Slovenske burke

Pred desetletjem, sredi polemik okoli lokacije ljubljanske džamije, je Drago Jančar v eseju za Sobotno prilogo opisal izkušnjo iz časov socializma, ko je delal kot scenarist za Viba film. Ta je ta dolga leta domovala v ljubljanski cerkvi Sv. Jožefa, ki jo je oblast po vojni odvzela jezuitom in jo spremenila v filmski studio.

To je med zaposlenimi rodilo šalo, češ, pride delegacija iz tujine, peljejo jo na izlet po Sloveniji in eden od gostov navdušeno vzklikne: »Kako prosvetljena dežela! Na vsakem gričku filmski studio«.

Ob rojstni uri islamofobije na Slovenskem je pisatelj opozoril na nespoštovanje do verskih pravic in religije nasploh, ki se je v socializmu zasidralo v družbo in privrelo na dan v nasprotovanju osnovni pravici verske manjšine, da postavi svojo shodnico.

Toda to je le del zgodbe. Že res, da je protimuslimanstvo črpalo iz protiverskih predsodkov in pogosto šlo z roko v roki s protikatolištvom. To je bilo očitno pri Jelinčičevi SNS. Toda sredi prejšnjega desetletja se je v krogih, bližjih tradicionalni desnici katoliške provenience (glavni junak kampanje proti džamiji je bil nekdanji član N.Si) pojavil nov tip islamofobije. Služila ni nabiranju političnih točk med katoliškimi volivci (ki jih, roko na srce, v mestni občini ljubljanski ni zelo veliko), temveč kot vaba za ribarjenje v širšem bazenu postkomunistične mentalitete; kot orodje za preseganje omejitev lastne volilne baze in »širjenje v sredino«.

To je bila preživetvena strategija obrobnih skupinic, ki so jim desnosredinske stranke obrnile hrbet. Zbor za Ljubljano, platforma intelektualcev za podporo županskemu kandidatu desnice, je tedaj izjavil, da v moderni evropski prestolnici mošeja sodi v samo središče mesta.

"Ob rojstni uri islamofobije na Slovenskem je pisatelj opozoril na nespoštovanje do verskih pravic in religije nasploh, ki se je v socializmu zasidralo v družbo in privrelo na dan v nasprotovanju osnovni pravici verske manjšine, da postavi svojo shodnico."

“Ob rojstni uri islamofobije na Slovenskem je pisatelj opozoril na nespoštovanje do verskih pravic in religije nasploh, ki se je v socializmu zasidralo v družbo in privrelo na dan v nasprotovanju osnovni pravici verske manjšine, da postavi svojo shodnico.”

Continue reading

Advertisements

Tedenski izbor


branje5

Someone please tell me if my progression here is inaccurate in any way:

1) Family owners of small-town Indiana pizzeria spend zero time or energy commenting on gay issues.

2) TV reporter from South Bend walks inside the pizzeria to ask the owners what they think of the controversial Religious Restoration Freedom Act. Owner Crystal O’Connor responds, “If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no….We are a Christian establishment.” O’Connor also says—actually promises is the characterization here—that the establishment will continue to serve any gay or non-Christian person that walks through their door.

3) The Internet explodes with insults directed at the O’Connor family and its business, including a high school girls golf coach in Indiana who tweets “Who’s going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?” Many of the enraged critics assert, inaccurately, that Memories Pizza discriminates against gay customers.

4) In the face of the backlash, the O’Connors close the pizzeria temporarily, and say they may never reopen, and in fact might leave the state. “I don’t know if we will reopen, or if we can, if it’s safe to reopen,” Crystal O’Connor tells The Blaze. “I’m just a little guy who had a little business that I probably don’t have anymore,” Kevin O’Connor tells the L.A. Times.

Rod Dreher titles his useful post on this grotesque affair “Into the Christian Closet,” and it’s apt considering the progression above. If only these non-activist restaurateurs had simply kept their views to themselves when asked by a reporter, April Fool’s would have been like any other day for them.

But as it stands, they’re now being trashed not just by social-justice mobs from afar, but by powerful politicians where they live and work. Democratic State Sen. Jim Arnold represents the O’Connors’s district.

Burn Her! – Matt Welch, Reason

Continue reading

Tedenski izbor

branje3

 

Ni problem idejna sorodnost nekaterih političnih strank in Cerkve. Taka sorodnost je dobrodošla. Tudi ni problem, če Cerkev kdaj nakaže, katera stranka ji je po krščanskih etičnih merilih in družbenem nauku bližja. Na tem mestu bi celo predlagal, da bi se kdaj kak organ pri SŠK, denimo Komisija za pravičnost in mir, oglasil z (pol)uradno (a nezavezujočo) oceno strankarskih programov jasno in glasno imenovavši stranke – pa naj „cerkvena učiteljica“ Ranka Ivelja še tako zavija z očmi. Bolje jasno povedana beseda nad pultom kot šepetajoča hipnoza volivca pod pultom.
Problem je, ko politično poškoduje eklezialno. Ko politika v cerkveno občestvo vnese svoje kriterije razločevanja, kdo je in kdo ni na pravi poti. Naj ponazorim s svežim primerom dveh duhovniških imen. Revija Reporter, 23. marec 2015: pišoči duhovnik Janez Turinek na strani 55, s strani Boštjana M. Turka komentirani duhovnik Milan Knep na strani 35. Turinekovim antikomunističnim erupcijam je dana cela Reporterjeva plahta, Knepovi dialogi z zakoncema Hribar so hudo okrcani. Turinek lahko zapiše, kar se mu zljubi, za Knepa je med vrsticami sugerirano, da ni primeren za odgovornega za katehezo v ljubljanski nadškofiji. Uredniško sporočilo revije je moč dešifrirati takole: militantni duhovniki (t,j, katoličani) à la Janez Turinek so okej, mostograditeljski duhovniki (t.j. katoličani) à la Milan Knep niso okej!
V času Udbe se je temu reklo diferenciacija klera (prim. isti Reporter, str. 19). Cilj diferenciacije? Nič drugega kot nadzor politike nad religijo.
***

Here’s the thing: Having been advertised to our whole lives, we millennials have highly sensitive BS meters, and we’re not easily impressed with consumerism or performances.

In fact, I would argue that church-as-performance is just one more thing driving us away from the church, and evangelicalism in particular.

Many of us, myself included, are finding ourselves increasingly drawn to high church traditions Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Episcopal Church, etc. precisely because the ancient forms of liturgy seem so unpretentious, so unconcerned with being “cool,” and we find that refreshingly authentic.

What millennials really want from the church is not a change in style but a change in substance.

We want an end to the culture wars. We want a truce between science and faith. We want to be known for what we stand for, not what we are against.

We want to ask questions that don’t have predetermined answers.

We want churches that emphasize an allegiance to the kingdom of God over an allegiance to a single political party or a single nation.

Why Millenials are Leaving the Church – Rachel Held Evans, CNN blogs

Continue reading

Nekaj misli ob novem družinskem zakoniku

Priznam, da so me ob sprejemu novega Družinskega zakona preplavljala močna čustva. Čeprav sem razumsko seveda pričakoval oz. vedel, da bo levičarska večina v Državnem zboru nov zakon potrdila, sem na nek najosnovnejši način vseeno bil razočaran nad neznosno aroganco današnjih oblastnikov, ki si drznejo razmišljati o redefiniciji nečesa tako osnovnega, kot je družina. Kot je zapisal že Barbarossa v svojem prispevku, je družina skupnost oz. institucija, v katero po naravnem pravu država nima nikakršnih pravic posegati. Družina je namreč obstajala pred vsakršno državno oblastjo, je, če smem uporabiti nekoliko obrabljen izraz, osnovna celica vsakršne človeške družbe. Pri tem sploh ni važno, kakšen odnos ima ta družba do homoseksualnosti kot take. Vsakdo, ki je denimo vsaj malo bral o zgodovini antične Grčije, ve, da je v tedanji tamkajšnji družbi homoseksualnost bila splošno sprejeta. Na nek način so homoseksualni odnosi bili razumljeni celo kot moralno večvredni nasproti heteroseksualnim (spomnimo se samo Plutarhovih življenjepisov). A nihče ni razmišljal o tem, da bi te odnose označil kot poroko oz. jih skušal institucionalizirati kot družino.

