So this morning it's reported that Pat Robertson thinks we should assasinate the President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez. Apparently Chavez has made a lot of political hay in his nation by accusing the US of trying to assasinate hi. Robertson's answer, oblige him. Here's what rubs me the wrong way. Who the hell is Pat Robertson? How many times is this guy going to speak on behalf of the United States as if anyone would listen to his advice?
This is the guy who want's to kill/nuke anything that doesn't fit into his Christian/White-only world. He wanted the State Department nuked in 2003. He wanted Liberal Supreme Court Justices to drop dead in 2004. He believes "activist judges" (i.e. liberal judges) are more dangerous to the USA than Al Queda. Finally, let's not forget that this man thinks we are at war with Islam, not terrorism. He wants us to target Muslims instead of just terrorists.
In this case, he accused Chavez of being a Communist AND a Muslim supporter (OK, the Communist thing is probably true). Now I don't want to get too far into Chavez's politics. He is completely insane, and that's enough. Encouraging his paranoia when he sits on a huge oil reserve is probably a bad idea, especially if we ever get threatened by OPEC. Why is an American preacher, with no political power, speaking for you, me, and this nation? How does he even presume to have a clue what is best for us?
I have noticed this trend that Christian Conservatives and NeoCons have this arrogant blind-eye. They believe their opinion is superior to everyone else's and refuse to see any other option or even accept that their adversary might be as smart as them. They have lost the ability to say "I was wrong" or "Those (insert demeaning liberal term here) have it right on this issue.".
Anyway, I know he won't listen, but you can at least send an email to his lackeys here.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Monday, August 22, 2005
Ayn Rand and the contradictions of Objectivism
I was slumming through a few of my lesser visited forums the other day when a friend of mine brought up an old thread about Ayn Rand and he bemoaned how misunderstood she was. Keeping in mind that he is in his early 20's and that Rand tends to hook every 20-something at some point with her siren song, I gave him this perspective by looking back from 40 to 20...
Ayn Rand is a great portrait of self-contradiction. I love her only for the twisted logic that was her life. Atlas Shrugged is interesting, but I think I made a resolution to never read it again after I hit 30.
Rand's Nutshell Objectivism: "Do what you need to fulfill yourself, but try to do it following my philosophy. Oh! And buy my books so I can be fulfulled."
Gotta love her selling an entire philosophy just to live comfortably. "Elron" Hubbard is another author who came up with a brilliant scheme. Sell Scientology, to sell books. Want the secret of the universe?..buy our texts for $100k I hold Rand in much higher regard, but as I get older, I also become more supercilious.
I don't dismiss everything Rand promoted, but I definitely see strong contradictions in her philosophy that can not be resolved in a simple manner. Her very insistence that total individualism is the nadir of human accomplishment while depending on a social structure to print, distribute, and pay for her lifestyle is a complete piss-off. She wishes to eschew the need for others, but can only do so within a social system her philosophy must ultimately deny.
Personal janitor's philosophy/opinion to follow....warning!: Objectivism is empty if you remove it from a civilized world. Man is still at his core a stupid beast striving to be more. He was incapable of that "more" until he submitted to the safety, organization, and rules a societal structure demands. To proclaim (as Rand does) that she no longer is beholden to those rules because others can toil while she only pursues that which she holds important is a bankrupt philosophy. Bankrupt because it is not universal. For objectivism to work, society must always have some whom are willing to remain within the rules and socialization and benignly ignore objectivist disruption. In other words, we are back to the two-class conundrum of Lang's Metropolis... Slaves and (in this case) willfully ignorant masters.
She was virtuous if nothing else. She did do her best to live by her philosophy her entire life. She followed her virtues explicitly, even dying alone. The problem was the, philosophy was not completely self-contained.
I am not saying there is no admiration. I was a big fan of Rand in my youth, like so many others. The problem is that her "path" is not fruitful. It has no destination. It's spiritual stock with little value. I know of no "old" Objectivists. One of the reasons I am a Buddhist is because it provides what Objectivism lacks (basic social acknowledgments and true pluralism) while still demanding personal responsibility and self-awareness (a la Objectivism) from the individual.
I do miss all the people I used to debate Rand with. The Lyceum is rather empty these days. What ever happened to the people who could read criticism of their own philosophy and actually LISTEN to it and take it to heart? We have lost something since 9/11. Too much fear. Too much partisanship. Too many civil liberties and religious freedoms lost. Looking back, I realize that even I have been tugged into more extreme positions than I once held, if only to protect a few of the values I hold dear.
Even the lowly Janitor gets to talk with an instructor from time to time.
Ayn Rand is a great portrait of self-contradiction. I love her only for the twisted logic that was her life. Atlas Shrugged is interesting, but I think I made a resolution to never read it again after I hit 30.
Rand's Nutshell Objectivism: "Do what you need to fulfill yourself, but try to do it following my philosophy. Oh! And buy my books so I can be fulfulled."
Gotta love her selling an entire philosophy just to live comfortably. "Elron" Hubbard is another author who came up with a brilliant scheme. Sell Scientology, to sell books. Want the secret of the universe?..buy our texts for $100k I hold Rand in much higher regard, but as I get older, I also become more supercilious.
