Konservativec gleda South Park

                                                               – SPOILER ALERT –

 

  South Park je ena izmed najbolj prodornih in kontroverznih ameriških animiranih serij, ki – svojemu formatu navkljub – ni namenjena otroškim gledalcem. Norčuje se namreč iz tako rekoč vsega – tudi iz politične levice, kar je v nekaterih krogih v ZDA  tudi botrovalo nastanku politične oznake ”South Park Republican’.’ Slednja se je kasneje razvodenela, saj je South Park kritiziral tudi republikance.  Vendarle pa je med (grobo rečeno) politično desnico interes za South Park, vnovič porasel tekom zadnje  (19.) sezone, ki je bila v celoti posvečena norčevanju iz nekaterih prvovrstnih prismodarij anglosaških naprednjakov, kot so politična korektnost in t. i. safe spaces.

V zadnji sezoni se pojavi tudi novi ravnatelj šole, ki jo obiskujejo junaki South Parka, ki nosi ”ime” PC Principal, torej politično korektni ravnatelj. Toda na tem mestu vam ne nameravam razkriti vseh čarov nove sezone, ki je definitivno vredna ogleda ter ob kateri je urednik portal The American Conservative Rod Dreher dejal, da potrebujemo South Park vsaj toliko, kot potrebujemo First Things. Prav tako ne bom pisal o temah celotne serije, temveč bom predstavil deset epizod, ki si jih resnično velja pogledati, saj na izredno piker, sarkastičen in celo malce nesramen način razkrivajo marsikatere neumnosti naše dobe. V njih lahko ugledamo tudi svojevrsten upor proti kulturi politične korektnosti, ki je South Park naredil popularen tudi pri konservativcih, kar bi zaradi njegove provokativnosti bilo npr. v sedemdesetih letih 20. stoletja nepredstavljivo.

 

  1. Garrison’s Fancy New Vagina

 

V 1. epizodi 9. sezone South Parka gospoda Garrisona, učitelja glavnih junakov, ki se je bil nedavno v seriji razkril kot homoseksualec, prešine misel, da je v bistvu ženska ujeta v moškem telesu in se zato odloči za spremembo spola. Splet dogodkov nato pripelje tudi do tega, da se eden izmed glavnih junakov, Kyle Broflovski, prične identificirati kot »transrasna oseba«. Z namenom, da bi postal boljši košarkar, si namreč želi postati visok črnec. Njegov oče se medtem začne identificirati kot »transvrstna oseba« in se odloči za operacijo, s katero naj postane delfin. Razočaranje za junake nastopi tedaj, ko – sedaj gospa – Garrison, ker ji ”zamuja” menstruacija, hoče splaviti, a ji povedo, da ne more zanositi, saj nima za to potrebnih organov. Razplet dogodkov je podoben tudi pri Kylu in njegovem očetu. Epizoda nam tako razkriva zgrešenost konstituiranja identitete zgolj na podlagi občutij, in na realnost biološkega dejstva telesa, ki je, ne glede na vse napore in poskuse, konstantno in neobhodno.

 

  1. The Death Camp of Tolerance

  Epizoda iz 6. sezone se loti obsesije s strpnostjo in sprejemanjem, ki lahko vodi do popolnih idiotizmov in zgodba se ponovno plete okoli gospoda Garrisona, ki se je bil ravnokar vrnil k poučevanju kot odkriti homoseksualec. Pri pogovoru z ravnateljico nato izve, da bi lahko – v kolikor bi bil odpuščen zaradi svoje spolne usmerjenosti – tožil šolo za milijone. Iz tega razloga v šolo pripelje svojega sado-mazo ljubimca mr. Slave – a (gospoda Sužnja), s katerim nato, da bi bil mr. Garisson odpuščen, izvajata razne ogabne dejavnosti. Vsemu temu navkljub, pa otrokom nihče ne verjame. Njihovi starši in širša skupnost raje slavijo mr. Garrisona zaradi domnevnega poguma,  otroke pa celo pošljejo v posebno taborišče, kjer naj bi se naučili resnične strpnosti.

 

 (Vir: wiki.southpark.cc.com )

  1. Butt Out

 

Šola, ki jo obiskujejo junaki South Parka, gosti protikadilsko skupino Butt Out. Ob koncu izredno bednega in patetičnega nastopa (podobnih skupin se verjetno mnogi spominjamo iz časa našega obiskovanja izobraževalnih inštitucij), člani skupine otrokom povedo, da bodo, tudi če ne bodo kadili, lahko odrasli v takšne ljudi, kot so oni sami. Glavni junaki South Parka napoved vzamejo dobesedno, gredo kadit in pri tem ponesreči požgejo šolo. Moralne panike v South Parku pa ne sproži požig šole, temveč kajenje. Zato pokličejo režiserja Roba Reinerja, ki je znan kot velik nasprotnik kajenja. Ta svoje nasprotovanje izraža izredno obsesivno ter svoje poglede poskuša na vsak način uveljaviti, pri čemer konstantno trdi, da so njegovi nasprotniki pod vplivom tobačne industrije. Epizoda odlično prikaže pomen svobodnega odločanja, sprejemanja odgovornosti za svoja dejanja ter snobovstvo in elitizem mnogih nasprotnikov kajenja.

 

  1. Rainforest Smainforest

 

Tokrat so se glavni junaki South Parka prisiljeni udeležiti pevskega zbora, čigar namen je opozarjati na ohranitev pragozdov v Srednji in Južni Ameriki, in ga vodi zagrizena okoljevarstvenica. Stvari pa se zapletejo, ko vodiča ubije in poje kača in so se junaki prisiljeni sami soočiti s pragozdom ter pripadniki enega izmed tam živečih primitivnih plemen. Epizoda sicer daje vtis zagovarjanja določene brezbrižnosti do okoljske problematike, ki avtorju pričujočega prispevka nikakor ni blizu, a hkrati vendarle prikaže tudi odlično kritiko idealiziranja narave kot nekakšnega stanja ljubezni in miru, ki pa je zelo daleč realnosti življenja v takšnem okolju in življenja živali nasploh, ter predstavlja izvrstno kritiko ideologije plemenitega divjaka. Istočasno pa pokaže tudi na odmaknjenost tistih ljudi, ki so pristaši tovrstnih stališč, od objektov njihove ideologije.