Continue reading

O vprašanju prioritete

V naslednjih tednih se bodo mediji znova ukvarjali z vprašanjem družine, kar bo znova onemogočalo ukvarjanje z veliko bolj perečim vprašanjem dela. V Sloveniji se sicer skoraj nihče več ne poroča, hkrati pa je tudi vse več ljudi brez dela. Vzroke za to moramo iskati v ekonomskih dejavnikih, s katerimi pa se tudi v naslednjih tednih ne bo nihče ukvarjal. Mnogi se namreč ne poročajo zato, ker s tem ne pridobijo nikakršnih ugodnosti, mnogi pa so brez dela zaradi neprilagojenosti delovne zakonodaje dejanskemu stanju. Tako levičarjem kot desničarjem je v medsebojni bitki ljubši kulturni boj za simbolno definicijo družine, ne pa strukturne spremembe, ki bi posledično omogočile tudi večje število družin. Šele dovolj preskrbljeni posamezniki lahko začnejo razmišljati o skupnem življenju in potomstvu. Navsezadnje je poroka vedno bila ravno oblikovanje nove ekonomske celice, ne pa le goli simbolni akt oblikovanja zveze dveh posameznikov.

Manj kot tri leta po referendumu o družinskem zakoniku, kjer se je celotna kampanja pred tem bíla le glede vprašanja kdo lahko je družina, kdo se lahko poroča in kdo lahko posvaja otroke, je parlament izglasoval točno tisto točko, ki je bila kamen spotike. Predlog o izenačitvi partnerskih zvez pa sploh ni prišel iz vladajoče koalicije, temveč iz opozicijske Združene levice, kar lahko nedvomno štejemo za njihov prvi dejanski uspeh kot parlamentarne stranke. Hkrati pa je to sploh prva vidna zadeva, ki jo je ta parlament sploh naredil (če odštejemo glasovanje in posledičen odvzem mandata legalno izvoljenemu poslancu, a to je že druga zgodba, saj gre za ukvarjanje parlamenta s samim seboj). Opozicijska stranka je torej prepričala vladajočo koalicijo, da je to tako pomembna in nujna zadeva, da mora iti skozi hitro proceduro. Kot se za vse razsvetljene ideje spodobi, jih ne smemo prepustiti ljudstvu, uveljaviti jih je potrebno čim hitreje in s čim manj javne diskusije, ki itak ne pelje nikamor.

Continue reading

Tedenski izbor

 

 

Odločili so se, da za pomorjenimi izbrišejo vsako sled. Poznamo dokumente zveznega in republiškega nivoja, ki govorijo o tem, da grobovi nikakor ne smejo obstajati. Ljudje in grobovi morajo izginiti iz spomina javnosti. To je trajalo do demokratičnih sprememb v Sloveniji leta 1990, do določene mere pa celo še danes. Seveda se je v Sloveniji o njih nekaj govorilo, zlasti ko je bil leta 1975 objavljen intervju Borisa Pahorja z Edvardom Kocbekom v reviji Zaliv, pa esej Spomenke Hribar Krivda in greh leta 1983 ter zlasti po spravni slovesnosti v Kočevskem rogu leta 1990. Letos bo od te slovesnosti minilo 25 let, ko smo Slovenci mislili, da bomo to travmatično točko slovenske zgodovine lahko zaključili, da bomo pokopali mrtve in označili njihove grobove, a se to na žalost ni zgodilo. Če lahko razumem, da je to skrivanje v času socializma trajalo 45 let, pa težko razumem, da je že 25 let, odkar imamo demokratično ureditev, a imamo le malo pokazati glede označevanja grobov in pokopa žrtev. Njihovi svojci zdaj z bolečino v srcu zapuščajo ta svet, saj so upali, da bodo v novi slovenski državi izvedeli, kje ležijo njihovi domači in kje jim lahko prižgejo svečo.

Huda jama je bila prehuda, po državi še vedno stotine neoznačenih grobišč – Mitja Ferenc za MMC RTV Slovenija

***

Nekaj je hudo narobe z družbo, ki ne želi pokopati svojih mrtvih, jim postaviti spominske centre in državna obeležja, kaj šele, da bi preganjala odgovorne za njihovo smrt. Vsi, ki so kdaj umrli oziroma bili pokončani na slovenskem ozemlju, sodijo v kolektivni spomin in podzavest slovenskega naroda. Morda je v avtokratski družbi razumljivo, da želi takratna totalitarna stran še dandanes preko svojih naravnih in ideoloških potomcev počistiti s prav vsakim, ki drugače misli, zagotovo pa slednje ni sprejemljivo v demokratični in pravni družbi, ki kaj da na učinkovito varovanje človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin. Ko se spominjamo obletnice osvoboditve nekdanjih nacističnih koncentracijskih taborišč in tam storjenega genocida in hudodelstev zoper človečnost je prav, da če pometamo pred tujim pragom, končno pometemo tudi domačega, saj trava ni nič bolj zelena na slovenskih tleh, kvečjemu bolj krvava in prežeta s človeškimi kostmi in izgubljenimi dušami.

Slovenska trava ni nič bolj zelena – Jernej Letnar Černič. Časnik

Continue reading

Zakaj še zmeraj nasprotujem družinskemu zakoniku

Kljub temu, da smo Slovenci na referendumu zavrnili precej manj radikalen predlog za spremembo družinskega zakonika, so sedaj novelo poslanci potrdili. Medtem ko čakamo na nadaljnji razplet dogodkov, pa se moramo na desnici vseeno oglasiti in podati svoje razloge, zakaj tovrstnemu predlogu nasprotujemo. Najprej je potrebno poudariti, da vprašanje ureditve socialnih in podobnih pravic homoseksualnih ni v nasprotju z ohranitvijo tradicionalnega pojmovanja družine in zakonske zveze.

Continue reading

Tedenski izbor

branje1

What must one take for granted in order for same-sex marriage to be intelligible? (This is not a question about the motives or beliefs—which can seem quite humane—of those who support same-sex marriage.) It is commonly argued that marriage is no longer principally about the procreation and the rearing of children but that it centers instead on the companionship of the couple and the building of a household. The courts have repeatedly accepted this reasoning. And yet, if same-sex marriage is to be truly equal to natural marriage in the eyes of society and the law, then all the rights and privileges of marriage—including those involving the procreation and rearing of children—must in principle belong to both kinds of marriage, irrespective of the motives impelling a couple toward marriage or whether, once married, they exercise these rights and privileges.

With same-sex couples this can be achieved only by technological means. And so the case for companionate marriage has been supplemented again and again by the argument that we must endorse reproductive technologies that eliminate any relevant difference between a male–female couple and a same-sex couple. This elevates these technologies from a remedy for infertility, what they principally have been, to a normative form of reproduction equivalent and perhaps even superior to natural procreation. But if there is no meaningful difference between a male–female couple conceiving a child naturally and same-sex couples conceiving children through surrogates and various technological means, then it follows that nothing of ontological significance attaches to natural motherhood and fatherhood or to having a father and a mother. These roles and relations are not fundamentally natural phenomena integral to human identity and social welfare but are mere accidents of biology overlaid with social conventions that can be replaced by functionally equivalent roles without loss. The implications are enormousexistential changes to the relation between kinship and personal identity, legal redefinitions of the relation between natural kinship and parental rights, and practical, biotechnical innovations that are only beginning to emerge into view and will be defended as necessary for a liberal society.

(…)

Whether this is the logical outworking of the metaphysical and anthropological premises of liberalism or a radically new thing (…), it marks a point of no return in American public philosophy. And it effectively brings the civic project of American Christianity to an end.

The Civil Project of American Christianity – Micheal Hanby, First Things

  Continue reading

Tedenski izbor

branjevka

Everybody who is on the Internet is subject to insult, trolling, hating and cruelty. Most of these online assaults are dominance plays. They are attempts by the insulter to assert his or her own superior status through displays of gratuitous cruelty toward a target.

(…)

Clearly, the best way to respond is to step out of the game.

(…)

Historically, we reserve special admiration for those who can quiet the self even in the heat of conflict. Abraham Lincoln was caught in the middle of a horrific civil war. It would have been natural for him to live with his instincts aflame — filled with indignation toward those who started the war, enmity toward those who killed his men and who would end up killing him. But his second inaugural is a masterpiece of rising above the natural urge toward animosity and instead adopting an elevated stance.

Conflict and Ego – David Brooks, The New York Times

***

Tehnologija nam je omogočila, da stojimo sredi dvorane zrcal in povsod vidimo samo sebe. V resnici pa nas internetni algoritmi delajo osamljene in nevarne, ker večajo naš narcisizem s tem, da odstranijo ves svet, ki ni kot mi. Okrepijo lastnosti, ki jih imamo. In ker se v osami in anonimnosti interneta prej pokažejo slabe lastnosti, okrepijo njih.

Drugačno mnenje je šok. V svetu, ki je ves kot jaz, nenadoma zagledamo košček nejaza in srd je strahoten, treba ga je odstraniti, takoj! Grožnje in trolanje postajajo norma. Sodobna komunikacija ni več pogovor, marveč je postala eksorcizem.

