Daily Discussion: What’s the “worst thing ever”?
Sometimes if someone is describing a movie, a book or an experience, they might try to dull their criticism by saying something like “Well, it wasn’t the worst thing ever…” But what is the worst thing ever?
Being trapped or trapping others in the bewitchment of language. Using the immense power of the logos for the sake of merely appealing to and leaving people where they are. This is why philosophy in one sense can be said to begin with Plato and Aristotle, for each in their own way was tarrying and keeping close to the ultimate question: What does it mean to speak well?
Brain overload after having witnessed Trekgasm 2013
Abrams’ Trek reboot pt.2 thrills on so many fronts. Let me say that again… so many fronts. Of course a few plot holes and WTF scenarios; and yet, astonishing.
Sounds weird though; for part of me is thinking of that line from Amadeus where some wigged out dude says “too too, too many notes”. Then it looked the preposterous insult, now I dunno. ‘Course, it does boldly go.
Targeting the Tea Party
On one hand, targeting Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny looks like a massively and systemically unfair abuse of power by the IRS.
That said, it’s important to keep this in context. Additional scrutiny was given to “various local organizations in the Tea Party movement…applying for exemption under 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4).” A 501(c)(3) organization is a charity of the traditional sense that cannot support political candidates and gets massive tax benefits. So if a Tea Party group is applying for 501(c)(3) status, extra scrutiny is warranted. The only problem would be if left-leaning groups were routinely let through.
There has been an explosion of 501(c)(4) groups—which allow all sorts of dark money into politics. While they are nominally supporting “issues,” some of them are pushing even the relatively lax legal boundaries. And, yes, most of the new ones were conservative groups last time around. Additional scrutiny can both makes sure the laws are upheld from the beginning and prevents people from the facing the extremely unpleasant consequences of inadvertently breaking them.
This is worth investigating—but I suspect that the findings should be relatively benign. Somebody was trying to save time by a clumsy, albeit impermissibly partisan, shortcut. As a matter of accountability, it’s important to take this sort of thing seriously. Of course, insisting that there is a corruption scandal regardless of what the investigation shows is another way of not taking the investigation seriously.
There’s a Victoria’s Secret model on Bill O’Reilly right now. She’s denouncing her past modelling, all the hyper-sexuality, having come to some message from God … and this is taking place up against an image-over collage of her modelling all manner of swimsuits and soft-pornesque postures.
I kid you not
We should look at the results and the path of the New Atheism and make bets on where it’s going! What does it look like when, angered by simpletons, a movement gets all stoked up in a fit of purity to attack all religion whatsoever - and then conveniently defines its opposition in terms of buying into the same premises of a temporally and historically limited practice, the one most suited to being blown out of the water, and then sits back and gloats as if it had scientifically exhausted the phenomenon and thereby won the fight?
…the figure of New Atheism shifts back and forth, finding the matter at hand at one moment in religion per se and yet, at another moment, in religion as it presents itself to us right now. At one moment, all religion is reduced to the same essential threat - the same target which we are enjoined to attack - but then (inevitably) when it amps up one manifestation of this threat (say Islam) as uniquely different, it slings charges of “the fallacy of false equivalence” at anyone who would question the logic of such a determination. What are we to make of the near simultaneous embrace of equivalence and its condemnation - of sameness and difference?"
…But sex, or enjoying substance, accounts not only for the radical disjunction of the other two from each other but also for the internal disjunction of each. Sex in this way purloins the substantial, or self-enclosed, dimension of each of the so-called substances … while Foucault argues that bio-power, abetted by the Freudian theory of sex, eliminates the void between life as function and life as historical experience, or between life and law, and thus eliminates the political space or space of possibility of human action, Lacan argues the opposite: Freud conceives sex as that which takes place in and holds open the space of human action."