists.” If one buys the often touted conservative claim of “Western morality is the best system of values to follow,” however, then we as a society ought to eschew the practice of torturing suspected terrorists. As a society, we ought to refrain from torture as a method of information gathering, not because the methods used are ineffective, but rather because claims to the superiority of Western morality rest upon a meta-moral high ground that must be maintained.
In part 2 of my [IDEOLOGY IN PROGRESS] series, I argued that the concept of race is not a social construction like the left claims, but rather is a biological reality due to genotypical and phenotypical differences amongst populations.
Those who claim X as being a social construction assume the negativity of social constructionism. – Unknown
While I still think that is the case, I ended part 2 with the following statement: “Finally, stay tuned for part two of this post (it will come sometime in the “Ideology in Progress” series) where I ignore everything I wrote above and assume race is a social construct and then explain why division is good! *Basically an “even if it’s a social construct that creates division, that division is good and not discriminatory” argument*”.
And that brings us to this post. I am going to ignore everything I said in the previous post and jump on the liberal bandwagon yelling “race is a social construct!”. However, as the opening quotation points out, even if race (or anything) is a social construct, that doesn’t inherently mean that it’s a bad thing. Rather, just that it might create divisions amongst people. I shall argue after the jump that even if the concept of race is a purely social construction, it, and the divisions amongst people that it creates, are a good thing.
With the Middle East being as contentious as it is now and the fact that the only state in the region that has nuclear weapons also happens to be the one that is most hated and refuses to sign arms agreements (Israel), a different approach is needed. I argue that Iran, the state Israel is so deeply afraid of, should acquire nuclear weapons and be the regional counterbalance.
The question “where do I fall on the political spectrum” has been one that’s been plaguing my mind for months now and, unfortunately, I do not have a good answer. However, I do think it’s high time I started formulating and ideology and explaining it and so this post will be the first in a series, untitled thus far, wherein I will examine what I hold true about value systems, the state, “rights”, etc.
After the jump I will post the results of my latest round of political quizzes (up to date as of 3/28/14) and, in bullet form, list some of the things I believe (in no particular order, just as they come to me).
Note: the list is in no way a complete argument, rather a starting block with which to build future posts and arguments.The aphorisms below will be fleshed out in later posts as I form my ideology and will be crossed out.
There are a ton of articles written that purport to explain why the United States and subsequently NATO got involved in specific quagmires around the world. While these articles are wonderful in explaining the United State’s posture on specific countries such as Iraq or Afghanistan, they fail to weave these discrete events into the overall fabric of the United State’s hegemonic role in the world. During the course of this paper I will argue that following World War II the United States’ active role in the world-which manifests itself in the toppling of regimes and the support of apartheid-is not out of a love of “democracy” or “freedom”, but rather is part of the ungodly melding of neo-liberalism and neo-conservationism’s goal for United States hegemonic domination. Throughout this paper I will argue that the major wars of the second half of the 20th century fought by the United States, from the Cold War proxy wars to the Iraq war to the proposed war on Iran to name a few, are not discrete pieces of data. Nay, they are points on a continuous line drawn by the United States government which ends with the permanent imperialistic, hegemonic status of the American empire.
I believe – though I may be wrong, because I’m no expert – that this war is about what most wars are about: hegemony, money, power and oil. -Dustin Hoffman