Dvorana zrcal – Miha Mazzini, Siol.net

***

There’s much to the view of Punxsutawney as purgatory: Connors goes to his own version of hell, but since he’s not evil it turns out to be purgatory, from which he is released by shedding his selfishness and committing to acts of love.

(…)

Ultimately, the story is one of redemption, so it should surprise no one that it speaks to those in search of the same. But there is also a secular, even conservative, point to be made here. Connors’s metamorphosis contradicts almost everything postmodernity teaches. He doesn’t find paradise or liberation by becoming more “authentic,” by acting on his whims and urges and listening to his inner voices. That behavior is soul-killing. He does exactly the opposite: He learns to appreciate the crowd, the community, even the bourgeois hicks and their values. He determines to make himself better by reading poetry and the classics and by learning to sculpt ice and make music, and most of all by shedding his ironic detachment from the world.

A Movie for All Time. Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, Growdhog Day Scores – Jonah Goldberg, National Review

 ***

For conservatism is about national identity. It is only in the context of a first-person plural that the questions – economic questions included – make sense, or open themselves to democratic argument.

Such was the idea that Edmund Burke tried to spell out 200 years ago. (…) Political wisdom, Burke argued, is not contained in a single head. It does not reside in the plans and schemes of the political class, and can never be reduced to a system. It resides in the social organism as a whole, in the myriad small compromises, in the local negotiations and trusts, through which people adjust to the presence of their neighbours and co-operate in safeguarding what they share. People must be free to associate, to form “little platoons”, to dispose of their labour, their property and their affections, according to their own desires and needs.

But no freedom is absolute, and all must be qualified for the common good. Until subject to a rule of law, freedom is merely “the dust and powder of individuality”. But a rule of law requires a shared allegiance, by which people entrust their collective destiny to sovereign institutions that can speak and decide in their name. This shared allegiance is not, as Rousseau and others argued, a contract among the living. It is a partnership between the living, the unborn and the dead

(…)

In other matters, too, it is not the economic cost that concerns the conservative voter but the nation and our attachment to it. Not understanding this, the government has embarked on a politically disastrous environmental programme. For two centuries the English countryside has been an icon of national identity and the loved reminder of our island home. Yet the government is bent on littering the hills with wind turbines and the valleys with high speed railways. Conservative voters tend to believe that the “climate change” agenda has been foisted upon us by an unaccountable lobby of politicised intellectuals. But the government has yet to agree with them, and meanwhile is prepared to sacrifice the landscape if that helps to keep the lobbyists quiet.

Identity, family, marriage: our core conservative values have been betrayed – Roger Scruton, The Guardian

***

I write because I am one of many children with gay parents who believe we should protect marriage. I believe you were right when, during the Proposition 8 deliberations, you said “the voice of those children [of same-sex parents] is important.” I’d like to explain why I think redefining marriage would actually serve to strip these children of their most fundamental rights.

(…)

The definition of marriage should have nothing to do with lessening emotional suffering within the homosexual community. If the Supreme Court were able to make rulings to affect feelings, racism would have ended fifty years ago. Nor is this issue primarily about the florist, the baker, or the candlestick-maker, though the very real impact on those private citizens is well-publicized. The Supreme Court has no business involving itself in romance or interpersonal relationships. I hope very much that your ruling in June will be devoid of any such consideration.

Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from a Child of a Loving Gay Parent – Katy Faust, Public Discourse

Continue reading

Tedenski izbor

reading-hipster

Ali, dragi levičarji, razumete perverzijo, ki se dogaja na Mladini? Ta tednik ni proti privatizaciji, ker sovraži Janšo, ni proti privatizaciji zato, ker so partizani umirali za našo svobodo in slovenski jezik, niti ni proti privatizaciji, ker ne prenese kapitalizma, proti je zaradi tega, ker je proti njihov lastnik, politično upravljani zmazek, imenovan NLB! S tega vidika je enačba Mladina = politično upravljana NLB = interesne skupine, ki so penetrirale v vlado, najlepši model za opisovanje motivov Mladine.

Kako kazino kapitalizem hrani Mladino – Kizo, Portal Plus

***

Oblast govori o reševanju krize, hkrati pa zaradi socialnega miru marginalizira in v tujino izganja sodobnemu svetu najbolje prilagojen del prebivalstva.

Namesto da smo “mladi” in naivno čakamo, da se “postaramo” – ali pa pristanemo na izgon možganov – se že enkrat opredelimo in politično organizirajmo kot generacija. In sporočimo – dovolj, tudi mi si zaslužimo enake priložnosti. Zaslužimo in izboriti si moramo generacijsko neodvisnost; torej sposobnost sprejemanja lastnih odločitev kot posledice vsaj približne premoženjske neodvisnosti. Naša moralna odgovornost v prvi vrsti ni in ne sme biti do staršev in starih staršev, ampak do lastnih partnerjev in – morda ravno zaradi katastrofalne socialne situacije nerojenih in zato povsem neupoštevanih – otrok. Socialna država je super; ampak veljati mora v istih ključnih točkah za vse, ali pa je ni.

Odj**ite že s temi mladimi – Davor Hafnar, Torek ob petih

Continue reading

Tedenski izbor

family-reading

 

There are also the religious traditions, ones that meld with awe and wonder to make the holiday both beautiful and holy. Advent, brimming over with both theology and beauty, helps us refocus on the meaning beyond the temporal. It takes the material and makes it transcendent. It turns the simple—candles, words, songs, prayers—into timeless moments. Christmas hymns, sweet and haunting, transform our normal cadences of worship into something new, yet incredibly old: they transform our patterns of praise into timely yet timeless reverence. These are the most important traditions of the Christmas season.

Considering Tradition – Gracy Olmstead, The American Conservative

***

Država za normalno delovanje potrebuje sposobne in profesionalne uradnike ter državnike. Pri nas se zdi, da prevladujejo apartčiki, birokrati in ne ravno bleščeči politiki.

Aparatčik se odlikuje po preprosti veri in zvestobi sistemu. To je vera, ki najbolje uspeva v odsotnosti razsodnosti in razuma: res je tisto, kar reče šef, toliko bolj, če enako govori tudi Šef. Šef z veliko in oni z malo začetnico seveda dobro vesta, da zvestoba ni zastonj, zato poskrbita za svojega vernika. Državni aparat v socializmu je deloval po tem načelu in glede na slovenski model demokratizacije (smo za spremembo, ampak tako, da se razen imena ne bo nič spremenilo) ne more presenečati, da javni sektor povečini še vedno deluje po tem načelu.

Lubi Slouenci – Peter Lah, Planet Siol

***

Vse skupaj je tako absurdno, da nam kot argumente nasprotniki privatizacije navajajo že to, da se oni slabo počutijo, ker na Brniku zdaj pristanejo na nemškem letališču, kot je pred dnevi potožila Violeta Tomič. Pa čakajte malo, bi mar morali sodržavljani gospe plačati letališče, da bo njej prihranjen nek iracionalen občutek?! A takšna je ta družba enakih in enakopravnih, da so preference tistih pri koritu vsiljene vsem? No, saj v resnici to ne preseneča – gre za sestavni del družbenopolitičnega sistema, ki ga gospa zagovarja. Tudi njen strankarski kolega Luka Mesec razkriva podobne tendence, ko vzklika, da je državno lastništvo v podjetjih še zadnji vzvod [centralnoplanske politike], ki ga imajo. In odgovarjam mu: saj! Natanko zato je privatizacija nujna.

Za boljše leto 2015 – Rok Novak, Finance

***

The depravity and barbarism of a movement such as the Islamic State can obscure the disturbing reality: namely, that the politicisation of culture, and its intolerant consequences, is gaining strength across the world. It has certainly contributed to the hardening of the rivalry between the West and Russia.

(…)

The problem with international cultural crusades is not the actual values – many of the sentiments promoted by Western institutions are worthy and enlightened ones. No, the problem is that such crusades assume that Western states possess the moral authority to question, undermine and change the laws and values of communities throughout the world. When diplomacy and geopolitics become entwined with the attempt to affirm the moral superiority of a way of life, the outcome is always unpredictable.

The real danger with the globalisation of the Culture Wars is that it threatens to confuse diplomatic problems with existential questions that touch on a people’s way of life.

The Year the Culture Wars Went Global – Frank Furedi, Spiked

***

Nobene težave nimam z uvrščanjem ljudi na levo, na desno in na sredino. Nekateri so konservativni, drugi progresivni, nekateri so etatisti, drugi liberalci. Razlike morajo biti, razlike so dobre, razlike delajo polemike zanimive, v polemikah se brusijo ideje.