 

  1. Gnomes

 

Epizoda Gnomes je posvečena kapitalizmu in hkrati ena najbolj artikuliranih obramb prostotržne ekonomije, ki je bila kadarkoli ustvarjena znotraj popularne kulture. V njej se Tweek, lastnik kavarne, bori proti prihodu velike korporacije Harbucks (aluzija na Starbucks), pri čemer skoraj ne izbira sredstev in se tako izkaže za enako pohlepnega kot korporacija sama. Epizoda prikaže korporacije kot podjetja, ki so rasla preko kakovosti svojega dela – ponekod pa sicer tudi kot produkt premišljenega marketinga, kar epizoda tudi nakaže s tem, ko Harbucks nudi otrokom napitke z veliko kofeina in sladkorja. S pomočjo manjše inkorporirane zgodbe epizoda pokaže tudi na pomanjkljive strategije mnogih podjetij. Zagotovo bo všeč vsem klasičnim liberalcem, pri čemer velja pripomniti, da smo konservativci vendarle bolj skeptični do vpliva velikih korporacij ne le na ekonomijo, temveč tudi na družbo in kulturo.

 

  1. Chinpokomon

 

Epizoda Chinpokomon, nas ne spomni le na priljubljene risanke, video igrice in zbiralne karte, ki so bile del naše mladosti, temveč ponuja tudi nekakšen uvid v genezo totalitarizmov. Med otroci, ki jih prevzame nasilna propaganda produktov podjetja Chinpokomon, namreč začne prevladovati dejansko čaščenje teh produktov in velika težnja po istosti – tokrat preko posedovanja igrač in udeležbe dogodkov v povezavi s Chinpokomoni. To izkorišča japonska vlada s cesarjem na čelu skuša otrokom oprati možgane z namenom stvarjenja novih kamikaz v službi japonske države. Poleg uvida v razvoj totalitarizma pa epizoda ponudi tudi kritiko masovne kulture in potrošništva (ter nakaže določene korelacije med omenjenimi fenomeni).

 

  1. Cartman’s Silly Hate Crime 2000

 

Eric Cartman, najkotroverznejša figura v seriji, je tokrat obtožen zločina iz sovraštva, ko vrže kamen v črnega sošolca Tokena, četudi razlog napada ni bila Tokenova rasa, temveč dejstvo, da je ta malo poprej Cartmana ozmerjal z debeluhom. Epizoda dobro kritizira problematičnost koncepta zločina iz sovraštva ter tudi možnost njegove zlorabe, posebej pa je pomenljiv zaključek, v katerem Tokenov oče razloži, da sam obstoj te kategorije utrjuje ločnice med ljudmi.

 

  1. Proper Condom Use

 

Glavni junaki serije se naučijo ”pomolsti psa” oz. zdrkati penis psu. Pri tem se niti najmanj ne zavedajo kaj dejansko počno, saj so konec koncev komaj predpubertetniški otroci, kar pa ponovno vodi do moralne panike v mestu, ki zato uvede spolno vzgojo od vrtca dalje. Glavne junake poučuje šolski svetovalec mr. Mackey, ki je popolnoma nepoučen, saj ni imel spolnih odnosov od devetnajstega leta, medtem, ko dekleta iz isti šole uči učiteljica ms. Choksondick, ki jih zgolj straši o spolnih boleznih. Punce so nato prepričane o nevarnosti fantov in jih prepričajo, da kupijo in si nataknejo kondome, čeprav sploh nimajo spolnih odnosov. Srž epizode tokrat meri na nesposobnost staršev, da bi otroke vzgajali sami ter želijo vedno več odgovornosti prenesti na šolo in državo.

 

  1. Stupid Spoiled Whore Video Playset

 

Epizoda je posvečena kritiki čaščenja zvezd in slabemu vplivu slavnih osebnosti na mladino – konkretno primeru Paris Hilton in njenega spodbujanja promiskuitete in razvajenosti med mladostniškimi dekleti ter temu, kako lahko slednja celo tako negativne besede kot je npr. »kurba« začno uporabljati v pozitivnem kontekstu, starši pa na to sploh ne odreagirajo. Dekletom slednjič celo sam promiskuitetni mr. Slave razloži, da v teh rečeh ni nič častnega in pozitivnega, kar norijo počasi konča s sicer še enim, absurdno komičnim razpletom.

(Vir: wiki.southpark.cc.com )

 

  1. Goobacks

 

Najbolj aktualna epizoda South Parka pa je Gooback, ki se loteva vprašanja imigracije in kritizira obe strani, udeleženi v javni razpravi. Na eni strani desnico, ki se osredotoča zgolj na negativne vplive priseljevanja – v epizodi konkretno prevzemanje delovnih mest – na drugi strani pa levico, ki zgolj poudarja razloge za priseljevanje in spodbuja k sprejemanju, popolnoma pa ignorira vpliv priseljevanja na domače prebivalstvo, zlasti na nižje sloje. Sporočilo epizode lahko razumemo kot klic k reševanju problema pri izvoru, ki pa je še dodatno začinjen z absurdno mero in načinom spoprijemanja s problemom, možnima zgolj v South Parku.

 

Častne omembe:

 

Poleg zgornjih, po mojem mnenju najboljših epizod, naj omenim še pet epizod, ki si zaslužijo častno omembo.

 

  1. Go God Go in Go God Go XII

 

Dvodelna epizoda v kateri se norčujejo iz Richarda Dawkinsa in njegove oblike militantnega ateizma.

 

  1. The tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs

 

Odlična satira konstantnega iskanja pomenov v književnosti.

 

  1. Margaritaville

 

South Park tokrat pokaže, kaj se zgodi, če se iz ekonomije naredi religijo.

 

  1. Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy

 

Pogled na neenakost spolov iz drugačnega zornega kota.

 

  1. Die Hippie, Die

 

Tedenski izbor

Še enkrat poudarjamo: absurdno poigravanje z mislijo, da je bil Balantič, da so bili številni drugi uporniki zoper revolucijo sokrivi in celo sostorilci zlasti nemškega kulturnega pogroma nad Slovenci, ki se je med drugim odrazil v barbarskem uničenju velikanskega števila knjig, nima nič opraviti z razmerami na Slovenskem med drugo svetovno vojno, pač pa služi samo podaljševanju neke, za razmeroma ozek krog rentnikov zelo donosne iluzije.

France Balantič sodi v javni spomin slovenskega naroda – Skupina podpisnikov

***

Po ocenah strokovnjakov je bilo pobitih nekaj sto tisoč ljudi, ki so bili krivi le tega, da so bili ideološki in vojaško nasprotni komunizmu in njegovi revoluciji. Regularna okupirana država se je borila proti boljševiški revoluciji in ostalim, ki so čakali, da bodo to državo lahko dokončno uničili (ustaši, balisti, separatisti in vsi nasprotniki Kraljevine).

Poslednji dom sinov Črne gore – Uroš Šušterič, Časnik

***

Skratka, Resolucija 1096 je dve desetletji po sprejemu nujno branje za vsakdanjo slovensko rabo. Svet Evrope nam ne ukazuje, z resolucijo le prijazno svetuje, kaj nam je treba narediti, da bi se skobacali iz teh smrdljivih cunj preteklosti. Tega v dveh desetletjih nismo uspeli in vse bolj se zdi, da tudi prihodnjih dvajset let ne bo dovolj.

