Enjoyed your Hillsdale article. Hoping your witty language will help when I find myself at a loss for words among conservative friends who applaud our president.
I too have received both mail and emails from the Hillsdale College for years. I never read any of it and just considered it professional spam. I finally hit the unsubscribe button and haven't heard from them since. I realize now that most likely I was deemed a collegiate aspirant and, part of their flock, because I once was a Republicant. Prior to Trump I had the misguided idea that Reaganomics actual worked! Oh well. The path to truth and enlightenment is long....
I hope you sent Ms. Devine a copy of your response to her front page screed. Perhaps, though, it would be viewed by her eyes blinded by the incredible brilliance of
her hero and our now "goldenized" Casa Blanca as just leftist dribble. She may think her article will result in an invitation to dance with him in his Versailles like ballroom.
I enjoyed your literary summary of Hamlet. Shakespeare's Cassius, like Hamlet, understood well the usurping of power, which Caesar did on a far grander scale than Uncle Claudius.
The Imprimis article contains a significant flaw, and one I have encountered fairly consistently over the years, namely in the use of the following argument:
“It’s a bit like the thought experiment: ‘If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?’ If a crime is committed and no one is responsible, was there actually a crime at all?”
This is far more than a “thought experiment”, for it involves the very nature of communication and what words entail. It ignores the essence of 'sound'. A vibration becomes 'sound' only when it is processed by the ear and the brain. Otherwise it is merely a vibration, a disturbance of air. To say that there is no sound in the absence of a being to effect this process is more than just a semantic game, more than sheer sophistry. It is a matter of accuracy of thought and communication.
The same pertains to the second part of the quotation, because 'crime' requires a precise understanding of what constitutes a 'law', who created that law, what necessity it intends to address, and how rationally it is being enforced. Not having read the entire article I am assuming that none of this is addressed by Ms. Devine, and the implication is that laws are always just or equitable, which they clearly are not.
Enjoyed your Hillsdale article. Hoping your witty language will help when I find myself at a loss for words among conservative friends who applaud our president.
I too have received both mail and emails from the Hillsdale College for years. I never read any of it and just considered it professional spam. I finally hit the unsubscribe button and haven't heard from them since. I realize now that most likely I was deemed a collegiate aspirant and, part of their flock, because I once was a Republicant. Prior to Trump I had the misguided idea that Reaganomics actual worked! Oh well. The path to truth and enlightenment is long....
I hope you sent Ms. Devine a copy of your response to her front page screed. Perhaps, though, it would be viewed by her eyes blinded by the incredible brilliance of
her hero and our now "goldenized" Casa Blanca as just leftist dribble. She may think her article will result in an invitation to dance with him in his Versailles like ballroom.
I enjoyed your literary summary of Hamlet. Shakespeare's Cassius, like Hamlet, understood well the usurping of power, which Caesar did on a far grander scale than Uncle Claudius.
I think Wheaton College, which spawned Russell Vought, is as bad, if not worse than Hillsdale. What do you think?
The Imprimis article contains a significant flaw, and one I have encountered fairly consistently over the years, namely in the use of the following argument:
“It’s a bit like the thought experiment: ‘If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?’ If a crime is committed and no one is responsible, was there actually a crime at all?”
This is far more than a “thought experiment”, for it involves the very nature of communication and what words entail. It ignores the essence of 'sound'. A vibration becomes 'sound' only when it is processed by the ear and the brain. Otherwise it is merely a vibration, a disturbance of air. To say that there is no sound in the absence of a being to effect this process is more than just a semantic game, more than sheer sophistry. It is a matter of accuracy of thought and communication.
The same pertains to the second part of the quotation, because 'crime' requires a precise understanding of what constitutes a 'law', who created that law, what necessity it intends to address, and how rationally it is being enforced. Not having read the entire article I am assuming that none of this is addressed by Ms. Devine, and the implication is that laws are always just or equitable, which they clearly are not.