Ne sprejemam pa ločevanja duhov, tega, da med nami gradijo čedalje višji zid. Za ta zid si želim, da leta 2015 pade. To ni tisti naš domači berlinski zid iz leta 1945, o katerem prava desnica trdi, da ga vzdržuje udbomafija. To je zid, ki ga gradijo skupaj in ki preprečuje, da bi se razumno pogovarjali o tem, kako našo državo spet spraviti v gibanje.

Ločitev duhov 2015? Ne, hvala – Žiga Turk, Planet Siol

Tedenski izbor

nun-reading

The contrast illustrates a characteristic of Lincoln’s which his biographers have never sufficiently emphasized. His mind was capable of harboring and reconciling purposes, convictions and emotions so different from one another that to the majority of his fellow-countrymen they would in anybody else have seemed incompatible. He could hesitate patiently without allowing hesitation to become infirmity of will. He could insist without allowing insistence to become an excuse for thoughtless obstinacy. He could fight without quarreling. He could believe intensely in a war and in the necessity of seeing it through without falling a victim to its fanaticism and without permitting violence and hatred to usurp the place which faith in human nature and love of truth ordinarily occupied in his mind.

When, for instance, the crisis came, and the South treated his election as a sufficient excuse for secession, he did not flinch as did Seward and other Republican leaders. He would not bribe the South to abandon secession by compromising the results of Republican victory. Neither would he, if she seceded, agree to treat secession as anything but rebellion. But although he insisted, if necessary, on fighting, he was far more considerate of the convictions and the permanent interests of the South than were the Republican leaders, who for the sake of peace were ready to yield to her demands.

Abraham Lincoln Was Not a Man of the People – Herbert Croly, The New Republic

***

Lahko rekonstruiramo genezo Zgodovencev? Na našo srečo so kolumnisti v tem smislu povsem jasni: Zgodovenci so nastali, ko so se zgodovinski Slovenci »zataknili« pri eni stvari. Ne pri desetih ali petintridesetih stvareh v preteklosti, ampak zgolj pri eni stvari, ki je niso »prebavili«, »predelali« ali »presegli«. Ostali so na neki stopnji in se pač niso premaknili naprej. Na zunaj živijo sodobna življenja, v svojem bistvu pa se vedno znova vračajo k enem problemu, v katerega se neuspešno zaletavajo in si tako razbijajo betice. Povsem logično je, da si kolumnisti niso povsem edini, kaj naj bi bila ta »stvar«, ki je ustvarila zgodovenskega belcebuba. Še največ zagovornikov imata hlapčevstvo in tlačanstvo, zanemariti ne smemo tudi majhnosti, katolištva, komunizma, revolucije, pa še kaj bi se našlo.

Zgodovenci – Marko Zajc, Airbeletrina

***

Iskanje krivca za vsako stvar je zgolj obsedenost naše civilizacije, da mora biti vedno vse brez napak, da če pa gre kaj narobe, je pa nekdo kriv. Nekdo drug. Ne jaz sam. Zgoraj je, upam, naštetih dovolj “drugih”, da boste imeli lep dan.
Pokaže tudi, upam, da prava debata ni o tem, kaj je krivo za poplave, ampak, kaj se da narediti, da bi bile posledice blažje.

***

Kritiko pri nas razumemo kot element promocije. Vsakršna kritiška refleksija, ki zazna slabosti umetniškega dela, je obravnavana kot ad hominem napad na umetnika. Kot »nesramnost«, ki si jo kritik od časa do časa »privošči«. Ko si jo, pa mora za svojo nesramnost tudi »odgovarjati«.
Osebno sem se s tem fenomenom prvič soočil, ko sem prejel prošnjo piarovske službe nekega ljubljanskega gledališča, če bi lahko naslednjo predstavo prišel ocenjevat kdo drug, ker je bil moj zapis »preveč negativističen«; še jasneje pa se mi je razkril, ko mi je na enem od festivalov ugledni gledališki ustvarjalec diskretno svetoval, naj prihodnjih nekaj sezon pišem le pozitivne kritike, ker je slovensko gledališče »trenutno res v redu«.
Gre torej za stanje duha, ki že skoraj meji na bolestni optimizem stereotipne predkrizne evforije korporativnega sveta, v kateri je vsaka negativnost šteta kot »slaba za posel«; evforije, v kateri so tiste, ki so poskušali opozarjati na rdeče številke, najrajši po hitrem postopku odpustili, češ, ne kvarite razpoloženja, dobra volja je najbolja.
Seveda si nihče ne želi, da bi grenko obračunavanje z neuspehi postalo osrednji modus slovenskega kritiškega diskurza. Navdušenje nad dosežki in presežki mora vselej preglasiti nerganje ob spodletelih podvigih. A če res želimo prve, je pač treba tudi druge vselej iskreno analizirati, ovrednotiti in poimenovati.

Oklofutaj svojega kritika – Matic Kocijančič, Pogledi

***

Mojmir Mrak je prepričan, da se bo spremenilo razumevanje narave gospodarske krize, ključno vprašanje v Evropi pa je že postalo “kako priti do neke stabilnejše obnove gospodarske rasti v pogojih, kjer je fiskalni prostor praktično zelo omejen. Cela vrsta držav – tudi Slovenija – je v situaciji, kjer drugega fiskalnega prostora ni.”

Ponekod, denimo v Grčiji, bo za rast treba najprej odpisati dolgove ali močno podaljšati njihovo ročnost. Drugod, denimo v Sloveniji, se bo treba bolj odpreti tujemu kapitalu. Privatizacija ni nujna zaradi zmanjšanja dolgov: “Osebno vidim privatizacijo bolj v kontekstu korporativnega upravljanja.” In izboljšanje upravljanja lahko pripomore k rasti.

In pa, Slovenija ob nevzdržno visokem javnem dolgu še vedno nima izgovora za opustitev proračunske konsolidacije, naše varčevanje je bilo medlo in bilo bi“nekorektno primerjati, da je naše varčevanje bilo tako drastično, kot je bilo drugod”. “Kar pa smo res naredili, je, da smo celotno varčevanje izvedli na investicijah.”

Moralo pa bi biti obratno: manj varčevanja pri investicijah in več reform, ki bi ustavile naraščanje javnih izdatkov, pravi Mrak.

Mrak o krizi: drugačna diagnoza, drugačni ukrepi – Maja Derčar, MMC RTVSLO

***

Ste eden tistih ljubljanskih voznikov, ki pri zelenem semaforju najprej malo razmislijo in pogledajo, nato počasi in previdno speljejo, si pustijo razkošno varnostno razdaljo in potem zelo zelo zelo zložno pospešujejo do naslednjega križišča? Ker verjamete, da tako varčujete gorivo? Za vas imam novico – motite se. Fizikalno gledano, porabite enako energije, da od nič do 60 pospešite v petih sekundah, kot če za enak pospešek potrebujete 20 sekund.

Očitno ne veste niti tega, da taka ležernost povzroča tudi nemajhno kolateralno škodo. Če vsi speljejo po polževo, bo šlo v zelenem intervalu skozi križišče samo pet avtov namesto 10 ali 15. Postopoma se bodo naredili zastoji, križišča se bodo navzkrižno blokirala, tisoče avtomobilskih motorjev bo teklo v prazno, kurilo gorivo in povečevalo izpuste. Zapomnite si, torej: naslednjič, ko boste spet speljali takole po principu »previdnost je mati modrosti«, bo zaradi vas še en severni medvedek nekje na Arktiki izgubil bitko za preživetje, ker se mu bo zaradi globalnega segrevanja stalila njegova ledena gora.

Cijazenje prometa po naši prestolnici je metafora za naše reševanje gospodarskih težav. Strukturne reforme se vlečejo v nedogled. Sanacija bank se vleče v nedogled. Privatizacije se vlečejo v nedogled. Insolvenčni postopki se vlečejo v nedogled. Postopki zmanjševanja presežkov zaposlenih se vlečejo v nedogled. Sodni postopki se vlečejo v nedogled. Postopki prestrukturiranja podjetij se vlečejo v nedogled. Likvidnostnemu in razpoloženjskemu krču dajemo čas, da metastazira po dobaviteljskih verigah in omrežjih. Zaradi dolgotrajne negotovosti zmrznejo še porabniki in kar naenkrat ves center stoji, vsa križišča so navzkrižno blokirana, prometnikov, ki bi razčistili situacijo, pa od nikoder. Počasi se vse več ekonomskih subjektov zakrči, izgubijo voljo do iskanja dela, do iskanja podjetniških priložnosti, do investiranja in rasti. In za piko na i jih zaradi dolgotrajnega stresa zatolčejo še psihosomatske težave.

