Aphorism: Greens
If Liberalism is “immanentizing the eschaton”, then Environmentalism is “eschatonizing the immanent”
If Liberalism is “immanentizing the eschaton”, then Environmentalism is “eschatonizing the immanent”
if awesomeness is measured with X*
I am sure everyone must be fed up with Uncle Sam coverage, however frankly speaking blogging wise this is a low hanging fruit, so here is what I think about Koran burning gimmick. As you might have guessed I am against it.
a. It is offensive to a lot of good people.
b. Just like minaret ban and outcry over Love Jihad, it is a emotive, and as such distracts from serious threat of global political Islam.
Having said I am underwhelmed by many of the arguments against it. They are
a. It is fascism. No, it is not. It would have be fascist if US govt were burning piles of Korans. An individual burning Koran, while arguably boorish, doesn't fascism make.
b. It will offend Muslims and boost Jihad. It is true. Burning Koran will offend Muslims. You know what else offends Muslims? US in Iraq, US in Afghanistan, US not intervening in Palestine, US intervening in Palestine, Jews in Israel, Jews in Europe, Jews in Planes, Muslims among Christians, Muslim among Hindus, Muslims among Buddhists, Muslims among Secularists, Christian among Muslims, Hindus among Muslims, Buddhist among Muslims, Sikhs among Muslims, Baha'i among Muslims, Ahmadis among Muslims, Shias among Sunnis, Sunnis among Shias, African Muslims Among Arab Muslims. I could really go on, but I hope you must have gotten the picture.
It doesn't make much sense to fret over offending Muslim sensibilities, because few ruffled feathers are not root cause of jihad, just like lack of democracy is not the cause, or the poverty, or oil.
The cause behind jihad is the supremacism intrinsic to Islam, unless it is excised be ready for more terrorism.
* where X = number of links
Categories:
Civilization,
History,
Religion,
Secularism,
Terrorism
Thus spake
doubtinggaurav
at
5:32 pm
View Comments
All right let's continue as long as we are on roll, now previously we talked about Obama and Colbert, in this post we will see why O' Donnell may be a bad news. But first start with tea parties. For those not familiar with tea parties, they are localized popular movement against Obama's policies. Now while tea party in general has been Godsend to Republicans, miraculously rescuing it from the anticipated oblivion after the route of 2008, some of its choices, among them O' Donnell, have been rather questionable. Now at best I have a superficial understanding (mostly via Hot Air) of the specific races, therefore instead of nitpicking about the candidates, I will like to focus on the broader issue, viz. the rather troubling propensity of tea parties to circumscribe politics with a checklist of simplistic and absolutist positions.
It is troubling because
a.This approach is dismissive of a candidate's judgement, his temperament and his experience. A robust polity depends on all the three.
b. This approach is short sighted. A stable polity like US can not be transformed in a single go. It will take a protracted political battle to bring about the change, Therefore it is necessary to take a long term view which will involve legislative compromises, incremental advances, gradually substituting imprudent policies with prudent ones. Considering this, a unrealistic and puritan approach to politics will only set up for further disappointment and bitterness, ultimately resulting in reversal of fortunes.
There is much wisdom in Buckley's rule.
Let's talk about Uncle Sam a little longer. Stephen Colbert appeared before US Congressional committee on immigration in his blow-hard O' Reillesque persona (via Hot Air again). In a way this just furthers bolsters the argument that American politics is becoming an extension of personal, in this particular instance a result of excessive self-regard and at the same an acute need for peer approval among the demographic group termed as hipsters. This main characteristic of this phenomenon, let's call it colbertization, is trivialization of serious matters, accompanied with self-assuredness and self-righteousness that only comfort and security of living in United States can bring. In it it is reminiscent of what Heinlein termed as "Bread and Circus democracy",
"A perfect democracy, a 'warm body' democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally has no internal feedback for self correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens...which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it...which for the majority translates as 'Bread and Circuses'
"Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader--the barbarians enter Rome."
Categories:
Civilization,
International,
politics,
Society
Thus spake
doubtinggaurav
at
12:48 pm
View Comments
The daily beast has an article arguing that President Obama lacks empathy (via Hot Air). I confess that I find this empathy argument weird.
Obama was never empathetic, he was always a narcissistic dilettante much like Nehru. The reason Obama, and before him W, was elected, is because American politics has become a collective form of personal relationship dynamics.
Bush was elected because not because of his policies, or wisdom, or record, but he was considered a drinking buddy, a decent down to earth guy you could drink with, as opposed to blow-hard Al Gore.
Obama, in contrast, was more lie a high school romance. Candidate Obama was like a cool dreamy boyfriend, and American electorate, a needy, clinging teenage girl with low self esteem.
Well as it often happens cool guy turned out to be a jerk. Better luck next time, please elect Chris Christie.
Rationalism is the last refuge of unimaginative, but aphorism is the last refuge of superficial.