New post by Sam Harris, "On the Freedom to Offend an Imaginary God." [personal communication; excerpt:]
What exactly was in the film? Who made it? What were their motives? Was Muhammad really depicted? Was that a Qur’an burning, or some other book? Questions of this kind are obscene. Here is where the line must be drawn and defended without apology: We are free to burn the Qur’an or any other book, and to criticize Muhammad or any other human being. Let no one forget it.Note the credit on the photograph in the article "Plans for giant Antarctic marine sanctuary falter." [the writer's son is credited; personal communication; excerpt:]
At moments like this, we inevitably hear—from people who don’t know what it’s like to believe in paradise—that religion is just a way of channeling popular unrest. [They say:] The true source of the problem can be found in the history of western aggression in the region. It is our policies, rather than our freedoms, that they hate. [Harris:] I believe that the future of liberalism—and much else—depends on our overcoming this ruinous self-deception. Religion only works as a pretext for political violence because many millions of people actually believe what they say they believe: that imaginary crimes like blasphemy and apostasy are killing offenses.
Most secular liberals think that all religions are the same, and they consider any suggestion to the contrary a sign of bigotry. Somehow, this article of faith survives daily disconfirmation....
The point, however, is that I can say all these things about Mormonism, and disparage Joseph Smith to my heart’s content, without fearing that I will be murdered for it. Secular liberals ignore this distinction at every opportunity and to everyone’s peril. Take a moment to reflect upon the existence of the musical The Book of Mormon. Now imagine the security precautions that would be required to stage a similar production about Islam. The project is unimaginable—not only in Beirut, Baghdad, or Jerusalem, but in New York City.
WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP)—Antarctica's Ross Sea is often described as the most isolated and pristine ocean on Earth, a place where seals and penguins still rule the waves and humans are about as far away as they could be. But even there it has proven difficult, and maybe impossible, for nations to agree on how strongly to protect the environment.
The United States and New Zealand have spent two years trying to agree on an Alaska-sized marine sanctuary where fishing would be banned and scientists could study climate change. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton took a strong interest in the outcome, regularly prodding diplomats, and New Zealand recently sent a delegation to Washington to hash out a tentative deal....
From Robin Sharma’s book, The Top 200 Secrets of Success & the Pillars of Self-Mastery, this quote relates to our exchange about the illusion of time:
155. Serve Others
Our lives have been described as a parenthesis in eternity. We are but a small blip on the stage of the Universe. As we can take nothing with us when we leave, then the real meaning of our existence must be to give and serve others. Keep this in mind. When you wake up early in the morning, repeat the mantra: "I will serve others today, I will care for others today and I will be kind today." This kind of living will bring you huge returns if you stay on the purpose of aiding others rather than on the outcome of personal gain. [personal communication]
Here's what the New York Times Book Review said about it on August 5:
Brockman's website question, "What scientific concept would improve everybody's cognitive took kit?" drew 165 responses from scientiests, sculptors, linguists, and museum curators, each presenting a specialized theory or term that should be adopted into common parlance...Psychologists dwell on the power of attention...Physicists suggest that we should become more comfortable with uncertainty...An ambitious few propose spreading the scientific method to the masses, with Richard Dawkins suggesting that if double-bind control experiments were standard classroom fare, we would not "be seduced by homeopaths and other quacks." [Yes, thanks, UNC had the book and I've already borrowed it and started to read; personal communication]Provocative read: "We Vote, They Rule: The Case for Voter Rebellion," by Scott Tucker (September 16, 2012) [personal communication; excerpt:]
The latest conventions of the two Titanic parties—no more than ruling class faction fights over which captains will steer the ship of state to the next disaster—are already history. Now we can get back to the politics of peace, economic democracy, and ecological sanity with less distraction. This week I watched Bill Moyers interview Dr. Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala, respectively the presidential and vice presidential candidates of the Green Party. Both candidates made a good case for voter rebellion against the corporate duopoly of Democrats and Republicans. Stein was best at underlining the key points of the “Green New Deal,” the program to rebuild our economy on a sane and sustainable ecological foundation. No one else running for high office is as sharply eloquent as Stein when making the case for a truly comprehensive health care system.Limerick of the week:
While Boris was rotting in prison,
He thought only of nuclear fission;
His bombs wouldn't go off,
Other inmates would scoff,
He eventually died of derision.
I've read the "Green New Deal," and several of its goals are indeed quite worthy. Overall, though, I found it frightening. There is no aspect of our lives, be it employment, housing, banking, education, the environment, or private business, in which the federal government would not have a controlling role. Note that I didn't write regulatory role, because the document doesn't seek to harness initiative but rather to drug it and put to bed. Try as I might, I could find no reason for a person to risk labor and capital in such a state. It wasn't specified in the document, but it left me with no doubt that the new regime would include a Ministry of Happiness.
ReplyDeleteKen, thanks for the summary and critique of the "Green New Deal." I haven't read it, but maybe the contributor of the item has and can provide further assessment. In the meantime, I'm going to go read it myself. I take it that http://www.jillstein.org/green_new_deal is a reliable way to access it?
DeleteI suppose that Thomas L. Friedman must have written about it in one or more of his columns, do you know?
Morris, the "Green New Deal" that today's post cites is only in small part about a green energy policy. It's a political platform, and "Green" is a reference to the the Green Party. Friedman's "Green New Deal" was written 5 years ago and deals entirely with a green (little "g") energy policy.
DeleteKen, yes, I understand that the political platform is a particular thing within the larger field, and that's of course how you were commenting, I think.
DeleteBut I meant it's possible that Friedman has commented on the platform in the larger context also. However, after several minutes of googling, I haven't been able to find anything, so perhaps he hasn't.
Since the Fed sets pollution and safety standards for business, educational requirements for schools, and controls the money supply, the tax rate, and who gets the tax breaks, don't they already have a controlling role?
ReplyDeleteIndeed, the federal government has a constitutional responsibility to control certain activities: immigration, interstate commerce, and national defense. Not educational requirements, though, unless you mean equal rights protection or tying funding to low-bar performance standards. Anyhow, I made a point of saying that "there is no aspect of our lives" that the Greens wouldn't like to control. The difference in degree is everything.
DeleteMaybe that difference in degree is just what people need to get their collective act together. I was raised to be a staunch believer in individual rights, but when I look at the ridiculous choices some people make, maybe more control is just what they need.
DeleteOur health care costs are exploding because people won't eat properly or exercise, yet they want to live forever even if the rest of us are taxed into bankruptcy paying for their drugs. Maybe we need some over-the-top governmental control so people are forced to take better care of themselves, or at least so the rest of us don't have to pay the price because they chose to over eat and under exercise.
We have an energy situation, yet a huge number of people are still trundling around in behemoth SUVs. If people won't make wise choices about what they drive, maybe we do need an agency to force the issue. Same for the highway death toll. Americans kill 40,000 fellow drivers each year, mainly because they drive too fast and too close. How about a limiter that restricts vehicles to 80 miles per hour and cuts the power if they tailgate?
When we look at the ingrained Jeffersonian ideal of individual rights, we assume they should apply to everyone. But we forget about the individual responsibility aspect of the equation. Individual decision making worked for Jefferson because he was an advocate of two hours of daily exercise and he was always experimenting with growing and eating healthy plants. Maybe Jeffersonian individualism just doesn't work for today's masses who lack the individual responsibility to make good choices about what to do with their individual rights.