Prestavite vsaj v tretjo, prosim – Blaž Vodopivec, Finance

***

Contrary to standard definitions of sociology as an a-telic pursuit of insight and knowledge, Smith argues that sociology has an agenda, “visionary project of realizing the emancipation, equality, and moral affirmation of all human beings as autonomous, self-directly, individual agents (who should be) out to live their lives as they personally so desire, by constructing their own favored identities, entering and exiting relationship as they choose, and equally enjoying the gratification of experiential, material, and bodily pleasures” (7-8). Sociology isn’t philosophically neutral, but pursues a vision of the “good life and society” as one that “throws off the restrictive, repressive constraints placed on the gratification of individual pleasures and frees everyone to satisfy any pleasure that she or he so desires” (17).

Borrowing from the aims of Christianity, sociology unsurprisingly offers “a secular salvation story” with roots in the “Enlightenment, liberalism, Marxism, reformist progressivism, pragmatism, therapeutic culture, sexual liberation, civil rights, feminism, and so on” (20). Some sociologists are true believers; others are tacitly friendly to the project. Describing sociology in this terms has a couple of advantages: It’s sure to shock, and so has some rhetorical punch. But it also helps to explain some of the behavior that Smith describes in the book. As he shows, the reaction to sociology’s “heretics” isn’t rational discussion and dispassionate weighing of evidence.

Sacred Sociology – Peter Leithart, First Things

***

The disintegration of the ruble is merely a symptom of something much deeper and more worrying. This is Putin digging in; this is Putin reinforcing his foxhole and preparing for the long fight ahead. He will not let go of eastern Ukraine, and he is trying to keep the reserves full so that he can survive the long fight ahead.

The problem, though, is that the pressure inside the system is rising. Food prices are jumping and, though so far, Russians mostly blame the West for their country’s economic malaise, it’s not clear how long that will last.

Far more alarming, though, is the struggle over resources that is starting to take shape among the billionaires in Putin’s orbit. In January, I quoted Elena Panfilova, now the vice president of Transparency International, who predicted that the elites will start to cannibalize themselves as they fight over a rapidly shrinking economic pie. These men are used to a certain level of income and it is one that is hard to maintain when your economy isn’t growing. At all. And so, over the last year, we’ve seen the system eat two men who were once quite close to Putin. Earlier this year, Sergei Pugachev, the man known as the “Kremlin’s banker,” fled Russia, a warrant out for his arrest. This fall, Vladimir Yevtushenkov, one of the wealthiest businessmen in Russia, was arrested. In record time, a court said that an oil company he owned actually belonged to the government, and it was gone.

Russia’s Ruble Value Is Plummeting and Putin’s Billionaires Are Canabalizing Each Other – Julia Ioffe, The New Republic

***

Today, the positive emphasis on a war of aggression goes well with tendencies in the Russian media, where defiant declarations of Russian anti-fascism are increasingly submerged in rhetoric that may seem rather fascist. Jews are blamed for the Holocaust on national television; an intellectual close to the Kremlin praises Hitler as a statesman; Russian Nazis march on May Day; Nuremberg-style rallies where torches are carried in swastika formations are presented as anti-fascist; and a campaign against homosexuals is presented as a defense of true European civilization. In its invasion of Ukraine, the Russian government has called upon the members of local and European far right groups to support its actions and spread Moscow’s version of events.

In the recent “elections” staged in the Russian-backed eastern Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, as in the earlier faked referendum in occupied Crimea, European far-right politicians have come as “observers” to endorse the gains of Russia’s war. Far from being an eccentric stunt, the invitation of these “observers” reveals why the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is meaningful to Moscow today. Although Putin would certainly have been pleased if actual German or Polish political leaders were foolish enough to take the bait of agreeing to a new division of Europe, he seems satisfied for the moment with the people who have actually responded, in one way or another, to his appeal to destroy the existing European order: separatists across Europe (including the UK Independence Party, whose leader, Nigel Farage, calls Putin the world leader he most admires); anti-European right-wing populist parties (of which the most important is France’s National Front); as well as the far-right fringe, including neo-Nazis.

Putin’s New Nostalgia – Timothy Snyder, The New York Review of Books

***

Zionism, which did not undergo a metamorphosis in 1948 and did not desist in 1967, became a kind of revolution-in-progress and thereby became like the other revolutions-in-progress of the 20th century. It forged a situation that a liberal democrat cannot live with and cannot accept. This is a situation that cannot endure indefinitely.

(…)

I will tell you where you differ from the Zionist left. For most of us, the key concept is the “State of Israel.” As we see it, the Zionist enterprise was intended to bring into being a place where the Jewish people would constitute the majority and enjoy sovereignty. If there is no majority, there is no sovereignty and no democratic-Jewish state; there is no point to all this. It’s more convenient to live as a minority in Manhattan. But for you the basic concept is the “Land of Israel.” In that sense, you resemble the right wing and the Palestinians. You have a soil fetish. You come from the soil and you live the soil and you speak in the name of the soil.

It’s true that I live the story of the soil. I live the whole land and I am mindful of all the people who live here. That is how I know that the land cannot tolerate partition. And I know the land is hurting. The land is angry. After all, what two great monuments have we built here in the past decade? One is the separation fence and the other is [architect Moshe] Safdie’s terminal at Ben-Gurion Airport. The two monuments have something in common: they are intended to allow us to live here as though we are not here. They were built so that we would not see the land and not see the Palestinians, and live as though we are connected to the tail end of Italy. But I see all the fruit groves that were demolished in order to build the fence. I hear the hills that were sliced in two in order to build the fence. The heart weeps. The heart weeps in the name of the soil. For me, the soil is a living being. And I see how this conflict has tortured the soil, the homeland. I grieve for the torments of the homeland.

Jerusalem-born thinker Meron Benevisti has a message for Israelis: stop whining – Ari Shavit, Haaretz

***

Why was the South so well suited to fill the demand for congenial Catholic voices? The standard explanation holds that their inability to retreat to insular, self-sufficient “ghettos” made Southern Catholics more appealing on the national scene. Forced to find their way in a largely non-Catholic world, they grew adept at expressing their moral vision in terms accessible to outsiders. The flowering of Catholic fiction in the mid-twentieth century bore witness to this dynamic. Readers who wished to penetrate the inner workings of a self-contained parochial universe could listen to the musings of J. F. Powers’ upper-Midwestern clerics. Those who wanted to explore broader applications of Catholic soteriology attended to the harsh twang of Flannery O’Connor’s “good country people” or the more gentlemanly drawls of Walker Percy’s cosmic wanderers. In political matters, meanwhile, the Southern Catholic voice remained optimistic about the basic congruity of civic aims and Christian commitments. It was yet another South Carolinian, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who emerged as the Church’s leading architect of moderation and consensus amid our late-century culture wars.

Stephen Colbert and the Southern Catholic Charism – Drew Denton, First Things

***

According to Bromwich, Burke’s importance must be understood in terms of a theological crisis in the late 18th century. This was, Bromwich tells us, the crisis of “secularization.” In the old Thomist view of politics, the state was a practical extension of the moral law. But in Burke’s day, Bromwich explains, this vision of politics had become increasingly untenable. In its absence, what arguments could be levied against the Machiavellian image of politics as an amoral arena in which statesmen recognize only the dictates of power and prestige? If statesmen are to obey gods higher than the will to power or the logic of the market, then in the wake of religion’s collapse a new justification for political morality is needed. This is what Bromwich thinks he has found in Burke.

Again and again Bromwich repeats Burke’s mantra that “the principles of true politics are those of morality enlarged, and I neither now do nor ever will admit of any other.” For Burke, he argues, political morality was grounded in the natural human ability to empathize with one’s fellow man. Rather than divine command, Burkean morality is based on human psychology.

Occupy Edmund Burke – Jonathan Green, The American Conservative

Tedenski izbor

 

According to a recent study conducted by Bond University in Australia, sharks are nine times as likely to attack and kill men than they are women. If sinister motivation is attributed for this disparity, as is done in the cases of sex and racial disparities, we can only conclude that sharks are sexist. Another sex disparity is despite the fact that men are 50 percent of the population and so are women, men are struck by lightning six times as often as women. I wonder what whoever is in charge of lightning has against men.

Another gross statistical disparity is despite the fact that Jews are less than 3 percent of the U.S. population and a mere 0.2 percent of the world’s population, between 1901 and 2010, Jews were 35 percent of American and 22 percent of the world’s Nobel Prize winners.

/…/

If America’s diversity worshippers see underrepresentation as “probative” of racial discrimination, what do they propose be done about overrepresentation? After all, overrepresentation and underrepresentation are simply different sides of injustice. If those in one race are overrepresented, it might mean they’re taking away what rightfully belongs to another race. For example, is it possible that Jews are doing things that sabotage the chances of a potential Indian, Alaska Native or Mexican Nobel Prize winner? What about the disgraceful lack of diversity in professional basketball and ice hockey? There’s not even geographical diversity in professional ice hockey; not a single player can boast of having been born and raised in Hawaii, Louisiana or Mississippi.