Lustracija ob predpostavki – Miro Petek, Slomedia.it

***

Dokler bomo imeli tako politiko, v najširšem smislu, vključno s tisto v pravu, nimamo pogojev za ustvarjanje pravne države. Dokler bomo imeli to isto politiko, vključno s tisto v gospodarstvu, ni nikakršnih obetov za bolj konkurenčno ekonomijo, s katero lahko preživimo v globalni tekmi. Dokler bomo imeli tako politiko v najširšem možnem smislu bo ta država umirala na obroke in večina bo živela slabše. 

Dovolj je bilo – Matej Avbelj, IUS-INFO

***

Koalicija Združena levica je v nedavni javnomnenjski anketi, skupaj s SDS, dosegla prvo mesto na lestvici podpore slovenske javnosti. To je bil zagotovo velik uspeh za koalicijo, ki združuje politično levico, a tudi trenutek za premislek in zaskrbljenost tistih sil, ki se zavzemajo za demokratični razvoj države. Luka Mesec in njegovi namreč žalujejo za propadlo Jugoslavijo, poveličujejo njene simbole in domnevne vrednote, hvalijo Tita, socializem in se zavzemajo za obnovitev močne države. Vanjo naj bi se vrnili Slovenci, saj bi po zatrjevanju Združene levice samo močna država lahko odpravila slovenske težave in z vrednotami ter simboli iz preteklosti upravljala z državljani in njihovim življenjem.

V Sloveniji skrajna levica za izhod iz težav ponuja socializem – Marijan Drobež, Novi glas

***

To figure out whether a policy is good or bad, you have to first figure out what effects it would have. And while ideologues like to treat this as obvious, it rarely is.

Consider the minimum wage, one of the topics covered in the survey Roberts cites. Much of the debate over the minimum wage focuses on the empirical question of how a higher minimum wage would affect low-wage workers. Some economists believe a higher minimum wage will eliminate low-wage jobs; others believe this effect is negligible.

And crucially, this depends on the details. It’s plausible that today’s relatively low federal minimum wage costs few jobs, and that higher minimum wages in wealthy urban areas won’t cause much unemployment. But in areas where wages are lower, minimum wages can cause a lot of harm.

Sorry, liberals, liking free markets doesn’t make someone a jerk – Timothy B. Lee, Vox

***

Conservatives, for their part, wanted to know why we are now expected to accept, if not celebrate, those who choose their own gender identities, in defiance of hard chromosomal and anatomical facts, but are forbidden from extending an equally tolerant welcome to those who choose their own racial identities. After all, liberals tend to be the ones who insist that race is a “social construction”. So why not roll out the red carpet for Ms Dolezal?

Rachel Dolezal and race: Blurred lines – The Economist

***

The current definitions advanced by social liberalism do not make individual autonomy the measure ofall things; they do not simply instantiate a will to power or self-fulfillment. But they do treat adult autonomy as a morally-elevated good, and rate other possible rights and harm claims considerably lower as a consequence. Linker is right that today’s social liberalism does not simply preach an individualism unbound. But it preaches an individualism in which many bonds and rules and constraints are thinned to filaments, and waiting for the knife.

The Liberalism of Adult Autonomy – Ross Douthat, The New York Times

***

The concept of “micro-aggression” is just one of many tactics used to stifle differences of opinion by declaring some opinions to be “hate speech,” instead of debating those differences in a marketplace of ideas. To accuse people of aggression for not marching in lockstep with political correctness is to set the stage for justifying real aggression against them.

Micro-totalitarianism – Thomas Sowell, The New American

***

Hyperbole is part of politics. But there seems to be a fairly large disconnect between the criticism of Laudato Si (much of it made prior to the release of the actual text) and the encyclical itself. Theactual document is a more measured affair. For one thing, it’s not even really accurate to call it a “climate encyclical.” Most of the document is devoted to other environmental issues (ranging from clean drinking water to biodiversity) or to the proper Christian perspective on the environment generally. Only a small portion of the lengthy encyclical is devoted to climate change per se, and much of what the encyclical does say about climate change is in keeping with the prior statements of John Paul II and Benedict XVI on the issue.

(…)

It’s not progress but “irrational faith in progress” that he opposes; not technology but “blind confidence in technical solutions.” And Francis elsewhere praises specific new technologies that are going to be needed if we are going to reduce carbon emissions without hurting the poor.

Let’s Listen to the Pope on Climate – Josiah Neeley, First Things

***

Although Levin acclaims the thinking of the 18th-century Anglo-Irish statesman Burke with fewer reservations than Fisichella approaches his more controversial object of study, both authors believe that their subjects have much to teach the present age. They try to make their ideas relevant to the present, although in the case of the second figure in Levin’s book—Thomas Paine, who was a critic of Burke, an enthusiast for the French Revolution, and an advocate of the “rights of man”—we are given a counterexample to what Levin considers to be sound political and social views.

Inventing the Right – Paul Gottfried, The American Conservative

Tedenski izbor

Like Alexis de Tocqueville, Hayek is more quoted than read. Despite being on the short list of leading intellectual heroes for the American right, few conservatives or libertarians are all that familiar with his actual views on classical liberalism and free-market capitalism. Instead, as Thompson notes in his post, the rhetoric of the right reveals that we are more influenced by Ayn Rand than Hayek.

(…)

Today, the common enemy is liberalism and the fusionism occurs not between disparate groups butwithin an individual. People who would laugh at the absurdity of a “Christian Muslim” seem not to recognize the similar incongruity between being a follower of Christ and an acolyte of Ayn Rand.

Has Modern Conservatism Become a Cult? – Joe Carter, First Things

***

Crucially, given worries about investment and political instability, “In countries where inequality was generally thought to be high, more people supported government redistribution. But demand for redistribution bore no relation to the actual level of inequality.”

There’s too much in the paper to cover in one blogpost, but the results are extremely clear: people’s perceptions of inequality are really, really inaccurate – that holds globally and in all but a handful of Scandinavian countries.

(…)

Redistributive policies that reduce actual inequality are costly, and because actual inequality is barely related to perceptions of inequality they may do little to make the country more stable or market-friendly. If these are important problems, we can only solve them by making people feel less unequal – not by making them less unequal in fact. In short: even if people’s perceptions of inequality matter, the reality does not.

