Skip to content

Thoughts on the Constitution…

I had a conversation with a family member over the weekend and the topic was politics and where we fell in the left/right spectrum.  I wanted to get some of my thoughts down here, recorded for history since I have learned that my brain can only hold so much information.  One of the major thoughts that came from the conversation was that the Constitution is more than a document written for a specific time and place.  The Constitution is about people and addresses human nature.  The fact that people and human nature do not change makes the Constitution just as relevant today as when it was written.

I guess I should back up a little and explain the theory that people and human nature has changed very little in the past 200 or so years…  Back when television was invented, people had similar issues facing us today with the internet.  It was a new medium, exciting, wild and ever changing.  It took many many years for the medium to settle down and become a stable marketplace.

Part of human nature is that little thing called the ego.  We believe that because we are special, we live in special times and the challenges facing us have never been seen before.  I really am jealous of history majors, since they have the unique experience of being immersed in the past and can benefit from the perspective that it brings.  If I had some more time, I would spend it reading history books, but for now the occasional History Channel program will have to do.

So back to the Constitution…  Some may argue that the constitution should be a “living document” and be interpreted for today’s time.  This too is an egotistical view to hold, and I believe is a dangerous slope to descend.  The reason this country has flourished and endured for over 230 years is a testimate to the original framers of our constitution and the document that was more about people than the times in which it was written.

Posted 22 September 2008 † admin § Questions ‡ Comments (0) °

Is today’s scientific process scientific?

Something has been bothering me lately about the debate on global warming.  When I was in school, we learned about the scientific process and how you start with a hypothesis and then go about proving or disproving it.  Never did politics or emotion enter the equation.  It was this absoluteness that attracted me to engineering and science in general.

So the question arises, is the scientific process as it relates to global warming tainted by emotion or political agenda?  Are politicians using scientists greed for funding dollars to drive an agenda?  Is this a new phenomenon, or something that has existed since the beginning of the scientific process?

I will add to this post as time permits, but for now ponder the questions and please comment.

Posted 15 August 2008 † admin § Questions ‡ Comments (0) °

Is it possible to have an intellectually honest discussion?

Intellectual Honesty Definition:

Honesty in the acquisition, analysis, and transmission of ideas. (Source)

This blog is about asking questions and not always getting the right answers.  Sometimes it is more important to look at why we answer a certain way, than what we answer.  By looking at our answers, and dissecting our decision making process, we can come to a better understanding of ourselves and the world around us.  By understanding our emotions and decision making processes, we can maintain a certain level of intellectual honesty and make choices in our lives that make the most sense.

So can we keep the discussion here at Sociolitical intellectually honest?  I have no idea, but I am sure we will all have fun trying.

Posted 14 August 2008 † admin § Questions ‡ Comments (0) °