Do Statistical Disparities Mean Injustice? – Walter E. Williams, The New American

***

Political correctness thus results as a confusion of political word for political action—so saying the wrong words is doing the wrong action. If I say something that disagrees with your position or lifestyle, it may be taken as an actual assault on you, the person.

/…/

Virtues, however, cannot be gained by “identifying” with others psychologically—a virtue is the skill of an action performed repeatedly over time. As Aristotle said, since we are what we repeatedly do, character is a habit and not an attitude. To fight this decadent culture in the academy, pointing it out and criticizing it is not sufficient. As Roger Kimball notes, “those who want to retake the university must devote themselves [to] cultivating those virtues” of candidness and courage, “and perhaps even more to cultivating the virtue of patience, capitalizing wherever possible on whatever local opportunities present themselves” in exercising them (Tenured Radicals, xlvii).

Political Correctness and the University’s Pink Police State – Ryan Shinkel, Ethika Politika

***

We must give up on the hope of restoring the past in this culture. It’s not that some aspects of the past shouldn’t be reclaimed, but rather that doing so, at least at a society-wide level, is not feasible at this point in time. The more we act as if it were so, the greater our losses will be once we definitively lose an unwinnable battle. This “take back America” stuff is self-deluding nostalgia, and the more conservatives believe it, the worse off they will be.

Roger Scruton’s Big Question for the Right – Rod Dreher, The American Conservative

***

Ne razumem, zakaj so sicer inteligentni ljudje pripravljeni vedno znova ponavljati ene in iste neumnosti oziroma laži, ko gre denimo za razliko med zasebnim in državnim lastništvom podjetij? Jih ideologija povsem zaslepi? Ali gre morda za kako drugačno dojemanje tega, kaj je dobro, uspešno in za regijo pomembno podjetje?

Marcel Štefančič, jr. je danes v Studiu City izjavil:

“V Sloveniji imamo dva farmacevtska giganta, eden je Krka drugi je Lek. Krke nismo prodali, Lek smo prodali. Ali opazite kakšno razliko med njima? Vam jaz povem: od Krke živi kompletna regija, od Leka nima nihče nič.” (RTV 4D – Studio City, 22. sept. 2014)

Ampak že če preberete samo prve zadetke za geslo “Lek in Krka” v spletnem iskalniku, dobite povsem drugačno sliko.

***

Dr. Cerar, ko ste leta 1990 s skupino študentov raziskovali te umore, ste pogumno in odločno predlagali, da bi zoper storilce vložili ovadbo, saj je jasno, »da sodijo ustrelitve na meji bolj pod opis dejanja v 46. členu KZ RS, kot pa v izvrševanju ustave in zakonov. Omenjeni 46. člen namreč povsem nedvoumno določa: ‘Kdor komu vzame življenje, se kaznuje z zaporom najmanj petih let.’« Vaš predlog je prav tako naletel na gluha ušesa. Vendar časi se spreminjajo in zdaj imate lepo priložnost, da kot odrasel moški na visokem položaju uresničite zamisli skromnega, a drznega in prodornega mladeniča …

Glede na vaše odlično stališče iz leta 1990 vas, dr. Cerar, prosim, da bi spodbudili g. Maslešo, da bi le našel dovolj moči in spoznal, da je bilo njegovo zanikanje zločinov na meji nadvse sporno dejanje in da naj zoper sebe in druge sodelujoče pri ubojih na meji napiše ovadbo (npr. s temi zločini se je še pred leti javno hvalil general Marijan Kranjc).

Predvsem pa naj novo državno vodstvo ponovno presodi, ali lahko človek, ki zanika zločine, pri katerih je sodeloval, še vodi Vrhovno sodišče RS.

Odprto pismo Miru Cerarju – Jože Dežman, Časnik

***

If Orwell stands as the model leftist who exposed the horrors his own side was willing to commit, Herzen stands as one who went along even though he knew better. More than a limousine liberal, he was a sapphire socialist. In spite of all his natural skepticism, he was willing to overcome it—heroically, he thought—rather than be seen agreeing with the wrong people.

That said, it is no less true that Herzen was aware of this very weakness. “I hate phrases to which we [radicals] have grown used, like Christians to the Creed. They appear moral and good on the surface but they bind thought.”

The Minister of Paradox – Gary Saul Morson, The New Criterion

***

Ali se je raznoterim činom vseh vrst italijanskih vojaških sil, ki so si tako strastno želele prihod svetega očeta na kostnico v Redipulji in si preko vojaškega ordinariata obdržale organizacijo dogodka tudi ob tihem nasprotovanju vernikov krajevne nadškofije, morda papeževo razmišljanje zdelo izzivalno?
Odgovora nimamo. Ostal pa nam je globok vtis, da je papež s svojimi besedami, pa tudi s samim potekom svojega sobotnega obiska, ko je pred osrednjo svečanostjo v Redipulji obiskal še avstro-ogrsko pokopališče v Foljanu, kjer dejansko počivajo ‘naši predniki’ (kdo izmed naših se je vojskoval v italijanskih vrstah!), pospravil z vsako ceneno nacionalno-vojaško retoriko. “Vojna je norost”… “in zdaj je čas joka”. In pika. Najbrž se je papež Frančišek zaradi istih razlogov izognil tudi običajni toplini do vernikov, saj se ni podal mednje niti ob prihodu niti ob odhodu: to ni bila ne vojaška parada ne praznik, česar tudi marsikateri vernik resnici na ljubo ni dojel.

To ni bila ne vojaška parada ne praznik – Igor Gregori, Novi glas

***

Osnovna šola (in seveda celotna vzgojno-izobraževalna vertikala) je bolj ščitenje privilegija toplih malic in vožnje na delo, dopusta in povsem zagotovljenega delovnega mesta, njegovega lastništva, kakor realizacija tega, kar potrebuje družba in mladi ljudje: dobre izobrazbe in vzgoje.

/…/

Zato je slovenska osnovna šola je podobna razvajenemu in z boleznijo zaznamovanemu otroku: imamo brez dvoma najbolj bogat predmetnik, najbolj obsežne učne načrte in najbolj centralizirano osnovno šolo v Evropi. Težko je našteti vse njene posebnosti, dejstvo pa je, da bi ob ostri redukciji vseh dobrot, ki jih uživa zdaj, brez dvoma padla v komo. Zato bo potrebna dolgotrajna dieta, da se bo vzpostavilo stanje, ki ne bo več ogrožalo normalnega vzgojno-izobraževalnega sistema.

Kriza blagostanja – Dušan Merc, Pogledi

***

Doesn’t “progressive” reflect the spirit of the Progressive Era a century ago, when the country benefited from the righteous efforts of muckrakers and others who fought big-city political bosses, attacked business monopolies and promoted Good Government?

The era was partly about that. But philosophically, the progressive movement at the turn of the 20th century had roots in German philosophy (Hegel and Nietzsche were big favorites) and German public administration (Woodrow Wilson’s open reverence for Bismarck was typical among progressives). To simplify, progressive intellectuals were passionate advocates of rule by disinterested experts led by a strong unifying leader. They were in favor of using the state to mold social institutions in the interests of the collective. They thought that individualism and the Constitution were both outmoded.

It is that core philosophy extolling the urge to mold society that still animates progressives today—a mind-set that produces the shutdown of debate and growing intolerance that we are witnessing in today’s America.

The Trouble Isn’t Liberals. It’s Progressives – Charles Murray, The Wall Street Journal

***

Predvsem pa se politika z etiko nima kaj ukvarjati. Naloga politike je, da poskrbi za pravno državo, ki bo pravočasno in pošteno kaznovala ljudi, ki prestopijo meje razumljivo napisanih in logičnih zakonov. Ko pa politiki začnejo govoriti, da morajo ljudje postati bolj etični, pa to pomeni, da želijo s svojimi instrumenti – ki so po definiciji instrumenti oblasti in prisile – spreminjati ljudi same.

Politik, ki si za cilj postavi spreminjati naravo ljudi, slej ko prej postane bodisi dalajlama bodisi stalinist.

Učna leta izumitelja Mirka – Janez Šušteršič, Siol.net

***

Words you probably never thought you’d read in the Telegraph. Words which, as a Gladstonian Liberal, I never thought I’d write.

/…/

This sort of utterly amoral screw-everyone capitalism has become much more prevalent in the last 15 years. Our financial elite is now totally out of control. They learned nothing from the crisis, except that the rest of us were stupid enough to give them a second chance. And, now, having plucked all the “low hanging fruit,” they’re destroying the middle classes for profit.