 The case against caring about inequality at all – Sam Bowman, Adam Smith Institute

***

Continue reading

Tedenski izbor

branje12

Since Thomas Hobbes, many people have embraced the illusory notion that society is made up of individuals. According to this view the only fair competition is between individuals, without undue benefit from family connections.
But no society has ever been this way. Individuals don’t come fully formed. They emerge out of families and groups. The family and the group are the essential social unit. These collectives have always shaped public life.
(…)
The philosopher Michael Oakeshott once observed that it takes three generations to make a career. That is, the skills that going into, say, a teacher — verbal fluency, empathy, endurance — take a long time to develop. They emerge in grandparents and great-grandparents and are passed down magnified through the generations. I bet you can trace ways your grandparents helped shape your career.

Mothers and Presidents – David Brooks, The New York Times

***

Cameron states that for too long ‘we have been a passively tolerant society’ and is presumably ‘pumped-up’ at the possibility of actively changing this image. But, in truth, Britain has strayed a long way from the Enlightenment conceptualisation of tolerance, which advocated robust engagement with others over matters of principle while recognising and accepting the need to live side-by-side.

In recent years, British society has become not tolerant but indifferent to the mores of others, preferring to turn a blind eye to outlooks and activities deemed not too threatening. You can believe anything you like, so long as you don’t believe in it too much, has been the unstated outlook of the authorities. Now, Cameron seeks to shift gear from passive indifference to active authoritarianism.

Anti-terror: the perversion of tolerance – Bill Durodié, Spiked

Continue reading

Tedenski izbor

branje8

Ne more pa gospodarski liberalizem biti udarna točka programa NSi, njihova naslovna zgodba, pozicijski slogan, jedro prepoznavnosti, edinstvena primerjalna prednost (…). Ker to nikakor ni zgodba večinskega potencialnega volivca NSi. Čeprav kakšen nadobuden strankin funkcionar, ki je pravkar odkril eleganco liberalne ekonomske misli, zdaj meni, da ga morajo zato kar naenkrat imeti radi vsi njegovi potencialni volivci. Ki jim v večini primerov za eleganco liberalne misli bolj ali manj visi dol.

(…)

Po vsebini pa mora NSi svoj liberalizem postaviti nekoliko v ozadje in postati, če želite, žlahtna konservativna stranka. Nikar, prosim, ne dovolite, da bi vam asociacija na Kučana za vedno onečedila to lepo besedno zvezo. Raje si tule preberite, kaj naj bi to zares pomenilo: www.kirkcenter.org.

NSi se mora dovolj jasno profilirati, da bo prva izbira za vse krščansko usmerjene volivce, tako tiste, ki bolj stavijo na tekmovalnost in meritokracijo, kot tiste, ki bi v ospredje prej postavili sožitje in solidarnost. Tudi kakšen krščanski socialist se mora prej najti pri njih kot pri kakšni naslednici Zveze komunistov ali pri kakšni skrajni novolevičarski združbi tipa Luka Mesec. Tudi vsem tistim kristjanom, ki so se ob vsaki priložnosti pripravljeni pridušati čez pohlep, sodobni materializem in brezdušni kapitalizem, mora znati pokazati, da ni pravi odgovor zatekanje h karšnemkoli kolektivizmu in centalnoplanskemu etatizmu.

Slovenska krščansko-liberalna stranka? Hm. – Blaž Vodopivec, Finance

***

Desetletje, v katerem se je zgodila finančna, gospodarska in socialna kriza, ko je država zdrknila na obrobje EU, smo se novinarji, politiki, sodniki in odvetniki ukvarjali s Patrio. Medtem ko so druge države iskale poti, kako iz krize, smo mi bojevali versko vojno med dvema religijama, med verniki v “kriv je” in verniki v “ni kriv”.

Proces Patria je samo zgovoren dokaz, da nam je tranzicijska povzpetniška elita ukradla državo, ki je ni sposobna voditi. Tako kot osemletni otrok ni sposoben voziti avtomobila, ker je pač premajhen, nevaren sebi, sopotnikom in drugim udeležencem v prometu, tako naša tranzicijska elita ni sposobna upravljati države v korist in blaginjo vseh državljanov. Ne zmrdujte se nad Hrvati, ki kupujejo naša podjetja, to je za nas sreča, naši politiki jih uničujejo.

Ostaja zgolj vprašanje, ali smo se iz Patrie morda le kaj naučili. Odziv Luke Mesca, da je ustavno sodišče spet pristransko, kaže na to, da se tudi tranzicijski podmladek sploh noče nič naučiti.

Luzerji – Uroš Urbas, Siol.net

Continue reading

Tedenski izbor

branje7

Problem “Grosupeljčanov” je, da so v manjšini. Čeprav bo del desne politične javnosti to razumel kot krivico, je vendarle jasno, da bo na naslednjih volitvah — zaradi nesposobnosti vlade morda predčasnih — spet zmagal Nejanez Nejanša. Kdorkoli že bo nasledil Cerarja kot vodilni politik levice in glavni izzivalec predsednika SDS.
Zato je tudi vlada v senci, ki so si jo zamislili v največji opozicijski stranki SDS, projekt, obsojen na volilni poraz — košarica Nove Slovenije pa razumljiva.Če bi hotela desnica resno ogroziti večno vladavino levice, bi projekt morala zastaviti širše. Povabiti bi morala neodvisne strokovnjake, nekdanje mladoekonomiste in zdrava jedra Državljanske liste in SLS in tako zasesti kar največji prostor na desni sredini. Šele tako bi volilcem ponudili nekaj novega, ne samo že videnega in doživetega v letih 2004 in 2011.

Če niso chemtrailsi, je pa Janša – Domen Uršič, FokusPokus

Continue reading

Tedenski izbor


branje6

“I wouldn’t call myself a conservative, but neither would I own to liberal. I’ll take just plain old “Catholic,” thanks” – writes with the following thought experiment:

Imagine a gay male couple who have been together for 20 years. They live nearby. You know them well, having a friendly non-political neighborly relationship. You borrow the odd egg, watch each other’s pets when somebody is on vacation, maybe chat at the annual 4th of July party. You are an orthodox Christian who runs a bakery business. Now apply the following scenarios:

A) One of the gay guys has a birthday. His partner asks you to bake the cake. Would you?

B) One of the gay guys dies. His partner asks you to bake the cake for the reception after the funeral. Would you?

C) Marriage is suddenly legalized in your state. They marry and ask you to bake the cake. Would you?

Seems to me that if the answer is no, no, and no, then you ought to examine yourself for homophobia.

But if the answer is yes, yes and no – that’s my answer – then you are arguably simply being principled. I can say “yes” to A and B because I can honor their friendship and loyalty to each other, their faithful service to each other over years. However, I say “no” to C because marriage is not an institution that can be defined entirely in terms of affection, loyalty and service. Or even eros or heartfelt private romantic feelings. Marriage includes all those things, but it exists is a social institution because the fertility of male and female potentially creates uniquely public consequences (children).

The left disputes my premise for saying no to C. Fine, let’s have that debate. People of goodwill can disagree.