I don't dismiss everything Rand promoted, but I definitely see strong contradictions in her philosophy that can not be resolved in a simple manner. Her very insistence that total individualism is the nadir of human accomplishment while depending on a social structure to print, distribute, and pay for her lifestyle is a complete piss-off. She wishes to eschew the need for others, but can only do so within a social system her philosophy must ultimately deny.
Personal janitor's philosophy/opinion to follow....warning!: Objectivism is empty if you remove it from a civilized world. Man is still at his core a stupid beast striving to be more. He was incapable of that "more" until he submitted to the safety, organization, and rules a societal structure demands. To proclaim (as Rand does) that she no longer is beholden to those rules because others can toil while she only pursues that which she holds important is a bankrupt philosophy. Bankrupt because it is not universal. For objectivism to work, society must always have some whom are willing to remain within the rules and socialization and benignly ignore objectivist disruption. In other words, we are back to the two-class conundrum of Lang's Metropolis... Slaves and (in this case) willfully ignorant masters.
She was virtuous if nothing else. She did do her best to live by her philosophy her entire life. She followed her virtues explicitly, even dying alone. The problem was the, philosophy was not completely self-contained.
I am not saying there is no admiration. I was a big fan of Rand in my youth, like so many others. The problem is that her "path" is not fruitful. It has no destination. It's spiritual stock with little value. I know of no "old" Objectivists. One of the reasons I am a Buddhist is because it provides what Objectivism lacks (basic social acknowledgments and true pluralism) while still demanding personal responsibility and self-awareness (a la Objectivism) from the individual.
I do miss all the people I used to debate Rand with. The Lyceum is rather empty these days. What ever happened to the people who could read criticism of their own philosophy and actually LISTEN to it and take it to heart? We have lost something since 9/11. Too much fear. Too much partisanship. Too many civil liberties and religious freedoms lost. Looking back, I realize that even I have been tugged into more extreme positions than I once held, if only to protect a few of the values I hold dear.
Even the lowly Janitor gets to talk with an instructor from time to time.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
George Bush should be impeached
Follow me here, even if you are a Republican. We Impeached a sitting President for getting a blowjob in the White House. How does that compare to a President that killed 1700 soldiers? Whichever of the pat Bush "smirk and shoot" excuses you use, he should be impeached. Either he was:
A: Stupid enough to be duped into believing questionable intelligence from unreliable sources. Thus he's guilty of gross incompetence.
B: Deceitful enough that the British story of fabricated intelligence and coerced analysts is true. Thus, he's guilty of fraud.
No matter your party, you must admit that the Democrats had the fortitude to vote against their own boy Clinton when he lied to the American public. They had the ethical cajones to put it to a hearing and vote. The question I have is, where are the Republicans? It is screamingly obvious at this point that this administration's execution of preemptive warfare was so completely flawed that negligence is whispered in the Capitol. Why have no Republicans come forward to question the decision making in the White House? Shouldn't a decision that cost the USA billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and unestimated global credibility get equal treatment?
It's time we as a nation demand a review of this President. He will not offer one unless forced. This is the first President with an ego so large he is incapable of admitting he ever made any mistakes as President! Certainly a child of priveledge, who has never been held accountable for anything in his entire life should at least be called to the mat to explain the deaths of 1700 American soldiers?
I know we are supposed to trust that our President knows best, but I have not been able to do that since learning that WMD's are as scarce in Iraq as a secure police station. There comes a moment when we must stand up as citizens, and demand from our representatives that they hold themselves and our President accountable for their decisions. In this case, we are allowing the man who could quite possibly do more to harm our nation than any President in 20 years to pass through his term unscathed. At least we stopped that guy who got the blow job from doing anything productive his last year in office. Whew!
Time to stand up people, get pissed, no matter your party. Demand accountability.
A: Stupid enough to be duped into believing questionable intelligence from unreliable sources. Thus he's guilty of gross incompetence.
B: Deceitful enough that the British story of fabricated intelligence and coerced analysts is true. Thus, he's guilty of fraud.
No matter your party, you must admit that the Democrats had the fortitude to vote against their own boy Clinton when he lied to the American public. They had the ethical cajones to put it to a hearing and vote. The question I have is, where are the Republicans? It is screamingly obvious at this point that this administration's execution of preemptive warfare was so completely flawed that negligence is whispered in the Capitol. Why have no Republicans come forward to question the decision making in the White House? Shouldn't a decision that cost the USA billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and unestimated global credibility get equal treatment?
It's time we as a nation demand a review of this President. He will not offer one unless forced. This is the first President with an ego so large he is incapable of admitting he ever made any mistakes as President! Certainly a child of priveledge, who has never been held accountable for anything in his entire life should at least be called to the mat to explain the deaths of 1700 American soldiers?
I know we are supposed to trust that our President knows best, but I have not been able to do that since learning that WMD's are as scarce in Iraq as a secure police station. There comes a moment when we must stand up as citizens, and demand from our representatives that they hold themselves and our President accountable for their decisions. In this case, we are allowing the man who could quite possibly do more to harm our nation than any President in 20 years to pass through his term unscathed. At least we stopped that guy who got the blow job from doing anything productive his last year in office. Whew!
Time to stand up people, get pissed, no matter your party. Demand accountability.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