Our current problems have their roots in the early 80s. While much of what Reagan and Thatcher did was necessary, the trouble is that they set a deregulatory train in motion which, over the last couple of decades has dismantled so much of the legal framework that protected us from greedy scuzzballs.

The middle classes went along with it. We were sick of the Left, tired of powerful unions and, besides, very few us could remember the inequality of the 1920s that gave rise to many of these regulations in the first place. Also, vain fools that we were, we identified upwards. We thought the elite had our interests at heart. The 0.1% must have found this pretty cute. They knew the truth. We weren’t their pals, we were just at the end of the line for the financial blood-letting.

Why aren’t the British middle classes staging a revolution? – Alex Proud, The Telegraph

***

I’d like to remind you of Alasdair MacIntyre’s definition of emotivism in After Virtue:

“What is the key to the social content of emotivism? It is the fact that emotivism entails the obliteration of any genuine distinction between manipulative and non-manipulative social relations. Consider the contrast between, for example, Kantian ethics and emotivism on this point. For Kant–and a parallel point could be made about many earlier moral philosophers–the difference between a human relationship uninformed by morality and one so informed is precisely the difference between one in which each person treat the other primarily as a means to his or her ends and one in which one treats each other as an end.”

Walsh almost exclusively uses others as means to his own end of scoring points in the culture wars (and boosting internet traffic). This is why his writing is so banal. It does not challenge anyone to drop their defenses.

In the end Walsh becomes like his enemies, because in his rivalries he plays a zero-sum cultural warrior game of ‘either me or the other’ (I just clicked on a link to an interview with him some random site and the popup ad predictably read “fight the liberal media”). Perhaps the only heuristic value of Walsh’s writing lies in the way that it suggests an overlap between MacIntyre‘s discussion of emotivism and Girard‘s discussion of mimetic rivalry.

On Not Fighting Matt Walsh’s Cultural Warrior Contagion – Artur Rosman, Cosmos in the Lost

***

Za konec pa še naravnost genialni zapis Carla Truemana v First Things, ki ga zaradi kratkosti objavljamo kar v celoti:

Britain’s Daily Telegraph reports that anti-incest laws in Germany could be struck down on the grounds that they constitute an unacceptable intrusion into the right to sexual self-determination. The narrow context is the case of a brother and sister who have lived together for years and have four children. The wider context is the very meager basis upon which laws relating to sexual ethics are now built.

In a world where consent provides the only de facto limit to acceptable sexual ethics, this legal move has a certain obvious legal and cultural logic. If the brother and sister are in love, why should they not live together in a sexual partnership? Even the pragmatic argument from the risk of congenital defects in children is irrelevant: birth control and abortion are the obvious answers which this present age would give.

In fact, it is not so much the legitimation of incest in itself as it is the collapse of the boundaries of sexual taboos given our current ethical logic which makes the case significant. The question of consent is itself surely a complex one when it comes to sexual morality and even this might soon be faced with a serious challenge. Take, for example, bestiality (or, to use the more anodyne modern term, zoophilia). I regularly eat cows, pigs, sheep and chickens whose consent to be part of my diet is (I assume) rarely if ever sought before they arrive on my dinner plate. The law as it stands clearly does not recognize the need for a cow to give permission before it is slaughtered and turned into a hamburger. One assumes that it would not require its consent for a less drastic fate.

A thought thus comes to mind if any notion of sexual ethics is not to vanish in its entirety: Either consent is not a sufficient basis for a sexual ethic, or eating meat needs to be outlawed as soon as possible.

Tedenski izbor

kertesz

Sam nisem voznik, zato vsaki kritiki, ki jo naslovim na samozavestnega slovenskega voznika, sledi: »Ko boš imel vozniški izpit, boš že razumel!« Dober voznik ne potrebuje legitimacije drugega, dovolj mu je dejstvo, da je on voznik in vozi tako, kot je pač v navadi v teh krajih. Legitimacije ne pridobi z odgovorno soudeležbo v občem prostoru prometa, kjer so pravila jasna in vsakemu udeležencu že prej znana, temveč sam od sebe, v neke vrste cehovski solidarnosti, s tiho zavestjo, da si to lahko privošči, ker je močnejši. Ni promet kot občost tista, ki nekomu podeli status dobrega voznika, temveč je dober voznik tisti, ki ustvarja stanje v prometu.

S takimi dobrimi vozniki se srečujemo na vsakem ovinku svojega bivanja. Ko se pogajamo z občinskimi politiki in lokalnimi veljaki, ko poskušamo sodelovati z odgovornimi v javnih inštitucijah na področju kulture in drugih družbenih dejavnostih, ko se moramo meniti s poldržavnimi gospodarstveniki, študentskimi funkcionarji itd. Nihče se ne počuti kot del neke občosti, da je odgovoren do nje, in da bo legitimacijo, ali dela dobro ali ne, dobil ravno v tem, ko bodo vsi njeni udeleženci bolj optimalno delovali. Ne, že samo dejstvo, da so se prebili do neke pozicije in počnejo stvari tako, kot je v navadi, je čisto dovoljšnje upravičenje za njihovo nadaljnje delovanje.

»Ko boš imel vozniški izpoit, boš že razumel!« – Miha Kosovel, Časnik

***

Redukcija politike na boj med klientelami je, res, značilnost Vzhodne Evrope. In sploh perifernih držav. To pa se dogaja prav zato, ker te države niso vzpostavile učinkovitega mehanizma izmenjave elit. Ravno zato, ker v premnogih družbenih podsistemih vlada kadrovska inertnost, postane skrajna politizacija edini način, kako stvari premakniti iz mrtve točke. Politični boj se sprevrže v borbo za pozicije v javnem sektorju in paradržavnih strukturah, saj se zdi, da po normalni poti, prek kriterijev meritokratske selekcije, ni mogoče spremeniti ničesar. Javni sektor postane sistem dodeljevanja rent in sinekur političnim privržencem, ki v zameno skrbijo za širjenje »ideološke« (beri: kulturnobojne) megle, ki zakriva, za kaj v resnici gre. To stanje je gojišče vse bolj nezmernih idej o raznih »neoliberalnih revolucijah« – ki pa ne morejo priti do besede drugače kot z jezikom kulturnega boja, kar je voda na mlin taistim predatorskim elitam. Začarani krog.

O plemenitem poslanstvu Grege Repovža – Luka G. Lisjak, Časnik

***

Še vedno sem prepričan, da sta SDS in Janša glavna za kakršenkoli preobrat na bolje v Sloveniji. Na žalost pa kaže, da SDS sporočila volitev še ni dojela. Po objavi rezultatov so izdali javno sporočilo, ki še najbolj spominja na kakšen razglas zvezne partije v času, ko je nekdanja država že razpadala po vseh šivih, in se je nanašal na neko resničnost, ki je živela samo še v glavah zveznih funkcionarjev. Ko bo Janševa obsodba razveljavljena, mu Slovenija ne bo razvila rdeče preproge in ga povabila, naj postane imperator. Na žalost bo odziv sistema in tudi velike večine prebivalcev »business as usual«. Kardinal Rode je spomnil, da sta tudi Gandi in Mandela po prihodu iz zapora prevzela vodenje preporoda države. Vendar je prvi pogoj za to, da se nekaj podobnega zgodi tudi pri nas, da Janša pride iz zapora vsaj kot pol Gandi ali pol Mandela. Če pride kot stoodstotni Janša ali celo 150-odstotni Janša, se bo čedalje večji del zmernega volilnega spektra, tistega, ki ga je za premierski položaj podprl leta 2004, odvračal od njega.

Post mortem – Blaž Vodopivec, Finance

***

Če smo demokrati, imamo zato samo eno možnost: spoštovati voljo ljudi in strpno sprejeti dejstvo, da je Janez Janša poslanec. Ali so njegovi volilci normalni? Da. Preprosto verjamejo, da je nedolžen in po krivem obsojen. In glede na šlamastiko slovenskega pravosodja, ki je prepleteno z mafijskimi omrežji pokvarjenih sodnic in sodnikov, imajo svoje argumente. Ali je vso to dogajanje zdravo za Slovenijo? Niti slučajno.

SDS je stranka, ki je danes ni mogoče vključiti v politični proces vodenja države. Je stranka destrukcije, ki s svojim pomembnim deležem pridobljenim na volitvah zaradi svoje strategije krči parlamentarni prostor. Je stranka, ki nima namena sodelovati in se pogovarjati z nikomer. Niti z najbližjimi, celo partnerji. Tako kot ima Italija težave z destruktivnostjo predstavnikov Beppe Grilla, ima tudi Slovenija težavo s tem, da petina parlamentarnega prostora nima namena sodelovati pri vodenju države. Tej petini pa se je sedaj pridružila tudi Združena levica, ki destrukcijo vodi z drugega kota. Zato je maneverski prostor pomembno zožen in terja še toliko več dialoga med preostalimi zmernimi političnimi silami. Ta strategija SDS je z vidika volilnega rezultata samomorilska. Zaradi take kampanje so samo na zadnjih volitvah izgubili vsaj pet odstotkov. Z vidika politike, ki hoče uspeh na volitvah ter nato vladati, je taka strategija torej nespametna.