But we are not even allowed to have that debate. My side’s case is dismissed by the liberal elite because they think people like me are haters.

Given that I want to say yes to situations A and B, I think it’s demonstrable that I’m not a hater or homophobe. I am not frightened of gay people and I do not hate them. I just do not think that what they are doing is marriage, and I think calling what they’re doing “marriage” will obscure what marriage is.

Cake and Cosmology – Rod Dreher, The American Conservative

***

The only clear biblical meta-narrative is about male and female. Sex is an area of Jewish law that Jesus explicitly makes stricter. What we now call the “traditional” view of sexuality was a then-radical idea separating the early church from Roman culture, and it’s remained basic in every branch of Christianity until very recently. Jettisoning it requires repudiating scripture, history and tradition (…)

I take a different view of what they could have known. But yes, the evidence that homosexuality isn’t chosen — along with basic humanity — should inspire repentance for cruelties visited on gay people by their churches. But at Christianity’s bedrock is the idea that we are all in the grip of an unchosen condition, an “original” problem that our wills alone cannot overcome. So homosexuality’s deep origin is not a trump card against Christian teaching.

Interview With a Christian – Ross Douthat, The New York Times

***

I was raised by a lesbian couple and had to build bridges to my estranged father in my late twenties. Much of the connection to my father and the benefits of growing up with him were irreparably lost by the time I was a grown man—but at least, I knew who my father was and where to find him. I could salvage my ancestry.

A new generation of children will not even have that consolation I had. Conceived in loveless fertility clinics, gestated in the wombs of women they will never meet, trafficked from poor biological families with the help of complicit governments, “adopted” through a social services system corrupted by money and political pressure, or torn from their birth parents by family court judges who are desperate to please the gay lobby, the new generation of children will be far worse off than I was.

When the debate over gay marriage has receded, when their gay guardians are dead and buried, when the world has moved on, these children will still never be able to recover their heritage.

After Indiana, Gay-Marriage Supporters Should Look in the Mirror – Robert Oscar Lopez, Ethika Politika

Continue reading

Liberalizem, konservativnost in družinska zakonodaja

Odločil sem se, da že pred časom začeto razpravo o odnosu med konservativnostjo ter liberalizmom navežem na konkretno, v tem trenutku zelo aktualno politično temo družinske zakonodaje. Moj namen je dvojen. Spričo aktualnosti se pri razpravi ne bom trudil izogniti temu, da izrazim nekaj lastnih pogledov na obravnavano vprašanje. Hkrati pa želim temo družinske zakonodaje predvsem izkoristiti kot dober praktični primer, ki nam lahko pove nekaj o razmerjih med konservativnostjo in liberalizmom.

Kar običajno je namreč, da se ravno tovrstna vprašanja obravnava v okvirih nekakšne posplošene konservativno-liberalne dihotomije, pri čemer je „liberalno“ tisto stališče, ki je v prid spremembam, „konservativno“ pa tisto, ki tem nasprotuje. Tako se lahko zdi, da ravno družinski zakonik predstavlja idealen primer konkretnega političnega vprašanja, ob katerem je že vnaprej jasno, kakšno stališče bo „konservativno“ in kakšno „liberalno.“ Če bi sprejeli tovrstno smer razmišljanja, bi torej lahko smelo zaključili, da smo našli jasno točko razhajanja med konservativci in liberalci, ki nam lahko služi kot dober primer nasprotja med tema dvema političnima usmeritvama.

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

Sovražni govor in govorica gneva

Amedy Coulibaly, Parižan, oborožen z brzostrelko, bojno puško in dvema pištolama, je 9. januarja vstopil v prodajalno s košer izdelki. Ubil je štiri ljudi in zajel več talcev; kasneje je med policijsko akcijo tudi sam umrl.

Coulibalyjev napad ni bil deležen veliko pozornosti. Zasenčil ga je poboj na uredništvu Charlie Hebdo, ki sta ga dva dni pred tem izvedla njegova sodelavca – soborca? –, brata Chérif in Saïd Kouachi. O njegovem zločinu niso pisali kolumn. Nihče ni raziskoval, kaj ga je gnalo k uboju obiskovalcev trgovine. Nihče ni pomislil, da bi na podlagi Coulibalyjevega napada preizprašal pravico Judov do obiskovanja košer trgovin ali pravico Evropejcev do prehranjevanja v skladu s svojim izročilom. In seveda, nikomur ni padlo na pamet, da so bile žrtve »krive« za to, da jih je Amedy Coulibaly postrelil.

Njegov zločin ni sprožil javne diskusije, in prav je tako. Nasilen napad na ljudi, ki izvajajo neko svoboščino – v tem primeru kupovanje izdelkov v skladu z lastno religiozno tradicijo –, ne sme biti povod za javno razpravo o upravičenosti te svoboščine. Nasilje ne more biti argument: lahko se mu uklonimo, pogosto smo prisiljeni priznati njegovo fizično premoč, vendar to ne pomeni, da mu bomo pripisali težo tudi v redu argumentov.

"Nihče ni pomislil, da bi na podlagi Coulibalyjevega napada preizprašal pravico Judov do obiskovanja košer trgovin ali pravico Evropejcev do prehranjevanja v skladu s svojim izročilom"

“Nihče ni pomislil, da bi na podlagi Coulibalyjevega napada preizprašal pravico Judov do obiskovanja košer trgovin ali pravico Evropejcev do prehranjevanja v skladu s svojim izročilom”

 

Evropska pomota

A prav to se je zgodilo po poboju dela uredništva Charlie Hebdo, ki sta ga zakrivila Coulibalyjeva sodelavca, brata Kouachi. Evropska javnost se je seveda strinjala, da je bi atentat nekaj slabega. Za trenutek ali dva smo bili »vsi« Charlie. Toda ali ni, če pomislimo bolje, satirčni časnik izzval napade? Ali niso pisci in karikaturisti sistematično smešili francoskih muslimanov, ali niso profanizirali njihovega preroka, njihovega boga? Zakonodaje evropskih držav prepovedujejo blatenje dobrega imena posameznikov. Mar ne bi bilo smiselno – z ozirom na to, kaj je izzval Charlie Hebdo –, če bi to prepoved razširili tudi na blatenje dobrega imena družbenih skupin, na svetoskrunstvo?

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

Naš cilj je bil tudi, narediti konec enoumju, ki se v razpravi o privatizaciji ustvarja, ko mediji kot protiutež nasprotnikom privatizacije prikazujejo ljudi, ki v ključnost obsežne privatizacije sploh ne verjamejo, ampak jo zagovarjajo zgolj v zelo omejeni obliki, kot nujno zlo za pokrivanje preteklih dolgov in ugodno nadaljnje zadolževanje za tekoče potrebe proračuna, ki jih niso pripravljeni oklestiti. Tudi to dvoje sta relevantna razloga, gotovo. Nista pa ne edina ne najbolj pomembna, zato je bila dosedanja razprava brez sogovornikov, ki bi to jasno povedali, izkrivljena.

