www milind org

Advocatus Diaboli is Latin for Devil’s Advocate. Its original use (which persists to this day) was to describe an official of the Catholic church whose job it was to argue the case against canonization (here’s hoping the one for JP Duece is a good one). The more common use, these days, is to describe someone who takes the opposite position in an argument, often simply for the sake of opposition.

The hardest part of playing Devil’s Advocate is when you don’t actually agree with the position you are taking. I think that in some ways this is the truest test of one’s argumentative skills; it’s much easier to argue from passion than it is to argue simply from facts, and it’s nigh impossible to generate passion for a position you dislike (unless you just happen to like arguments). Taking the Devil’s Advocate position can also be beneficial: by arguing the other side, you can often discover flaws in, or better counter-arguments for, your own position.

It’s something that I used to like to do (because hey, I like arguments). But I’ve noticed something troubling. I’m having a harder and harder time playing a good Devil’s Advocate. Which is to say, I am no longer able to argue against a position that I support.

This bothers me because I think this indicates that I can no longer argue dispassionately. If I have a strong position on an issue, I can’t distance myself from that position; when I try to take a position counter to my beliefs, I spend most of my time thinking, “Man, this is a stupid argument,” or something similar.

A good example of this is the Social Security debate. I can’t come up with a good argument for privatizing Social Security that doesn’t seem either to have an obvious counter, to be a simple strawman or to be plain dishonest. Maybe it’s because the arguments really are stupid. Or maybe it’s because I’ve just become dogmatic. That second option worries me.

Given that it doesn’t really happen for issues that I don’t care strongly about (I am perfectly willing to argue both sides of a gun control argument), that second option seems like it could be the truth. I think it may be a consequence of becoming more politically aware, and at the same time becoming more strident in my defense of my positions. I’m so tied to my position that I can’t countenance arguing against it.

So, is dogma bad in and of itself? Or is it only bad when it’s obviously flawed? Or is it ok for me to have this problem? Is it even a problem? I don’t know. It’s (obviously) something I’ve been thinking about for a while, and something I’ll keep thinking about.

Quoth the President during todays Press Conference:

“There’s a lot of gas reserves around the world. Gas can only be transported by ship, though, when you liquefy it, when you put it in solid form”

Recently, a couple of Cornell students have chained themselves to a tree to protest Cornell’s plans to build a parking lot off of University Avenue, which would involve paving over a wooded area that has come to be called “Redbud Woods.” Other than chaining themselves to the tree, the protestors have been holding up signs reading “Honk to save Redbud Woods,” or other similar sentiments, setting off a cacophany of noises.

Chethan seems to recall that at times the signs actually read “Honk if you love democracy!” a decidedly different sentiment than “Honk to save a bunch of trees,” casting doubts on my impression of Ithaca as a tree-hugging hippy-town. Ok, not really; Ithaca most certainly is a tree-hugging hippy-town.

Now, far be it from me to denigrate all those who love nature and trees and hippies as, uh, hippies. I consider myself a bit of an environmentalist myself. But I’m also a pragmatist, and the parking situation at Cornell is, frankly, abysmal, especially for students. Also, as per the Ithaca Times, the pro-trees groups have rather cynically named the area “Redbud Woods” only after Cornell announced that they planned to raze the woods. This seems to be similar to making the face of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge the cuddly caribou rather than the frozen tundra (as what promises to be a lengthy aside, it’s all a matter of framing. I am, in fact, against drilling in the wildlife refuge, but just as it benefits conservative groups when people refer to it as ANWR thereby disassociating it from the idea of “wildlife refuge,” it behooves environmental groups to make what amounts to a frozen wasteland as cuddly as possible. Similary, “Redbud Woods” sounds better than “bunch of trees you probably never knew existed in your drunken walk up and down University Ave.”).

So given all of this, where do I fall? I’m not really sure. I think that the University could certainly use more parking area, but I’m also in favor of sustainable development. How about trading the trees in the parking area for planting new ones (or transplanting old ones) to some other locale?

I suspect that a majority of Cornellians prefer the parking lot too: today I saw a counter protest set up next to the chained students with signs that read, among other things, “Honk if you love PARKING!” Needless to say, they rather out-honked the hippy contingent. Fairly amusing, if you ask me.

My brother got himself a summer internship at Credit Suisse First Boston for the summer. He’ll be working as a trader. That’s entertaining in and of itself, as they’re presumably going to put my brother in charge of other people’s money. That should end up with my brother’s becoming either the next Warren Buffet or the next Michael Milken. I’ll leave it to you to decide which is more likely. Then again, even Michael Milken is filthy rich (Warren Buffet having progressed beyond filthy rich and straight on to even-multiple-dousings-with-bleach-won’t-help rich).

But the more amusing part is who he will be working with. He was taken out to dinner by the CSFB crew to some fancy French restaurant here in Ithaca during which his love for college basketball, specifically the brand of basketball played in the great state of North Carolina, came up in conversation. Apparently, one of his co-interns for the summer, working in the same division as him is a certain Lee Melchionni. Yes, this Lee Melchionni. Did I mention that my brother prefers a, shall we say, “lighter” shade of blue?

This will undoubtedly lead to all sorts of hilarity at CSFB this summer. My brother claims that he will wear his “UNC 2005 National Champions” t-shirt to work the first day. Or perhaps ask Lee why he didn’t box out on Marvin Williams when UNC beat Duke at the Dean Dome. Or maybe ask about his views on Coach K’s American Express Card.

Given that Lee has about 8 inches on him, I don’t know how long the taunting will last. But it should be fun while it does.

Maybe it’s not odd that my first “journal entry” on the website is going to be about the NCAA basketball finals. Granted, it would have been better if NC State had been playing, but as the likelihood of that’s happening is really quite low, I have to work with what I have. I actually don’t have much to say about the game itself (it wound up being close, and rather good, but for most of the game, it looked like UNC was going to run away with it). What’s weirder are the conflicting emotions. Do I want UNC to win to reiterate ACC superiority and the general better-ness of basketball in the state of North Carolina? Or do I want Illinois to win because that would both win my pool and jibe with my general hatred of UNC basketball. Unfortunately, rather than resulting in a situation where no matter what happens, I am happy, I am instead vaguely disappointed with the outcome regardless. Ah well. There’s always next year!