Skip to main content

Confronting your own arguments..

As most regular readers know, I do a great deal of traveling to work as a consultant with history teachers nationwide. I spent this weekend in Washington DC, playing tour guide. I'll admit that sometimes that these are long days, especially when I'm hearing somebody spout their patter for the fourth or fifth time.

But this weekend was different.

I had never been to the International Spy Museum before, and--frankly--it was the single most impressive facility I have visited since the Holocaust Museum opened. The exhibits are not only first-rate, but the museum is a for-profit facility that is not sitting there sucking up my tax money.

We got the special tour, from the museum's historian, Dr. Thomas Boghert, and an hour-long session with former senior CIA operative Melissa Mahle.


Aside from her engaging presention, what was refreshing about Ms. Mahle was her lack of equivocation. She was honest about how badly the CIA blew any number of issues around 9/11, and on torture she said, "It's simply wrong. Unethical and wrong."

That evening we had a talk from as far to the other side of the political spectrum as you could get, with Dr. Allida Black of George Washington University's Eleanor Roosevelt Project.



In political terms I am pretty far distant from Dr. Black, but she is (a) the foremost Eleanor Roosevelt scholar on the planet; (b) an incredibly good speaker; and (c) one of the most intellectually impressive human beings I have run across. When you encounter somebody like Dr. Black, there are two things you can do: ignore her and cocoon yourself in your own beliefs, refusing to accept the challenge she represents, or take the opportunity to examine the central core of what you think in response to her presentation.

I'll be doing the second. Dr. Black pointed out the primary rule that Eleanor Roosevelt learned about debate: do not go into an argument until you can make all of your opponents best arguments as strongly as he or she can, and have figured out how to refute them. So look for me to be trying to challenge a few personal core beliefs over the next month or two.

Comments

Unknown said…
What an interesting weekend for you, Steve!

Next time I get a chance, I intend to visit the International Spy Museum.

Good advice from Eleanor Roosevelt. Following that advice could shut me up completely for awhile, which is probably just what I need.

Anyway, I will be looking forward to your self-challenge of some of your core beliefs, when the time comes.

Perry Hood
Anonymous said…
A quick, personal spy story:

In November 2000, having contracted to have a home built in Lewes, we put our home on the market and sold it for a few thousand under our asking price within two weeks to a single woman who was going to have her elderly parents come to live with her. She told us that her dad had early stage Alzheimer's, and the second kitchen downstairs would be enable them to live privately downstairs. We settled around thanksgiving time, and moved out.

A few days later, our former next door neighbor in Vienna called us in Lewes to ask about the new owners, why they would be having installed multiple telephone lines. We had no idea.

To make a long story short, the FBI made an arrest about two months later when an attempt was made to make a drop for the Russians in a nearby park. It turned out that the FBI had purchased our house and used it as a surveillance location to observe the house directly across the street from us.

Final comment: Several months later, the FBI sold the house, making a profit of about $13K.

I should have held out for more!

Perry Hood

PS: Bob Hanson, notorious spy for the Russians now in prison for life, lived directly across the street from us in Vienna, VA!

And "that's the end of the story"!

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...