HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Dec. 15, 2006 Prior to the mid-term elections this past November many credible people questioned whether President Bush was in or out of touch with reality with regard to his war with Iraq . The overwhelming voices of voters for change could not be any clearer than the republicans losing their majority rule in both the house and the senate. The tides are changing. Bush’s continuous mantra of “staying the course” or “winning” this war on terror, despite contrary opinions of experts and advisors in the field of warfare, has fueled misgivings regarding President Bush’s ability to lead our country. Events leading up to this war with Iraq has proven to be trumped up, invented, or fabricated to effectuate Bush’s end result. The following information will present a clear picture of Bush’s absolute inability to have a clear, rational, or cogent thought which forms the basis for his impeachment.
Before one can adequately compare or contrast the critical thought process or lack thereof with regard to President Bush it (critical thought) need be defined. Critical thought can be broken down into thought or thinking and then further refined to include that which is critical vs. that which is uncritical. For purposes of this article thought and thinking may be used interchangeably and that which is critical or rational will be compared and contrasted to that which is not or irrational. Socratic thinking and its connection to background knowledge or past experiences on decision making and problem solving will be interjected for discussion. Some potential barriers to critical thought will be highlighted.
Kirby, Goodpaster, and Levine (1999, p. 5) define thinking as brain activity leading to communication, written or spoken. Thought says Ruggiero (2004, Ch. 2, p. 17) is a deliberate mental pursuit targeted at problem solving, decision making, gaining understanding, or steering activities. The act of thinking critically according to Ruggiero investigates allegations and arguments to ascertain if there is merit or value. This investigative action looks for answers where none appear readily available which is the crux of our current situation in Iraq and an area where President Bush seems to be completely remiss. Using these explanations and definitions as a basis for critical thought and moving ahead one step we will examine the effect that background knowledge and open dialogue has on the critical thought process. Schwarze and Lape (2001, preface) state that ones regular reasoning stems from considering the probability of what may occur or what has already occurred. Rational people, according to Schwarze and Lape (2001, p. 1), engage others in discussion about their thoughts, beliefs, and alternative solutions to problems posed. Therefore, as Schwarze and Lape suggest, the larger the pool of background knowledge one has the better decisions they are likely to make.
Kirby, Goodpaster, and Levine (1999, p. 10) rank the ability to think critically above that of making money in terms of importance. They specify three examples (p. 2) human rational thought and they are: to make plans and have purpose, to project accurate expectations or outcomes, and to be able to plan for their futures. Notable areas lacking in the Bush Administrations approach to Iraq are plans, project expectations, and outcomes. Ruggiero (2004, Chapter 1, p. 5) finds time and place to also be determining factors in how one perceives or views things and arrives at viable solutions from critical thought. For purposes of simplification the following chart (taken from Ruggiero, 2004, chapter 2, p. 19) will provide generalizations regarding the differences and similarities between critical or rational thought and uncritical or irrational thought.
Kirby, etal. (1999, p. 13) states that thinking is an individual process. How and where one was reared or currently resides might determine what an individual fears, how or what the individual believes, what emotions that individual might exhibit, whether that individual is optimistic or pessimist. From the highest post in our land, The White house, it may be a difficult undertaking for President Bush to see things through the eyes of other people because he feels he knows best (see above chart), but listening is a necessary component of learning how to make the best decisions for all parties involved. The places (p. 14) a person works can create barriers to rational thought because this platform exposes them to workplace ethics, personal conduct, and dress code. Religion, which holds a high position in President Bush’s life, is another source where potential barriers might be cultivated and infringe upon the critical thought process. (p. 15-16) Ones concept (p. 19) of self can either hinder or direct their critical thought. It is this combination of genetic and cultural forces that can create a barrier to a person’s critical thinking. Being attuned to these potential barriers can help one to overcome them and become a sound and rational thinker.
A lot more goes into critical or rational thought and good decision
making than one might realize. Ruggiero (2004, Chapter 2, p. 19) said that
rational thinkers direct their thoughts and not vice versa. Critical thinkers
(p. 21) investigate the evidence presented to ascertain its relevance or lack
thereof, they interpret that information to see if it is reasonable or valid and
supports the premises, they use their best judgment to reach a conclusion via
testing the logic presented, and they (p. 22) engage in discussion that can help
them to understand and further promote problem solving and good decision making.
Habits for the critical thinker include: having a good concept of self, keeping
an open mind, being honest in what one knows or does not know, listening to the
ideas and input of others, and seeking solutions based on factual or valid
evidence can help one form a solid basis for critical thought that leads to
greater problem solving and rational decision making. Could President Bush learn
to be a critical thinker at this late date? I say most likely not. Therefore, it
is the duty of all elected officials to hear and act on the voices and pleas of
their home states populace to move toward change. Change by beginning immediate
impeachment proceedings for President Bush, Vice President Cheney and any or all
others who are negligent in misleading American and world public into this
ill-fated and ill-conceived war with
Iraq . The sooner we change course and
establish a credible and rational new leader for our country the faster we can
move toward a peaceful, self-governing Middle-east, and reestablishment of
relationships with our allies that that was severed and broken when Bush
wrongfully took office and set his sights on Iraq.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