(…)

Zaključim naj z odgovorom na slogan: »Prodaja ni ne prostovoljna, ne poštena in ne pravična!«, ki ga slišimo iz druge strani te razprave.

Neprostovoljno je prav državno lastništvo, saj nam je prebivalcem vsiljeno in brez naše privolitve vzdrževano z našimi sredstvi. Nepoštena je trditev, da gre za »naša« podjetja, ko pa se o njih in za njih nikakor ne odločamo državljani, ampak jih kot bankomat uporabljajo interesne mreže. Nepravično je, da moramo davkoplačevalci nositi tveganje, ko se politiki odločijo igrati podjetnike in borzne posrednike z našim denarjem. Neprostovoljno, nepošteno in nepravično je, da je račun centralnega plana vedno znova izstavljen davkoplačevalcem. Naredimo temu konec.

Kaj je prinesla pobuda ZA privatizacijo? – Rok Novak, Časnik

Continue reading

Tedenski izbor

bhl

Right after the French Revolution, France abrogated its old laws making blasphemy a crime—and so Charlie Hebdo’s blasphemous depictions of Muhammad are not a crime. At the same time, France’s press laws, which date to the late nineteenth century, make it a crime to “provoke discrimination, hatred, or violence toward a person or group of persons because of their origin or belonging to a particular ethnicity, nation, race, or religion.” In other words, you can ridicule the prophet, but you cannot incite hatred toward his followers.

(…)

This complex distinction reflects modern France’s anti-clerical roots: individuals are protected, but churches and their doctrines are not. There was a powerful desire among the French Republicans to destroy the hegemony of the Catholic Church after the Republic was definitively reëstablished in 1871. This desire did not, however, extend to the creation of something akin to a First Amendment in France. Freedom of expression is mentioned prominently in the Rights of Man, but in practice it is far more restricted than in the U.S., and contains many confusing exceptions.

(…)

These kinds of exceptions, selective restrictions, and ambiguities in France’s freedom-of-expression laws have left the country vulnerable to charges of political favoritism. France might consider either a broader conception of free speech—the notion that the answer to bad speech is more speech—or doing a better job of clarifying what is allowed, and why. That it does not relates, once more, to France’s anti-clerical roots.

Why French Law Treats Dieudonné and Charlie Hebdo Differently – Alexander Stille, The New Yorker

***

Last Thursday, the day after the massacre at Charlie Hebdo and the day before the killings at a kosher supermarket, teachers in many suburban classrooms were unable to impose a moment of silence in tribute to the dead. They had insulted the Prophet, the kids said, and the Gauls are not our ancestors—to parody the famous slogan “nos ancêtres les Gaulois” which has traditionally guided the teaching of history in the French education system.

When the slogan, “Not in my name!”, appeared in Britain in May 2013 in protest against the attempted decapitation of the soldier Lee Rigby  in full view of passersby, there was criticism in France: Muslims should not appropriate the phrase. Why? Because they are French—religion should not become an identifying label.

All European countries, whatever their approach to immigration, are confronted today with the intricacies of multi-culturalism and the rise of populism. All European countries have to face the threat of al Qaeda and IS converting desperate youths to their cause, training them in Yemen or in Syria, before some of them go back home and vanish in to the depths of our free societies. There is no easy solution to this new phase of terrorist strategies against our democracies.

Charlie Hebdo: the emotional hangover begins for France – Christine Ockrent, Prospect Magazine

Continue reading

Tedenski izbor

Man_Reading_a_Book

Today is a dark day for Europe. The barbaric assault on the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo is an attack most immediately on the journalists and cartoonists who worked there, 12 of whom are dead, executed in cold blood for the ‘crime’ of saying what they think. But this horrific act was also an attack on Europe itself, on all of us, on our fundamental right to freedom of thought and speech. None of us can feel the pain currently being felt by the friends and families of the murdered journalists and illustrators – but all of us should feel assaulted by this massacre, for it is designed to chill us and make us cower, to make us censor ourselves or else suffer the consequences.

(…)

Our response should be to reaffirm our commitment to freedom of speech and most importantly to the right to be offensive, to provoke, to mock and ridicule any belief system we want. From John Wilkes’ royalty-bashing pamphlets to Thomas Paine’s questioning of religion, offending gods and kings, kicking against the orthodoxies of one’s age, has been central to the Enlightenment, to the birth of the modern world. To fail to offer solidarity to Charlie Hebdo and other modern offenders against religious or political correctness would be to turn the clock back on the Enlightenment itself and propel Europe back into an era of self-silencing and moral obedience.

In solidarity with Charlie Hebdo: fight for the right to be offensive – Brendan O’Neill, Spiked

Continue reading

Tedenski izbor

portrait-of-edmond-maitre-the-reader

Če je pomembno le število znakov, naštempljane ure, potem bodo uredniki hitro ugotovili, da so v idealni deželi: člankov jim še brati ni treba, kaj šele komentirati in se komu zameriti. Tudi novinarji se bodo hitro prilagodili. Kdor odda raziskan in temeljito pripravljen članek, je idiot – mar bi skopiral nekje od nekod, izpolnil normo glede znakov, poštempljal odmerjeno število ur, od tega pol na kavici s predstavnikom lastnika, kjer bi se mu prilizoval.

(…)

Omeniti moram še element novinarskega dela, ki pa je zunaj poklica in del nezavednih družbenih pravil: jamranje, pasivnost, letargija, fatalizem. Tudi če objavite še tako raziskano in šokantno novico, recimo lopovščino kakega politika, bodo ljudje le zavzdihnili “Takle mamo” in to bo to. Politik seveda ne bo odstopil, le zameril bo.

Skratka, javno mnenje, ki bi moralo biti največji zaveznik novinarstva, pri nas ne obstaja.

Obstaja le javno jamranje. To pa se lahko najbolj naslaja ravno pri zgodbah o lačnih čistilkah in tako je krog sklenjen.

Mučno potovanje v nepomembnost – Miha Mazzini, Planet Siol

 

***

Mariboru je šlo slabo že takrat, ko se je še zdelo, da gre Sloveniji dobro. Poudarjam: zdelo! Danes je vsakomur jasno, da se kriza v Sloveniji ni začela 15. septembra 2008 z bankrotom Lehman Brothersov. To nas je kvečjemu pahnilo v spiralo, na katero pa že prej nismo bili pripravljeni.