Toda ta strategija je z njihovega vidika povsem utemeljena in celo edina možna etična drža.

A je to demokracija, da je Janša poslanec? – Sebastjan Jeretič, Neurovirtu

***

I recognize the Fox Geezer Syndrome these readers identify. This is what happens when conservatism becomes an ideology instead of an approach to life. It indicates an extremely unconservative temperament, frankly. /…/ These Fox Geezers may well be conservative in their politics, right down the line. What they’re doing, though, is allowing politics to consume their minds and their entire lives, such that they are making impossible the kinds of things that true conservatives ought to be dedicated to conserving: that is, the permanent things, like family. I have been around Fox Geezers before, and I see absolutely no difference between them and the kind of self-righteous loudmouths on the left that make reasonable discussion impossible, because all problems are reduced to a conflict between Good and Evil, and decided in advance.

The tragedy — and I think it is exactly that — is that the elderly often have great wisdom to share with the younger generations, to say nothing of the fact that it is they who have the long view, and who ought to understand how important it is to nurture bonds among family members, especially across the generations. Yet in these cases, it is they who behave like teenagers and twentysomethings, full of piss and vinegar and a toxic certainty, plus a radioactive impulse to crusade. What they lack is the principal conservative virtue: Prudence.

Fox Geezer Syndrome – Rod Dreher, The American Conservative

***

It’s not that abortion opponents don’t really care about abortion as such, but only about sexual mores, but that political language is necessarily corrupt because its purpose is pornographic in the sense that it is intended to provoke action, not increase understanding.

/…/

I really, really do believe that the more seriously you take the proposition that abortion is categorically immoral, the more morally imperative it is for you not to hitch your wagon to the star of either political party. Nothing is more corrupting of the anti-abortion cause than its subsumption into a culture war that is fundamentally – fundamentally – about making it easier for politicians to get re-elected.

You Know What’s Murder? Politics Is Murder – Noah Millman, The American Conservative

***

It is not an accident that the three key planks of the Left-wing outlook today – the anti-Israel anti-war sentiment, the shallow anti-capitalism of Occupy, and the worship of those who leak info from within the citadels of power – should all have had issues with anti-Semitism. It is because the left, feeling isolated from the public and bereft of any serious means for understanding modern political and economic affairs, has bought into a super-simplistic, black-and-white, borderline David Icke view of the world as a place overrun and ruled by cabals and cults and sinister lobby groups. And who has always, without fail, been the final cabal, the last cult, to find themselves shouldering the ultimate blame for the warped, hidden workings of politics, the economy and foreign turmoil? You got it – the Jews.

 Is the Left Anti-Semitic? Sadly, it is heading that way – Brendan O’Neill, The Daily Telegraphy

***

Up until now, even European politicians who were paying attention to developments in Hungary — German Chancellor Angela Merkel, for example — believed that they didn’t have any political capital to spare amid the euro crisis. It was difficult enough for European leaders to bully Greek governments into drastic spending cuts; they didn’t want to be seen lecturing small central European nations on democratic norms as well. But given the current perception, right or wrong, that the continent’s financial crisis is no longer acute, Brussels and Europe’s bigger states may finally get serious about Orban. They should understand that the new ideological conflict — liberal versus illiberal Europe — is a greater danger to the foundations of the EU than the euro crisis. Of course money matters — but a rising antiliberalism inside the EU, inspired and materially supported by Putin, could tear the Union apart morally and, ultimately, politically. Orban has done the rest of Europe a favor by spelling out his illiberal intentions so openly — and making it clear just how high the stakes are.

Moscow’s Trojan Horse: In Europe’s Ideological War, Hungary Picks Putinism – Jan-Werner Müller, Foreign Affairs

***

I’d respectfully argue that libertarianism is neither dangerous nor doomed, and that people who think otherwise are misled by a double standard they use when analyzing this political faction. When they write about a “libertarian moment,” they act as if it would mean the immediate embrace of an extreme, ideologically pure version of a philosophy that most actual sympathizers embrace with pragmatic moderation. Yes, if the most radical faction of any ideology that has never before exercised power was suddenly put in charge, that might well end in disaster. But in the real world, libertarian ideas will only ever be implemented partially in a system of checks and balances where modest reforms are difficult to achieve, never mind sweeping, rapid changes. It’s true, but trivially so, that neither a libertarian nor a liberal nor conservative utopia is coming. But liberals and conservatives exercise power regularly, so no one is under the silly illusion that their ascendance would entail a pure ideological program untempered by reality.

“Is libertarian economics at all realistic?” Krugman asks, as if the question is coherent. There are deep disagreements among libertarians about economic policy. There is never a moment when an entire economic philosophy comes up for a vote. It may just be that libertarian thinkers are correct on the merits of some policies, like rent control, and incorrect on others, like the gold standard, and that the prudent thing for a pluralistic society would be to adopt their best ideas and insights, rather than preemptively declaring all libertarian economic ideas unrealistic.

Libertarians Can Be a Significant Force for Good in U.S. Politics – Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic

***

 

Prostitution is moving online whether governments like it or not. If they try to get in the way of the shift they will do harm. Indeed, the unrealistic goal of ending the sex trade distracts the authorities from the genuine horrors of modern-day slavery (which many activists conflate with illegal immigration for the aim of selling sex) and child prostitution (better described as money changing hands to facilitate the rape of a child). Governments should focus on deterring and punishing such crimes—and leave consenting adults who wish to buy and sell sex to do so safely and privately online.

Prostitution: A personal Choice – The Economist

 

***

Compared to virtually all comedians today, Williams was a gentleman. He certainly wasn’t a jerk in the mode of Johnny Carson or Seinfeld. Nor did he content himself with ironically orbiting life with sad eyes in the mode of Bill Murray. He was hardly ever gratuitously gross, because he knew, even as a performer, he had grown-up responsibilities. Even though, in my opinion, Louis C.K. is funnier and maybe deeper, he has a lot to learn about being a grown-up, to say nothing of a gentleman.

Williams, apparently, never achieved in his own life the self-confidence and self-knowledge of his best characters. He seemed never to have been quite comfortable in his own skin. Too much restlessness and not enough serenity. He was a great man.

Robin WIlliams as a Man in Full – Peter Augustine Lawler, National Review

 

Premislek o državnem prazniku

Ob praznovanju letošnjega dneva državnosti objavljam nekoliko dopolnjeno refleksijo izpred dveh let, ki so jo spodbudile polemike glede prisotnosti partizanskih simbolov na osrednji proslavi na Kongresnem trgu. Prvotno je bila objavljena v reviji Razpotja – in z nekoliko grenkobe lahko rečem, da je danes še bolj aktualna kot pred dvema letoma.

***

Tudi letošnji [l. 2012] državni praznik ob dnevu državnosti ni minil brez polemik. Dan, ki naj bi bil trenutek veselja in ponovnega odkrivanja tega, kar nam je skupno, so zaznamovale zagrenjenost, medsebojno nagajanje in jalove polemike. Povprečni državljan (v kolikor ni le brezbrižno zamahnil z roko), se je ob tem verjetno odzval podobno kot Jack Nicholson v filmu Mars Attacks (Tim Burton, 1996), ko v vlogi naivno liberalnega ameriškega predsednika nagovori marsovskega ambasadorja z legendarnim vprašanjem: »Why can’t we all just … get along?«

Čeprav takšni dobronamernosti ne moremo odrekati pristnosti – in čeprav je nedvomno boljša od skandiranja strankarskih navijačev in od molilnih mlinčkov njihovih intelektualnih sekundantov –, je žal (kot kmalu za tem, ko izreče omenjeni stavek, ugotovi Nicholson sam) obsojena na neuspeh. Kajti vsak spor, še zlasti, če je dolgotrajen, ima svoje razloge. Jonathan Swift je bil žal prevelik optimist, ko je v Guliverjevih potovanjih domneval, da so ti razlogi povečini banalni. Sam se, nasprotno, bojim, da za našimi liliputanskimi spori tiči vse prej kot banalna dilema in da si glede tega ne moremo nadejati pomiritve, dokler je ne bomo razrešili – pošteno, temeljito in brez rokohitrstva. Ta premislek je skromen poskus v to smer.

Continue reading