The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Observations on An Examined Life

Over the last several years I began writing short observations and commentary on current political, social, economic, historic, and scientific topics that piqued my interests or aggrieved me. These observations were based on the knowledge and experience gain during my life and career, and my considerations and deliberations of my life and career. Hence, "Observations on an Examined Life" was born. As these observations grew more numerous and somewhat longer I decided to organize them. I shared several of them with my friends and they commented that they were interesting and perhaps I should consider publishing them in some forum. My considerations led me to develop this web site.

These Observations were my first pass on these topics, and since I created them I have extracted, edited, and elaborated on the topics in the "Miscellaneous Items" section of this website. As such, to review my latest thoughts on these topics you should consult the Miscellaneous Items section of this website.

The following are the main topics and links to the web pages on these topics.

Main Topics:

1. General (Apr 2019)
2. Politics (Apr 2019)
3. Political Issues (Jan 2019)
   
4. International Issues (Oct 2018)
   
5. Economic Issues (Oct 2018)
   
6. Social Issues (Oct 2018)
   
7. Miscellaneous Thoughts (Sep 2018)
8. Epilogue and Appendix (Oct 2018)
   
9. Documents, Letters and Speeches (Sep 2018)

Table of Contents

To review a complete, but somewhat lengthy, "Table of Contents" please click the hyperlink.

A New Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution

Based on these observation I have also proposed a rewriting of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution to meets the demands of the 21st century. This rewrite is not a major overhaul, but a streamlined version that also adds particulars to the U.S. Constitution based on our governmental experiences of the 20th and 21st century. Please click "A New Declaration of Independence" or "A New U.S. Constitution" to review my proposed revisions and notes.

A Personal Note

You may be wondering about my qualifications to pontificate on these subjects. I believe that I am qualified because I am a thinking human being. I utilize my knowledge and experience in life, as well as researching both the facts and opinions of others, including those with whom I may disagree. I then apply my reasoning and logical skills to reach an opinion. And it is just my opinion which I readily admit. I am also willing to admit that I may be wrong, and if I discover that I am wrong I am just as readily willing to change my opinion. Therefore, check-back every so often to determine if I have changed my opinion which can be determine by the date of the article.

The incandescent light bulb has often been described as a heat source that provides some light, given that a light bulb generates more heat than it does light. In today's public debates we often find the proponents of an issue providing a lot of heat and only a little light. These observations are meant to provide illumination (light) and not argumentation (heat).

Opponents in today's society often utilize the dialog and debate methodology of Demonize, Denigrate, and Disparage their opponent when discussing issues, policies, and personages. To demonize, denigrate, or disparage the messenger to avoid consideration of the message is not acceptable if the message has supporting evidence.

The only acceptable method of public discourse is disagreement - to be of different opinions. If you are in disagreement with someone you should be cognizant that people of good character can and often disagree with each other. The method of their disagreement is very important to achieve civil discourse. There are two ways you can disagree with someone; by criticizing their opinions or beliefs or critiquing their opinions or beliefs.

• Criticism - Disapproval expressed by pointing out faults or shortcomings.
• Critique - A serious examination and judgment of something.

Most people, and most commentators have forgotten the difference between Criticism and Critique. This has led to the hyper-partisanship in today's society. In a civil society critiquing a viewpoint or policy position should be encouraged. This will often allow for a fuller consideration of the issues, and perhaps a better viewpoint or policy position without invoking hyper-partisanship. We can expect that partisanship will often occur, as people of good character can and often disagree with each other. Criticizing a viewpoint or policy position will often lead to hostility, rancor, and enmity, which results in the breakdown of civil discourse and hyper-partisanship. It is fine to criticize someone for their bad or destructive behavior, but it is best to critique them for their opinions or words. We would all do better if we remember to critique someone, rather than criticize someone.

I would ask anyone who disagrees with what I have written here to please keep this disagreement civil. I am open to critique and will sometimes take criticism. I will always ignore demonization, denigration, and disparagement, or point out the vacuous nature or the character flaws of those that wish to silence the messenger rather than deal with the message.

Please remember that if you disagree with the messenger it is not acceptable to kill the messenger. You may kill the messenger, but the message will remain. If you have any comments, concerns, critiques, or suggestions I can be reached at mwd@profitpages.com. I will review reasoned and intellectual correspondence, and it is possible that I can change my mind, or at least update the contents of these articles. This is why these articles are dated. Whenever I make a change to these articles they will be re-dated. So check back and see if any articles have been updated (or perhaps I shall add articles).