Razlogi za slovensko zavoženost so starejši. Če bi bili pametnejši, bi jih videli v Mariboru. Namesto da bi v njihovih težavah videli resne, splošne, vseslovenske napake – ekonomske, politične, socialne, kulturne napake, celo zmote -, smo videli zanemarljive probleme lokalnih ljudi, ki da se ne znajdejo in pričakujejo pomoč drugih.

Maribor je bil vseh teh dvajset in več let ogledalo Slovenije, ki nam je kazalo prihodnost. Našo skupno prihodnost. Mi pa smo gledali stran.

(…)

Nihče ni v Mariboru videl splošnih slovenskih problemov. Ne ti ne jaz, ne profesorji ne komentatorji in ne politiki – ne Kučan ne Drnovšek, ne vsi tisti vmes med njunimi časi in današnjim Cerarjem.

Maribor je veliki poraz slovenskega ekonomskega in političnega modela. Sram nas je lahko.

Maribor je Slovenija : samo bolj fejst nor – Marko Crnkovič, Primorske novice

***

V Sloveniji se je plačna enakost povečala, ugotavlja urad za makroekonomske analize in razvoj. Kot so pojasnili, so se plače nižje izobraženih v krizi najbolj zvišale (nominalno za več kot 16 odstotkov), plače višje izobraženih pa so se znižale.

(…)

Res se je enakost torej povečala, a na žalost tako, da smo vsi revnejši.

Čedalje bolj enaki, čedalje bolj revni – Rok Pikon, Finance

***

Zelo nizek obisk /kinodvoran/ po Sloveniji pomeni, da se, ne glede na to, da smo praktično v vseh večjih mestih v zadnjih desetih letih dobili kinosredišča (te imajo Koper, Kranj, Ljubljana, Celje, Novo mesto, Maribor in Murska Sobota), vseeno srečujemo z nekakšno deurbanizacijo mladega resnejšega aktivnega prebivalstva, ki kulturne vsebine preprosto vse manj spremlja na tak način, da se odpravi od doma. (…) Če (in kako) mladi filmske vsebine spremljajo doma, pa je že drugo, morda malce bolj filozofsko vprašanje.

Nadaljnji strahovit padec kinooobiska v letošnjem letu kaže, da je erozija resnejšega filmskega občinstva vse večja in večja in da je ta ostala relativno čvrsta zgolj še v jasno določenih nišah filmske kulture, ki jo recimo v Ljubljani tvorita Kinodvor in Liffe.

V zgolj dvanajstih letih se je Slovenija iz dežele, kjer je film, tudi slovenski (v obdobju 1998–2003), relativno dobro cvetel, spremenila v urbano puščavo iz poapokaliptičnih filmov, kjer se mladi ljudje najraje zadržujejo doma, od koder jih sem ter tja spravijo zgolj še razvpiti filmi. Ti seveda niso sinonim za mestno življenje, kjer naj bi se rojevale družbene pobude in nove ideje.

Slovenija, dežela brez mestnega življenja? – Samo Rugelj, Planet Siol

***

Homosexual marriage is primarily a creation of the judiciary, a fact which is especially evident right now as the lower federal courts go about using the United States Supreme Court’s 2013 Windsor decision to nullify the marriage laws of state after state.

In this essay, we deal with the decisions of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2003 and a federal district court in California in 2010 holding man-and-woman marriage deficient and, indeed, unconstitutional. But how and on what basis did they do that? There were no written laws, constitutions, or case precedents in either state or federal constitutional law to which to refer. Marriage had existed in the form of a relationship of a man and a woman with a primary purpose of procreation for all human history. Before the homosexual rights movement, no one had ever thought to sue marriage. Marriage was not considered to be a subject for “equal protection” analysis in either state or federal constitutional law. It was not a civil rights issue, much less an “issue.”

The Courts Invent Homosexual Marriage – Erasmus More, The Imaginative Conservative

***

The book contains numerous examples to illustrate the deleterious effect boycotts have upon academic freedom. We’re told of authors who refuse to have their books translated into Hebrew, Israeli academics pulled from the editorial boards of journals, PhD students prevented from taking up scholarships, as well as many more mundane examples of academics not being able to speak at conferences or take part in collaborative research projects.

The Boycott-Israel Brigade Undermines the University – Joanna Williams, Spiked

***

Pero el problema es que la palabra liberal la quiere todo el mundo. Todos son liberales y conservadores, o socialistas a fuer de liberal. Es una palabra manipulada por todo el mundo. Por eso los que de verdad somos liberales tenemos que tener clara una cosa: si eres liberal tienes que serlo en todas las manifestaciones. La palabra liberalismo no solamente habla de libertades, también de liberación. El liberalismo habla de que el ser humano no puede estar oprimido por los poderes financieros, ni por el poder de los medios de comunicación, ni por el eclesiástico. En este mundo la tendencia a la concentración de poder es tremenda. Este es el problema del liberalismo y tarda uno mucho en entenderlo.

[Težava je, da si besedo liberalizem želijo prisvojiti vsi. Vsi so liberalci in konservativci ali pa so socialisti, ker so liberalci. Gre za besedo, ki jo vsi manipulirajo. Zato nam mora resničnim liberalcem biti jasno nekaj: če si liberalec, moraš biti liberalec v vseh pogledih. Beseda liberalizem ne govori le o svoboščinah, temveč tudi o osvoboditvi. Liberalizem pravi, da človek ne sme biti zatiran niti s strani finančnih moči niti s strani medijskih moči niti strani moči cerkvenih institucij. V našem svetu obstaja grozljiva koncentracija moči. To je problem, s katerim se sooča liberalizem, in zelo zamuja z njegovim dojemanjem.]

Antonio Garrigues Walker: “El auge de Podemos es absoluta y radicalmente lógico y positivo” – Guillermo de Haro & Álvaro Corazón Rural, Jot Down Magazine

***

The full horror of the CIA interrogation and detention programmes launched in the wake of the September 11 terror attack was laid bare in the long-awaited Senate report released on Tuesday.

While parts of the programme had been known – and much more will never be revealed – the catalogue of abuse is nightmarish and reads like something invented by the Marquis de Sade or Hieronymous Bosch.

Detainees were forced to stand on broken limbs for hours, kept in complete darkness, deprived of sleep for up to 180 hours, sometimes standing, sometimes with their arms shackled above their heads.

Prisoners were subjected to “rectal feeding” without medical necessity. Rectal exams were conducted with “excessive force”. The report highlights one prisoner later diagnosed with anal fissures, chronic hemorrhoids and “symptomatic rectal prolapse”.

The report mentions mock executions, Russian roulette. US agents threatened to slit the throat of a detainee’s mother, sexually abuse another and threatened prisoners’ children. One prisoner died of hypothermia brought on in part by being forced to sit on a bare concrete floor without pants.

Rectal rehydration and waterboarding: the CIA torture report’s grisliest findings – Dominic Rushe & al, The Guardian

***

Torture is absolutely wrong and absolutely useless, and demonstrating the truth of both statements will make clear how completely bankrupt its defenders’ arguments really are. Proving that torture achieves nothing except the cruel degradation of human beings takes away the only argument its defenders have left. It would obviously be better if no one were willing to offer a defense for something as abhorrent as torture, but we know very well that quite a few people are prepared to do that so long as they can dress up what they’re defending in euphemisms and false claims about its efficacy. The point of insisting on torture’s uselessness is to strip away the remaining falsehoods that its defenders use to conceal the ugly reality of what they are defending.

Torture Is Wrong and Useless – Daniel Larison, The American Conservative

***

There is, however, another prism through which to examine these grim stories: the use of excessive violence by the state (see article). It, too, has complex origins, but quite a lot of them may be susceptible to reform. In many cases Americans simply do not realise how capricious and violent their law-enforcement system is compared with those of other rich countries. It could be changed in ways that would make America safer, and fairer to both blacks and whites.

Bits of America’s criminal-justice system are exemplary—New York’s cops pioneered data-driven policing, for instance—but overall the country is an outlier for all the wrong reasons. It jails nearly 1% of its adult population, more than five times the rich-country average. A black American man has, by one estimate, a one in three chance of spending time behind bars. Sentences are harsh. Some American states impose life without parole for persistent but non-violent offenders; no other rich nation does. America’s police are motivated to be rapacious: laws allow them to seize assets they merely suspect are linked to a crime and then spend the proceeds on equipment. And, while other nations have focused on community policing, some American police have become paramilitary, equipping themselves with grenade launchers and armoured cars. The number of raids by heavily armed SWAT teams has risen from 3,000 a year in 1980 to 50,000 today, by one estimate.

Above all, American law enforcement is unusually lethal: even the partial numbers show that the police shot and killed at least 458 people last year. By comparison, those in England and Wales shot and killed no one.

America’s Police on Trial – The Economist

 ***

Votre ouvrage, en rendant Foucault compatible avec le néolibéralisme, risque de faire grincer un paquet de dents!

J’espère ! C’est un peu le but du livre. Je voulais clairement rompre avec l’image bien trop consensuelle d’un Foucault en opposition complète avec le néolibéralisme sur la fin de sa vie. De ce point de vue, je pense que les interprétations traditionnelles de ces derniers travaux sont erronées, ou évitent du moins une partie du problème. Il est devenu aujourd’hui une sorte de figure intouchable dans une partie de la gauche radicale. Les critiques à son encontre sont pour le moins timides. Cet aveuglement est d’autant plus étonnant que j’ai moi même été surpris de l’indulgence dont fait part Foucault vis-à-vis du néolibéralisme lorsque je me suis plongé dans les textes. Ce n’est pas uniquement son cours aux Collège France qui pose question (Naissance de la biopolitique) mais de nombreux articles et interviews, qui sont pourtant accessibles. Foucault était très attiré par le libéralisme économique : il voyait dans celui-ci la possibilité d’une forme de gouvernementalité beaucoup moins normative et autoritaire que la gauche socialiste et communiste qu’il trouvait totalement dépassée. Il percevait notamment dans le néolibéralisme une politique « beaucoup moins bureaucratique » et « beaucoup moins disciplinariste » que celle proposée par l’État social d’après guerre. Il semble imaginer un néolibéralisme qui ne projetterait pas ses modèles anthropologiques sur les individus et leur offrirait une autonomie plus grande face à l’État.

Peut-on critiquer Foucault? – Daniel Zamora, Ballast

***

Slovenija je bila že pred letošnjim letom na nehvaležnem prvem mestu držav po številu sodb ESČP na število prebivalstva z ugotovljenim kršitvami Evropske konvencije. Zdi se, da je v iztekajočem se letu svoj položaj le še utrdila. Statistični podatki so več kot alarmantni, zaradi česar zahtevajo skrbno ter resno obravnavo. Dosegli so že takšno stopnjo resnosti, da jih nosilci državnih oblasti ne morejo več kar tako pometati pod preprogo, če jim je seveda kaj mar za izboljšanje stanja na področju varovanja človekovih pravic.

Najprej se bo potrebno vprašati zakaj smo dosegli tolikšno število obsodilnih sodb Evropskega sodišča in zakaj se varovanje človekovih pravic prav nič ne izboljšuje. Več kot očitno je, da težave nastajajo ne le zaradi pomanjkljivega znanja o Evropski konvenciji, ampak morda tudi zaradi premajhnega zavedanja resnosti problema. Odsotnost resnega obravnavanja takšnih sistematičnih in vsesplošnih težav izhaja iz vseh vej oblasti v Sloveniji, pa tudi od organov, ki naj bi delovali na področju varovanja človekovih pravic. Denimo, letno poročilourada Varuhinje človekovih pravic za leto 2013 obravnava le posamezna drevesa – navaja denimo le dve sodbi Evropskega sodišča zoper Slovenijo, ne vidi pa celotnega gozda, torej sistematičnih in vsesplošnih težav slovenske države, prvič, pri uresničevanju Evropske konvencije, in drugič, pri izvrševanju sodb Evropskega sodišča v slovenskem pravnem redu.

Tristo – Jernej Letnar Černič, Ius Info

***

Po raziskavah zgodovinarjev, ki se ukvarjajo z genocidom nad Romi, je bilo med drugo svetovno vojno v Evropi pobitih okrog pol milijona Romov in Sintov. Nekateri raziskovalci to številko sicer močno povečujejo. Romi so bili, tako kot Judje, žrtev genocida, ki so ga izvajali nacisti in ga strokovno imenujemo porrajmos. Heinrich Himmler je namreč sredi novembra 1943 tudi uradno izenačil položaj Romov z žalostno usodo evropskih Judov.
(…)
Omenjene poboje, ki so jih zakrivili pripadniki partizanskega gibanja, moramo prišteti med vojne zločine nad Romi. Resda ni šlo za genocid, saj slovenske partizanske oblasti niso nikoli ukazale njihovega načrtnega ubijanja. Ampak, ali to spremeni dejstvo, da so več kot polovico vsega romskega prebivalstva v t. i. Ljubljanski pokrajini med drugo svetovno vojno pobili pripadniki partizanskega gibanja?

Sprenevedanje po slovensko – Renato Podbersič ml., Časnik

 

***

Most protesters said Thursday morning that they had returned to the camp not to resist the clearance, but to witness what they called the beginning of another era in a long-term democratic movement.

“This is definitely not the end of the movement,” lawmaker Leong told TIME just hours before his arrest. “With this awakening of the Hong Kong people, we have sown the seeds for the next wave of the democratization movement.”

Hong Kong’s Main Democracy Protest Camp Falls With Leading Protest Figures Arrested – Elizabeth Barber, Time