Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
EDIT: MuadDib: Marowitz shows his shocking lack of research in the first paragraph by assuming that "Will I Am" is a pseudonym for Obama Supporters Industries, Inc. will.i.am is a brilliant R&B performer and producer, front man for the Black Eyed Peas. That Marowitz doesn't bother to find this out sets a sad tone for this piece. Then he Godwins himself in the third paragraph and then throughout the piece. I have a hard time getting with much of anything he says after that--his thesis is: inspiration BAD--because of the NASTY polemic the thing is couched in, INCLUDING the ludicrous and hypocritical appeals to emotion embedded in it.
Look, folks: people get SCARED by others' inspiration. Change is scary. And the natural human reaction when you see other people inspired by something is cynicism. It's a very normal reaction, and it's also VERY conservative. The thing that sets the left apart is that we're willing to work through that cynicism because we see something possible on the other side of it. The right climbs up on top of their cynicism and makes it their platform, but on the left, we know there's something more, something bigger on the other side of it. A the VERY least, I urge you not to give in to your natural urge to shut down something inspiring that you don't have your own personal hands on.
Who the hell SAYS cool-headed objectivity is better than inspiration and emotion? As if absolute objectivity was even possible! I'll bet I could whip up some heated emotion from the objectivity camp, and I wouldn't even have to try too hard. And what objectivites don't notice is... it's an emotional reaction to inspiration that has them saying what they're saying.
|
Rat: I'm not claiming Marowitz to be a Noam Chomsky, nor does his knowledge (or lack thereof) of the Black Eyed Peas give me any reason take pause. To be quite honest, I have had no respect for their music since 2004 & 'Where is the Love', but that's a conversation best kept out of the Politics forum. His credentials withstanding, he is not writing a law review note but an op-ed about his take Obamania. A take which speaks to my concerns in a real way. As for the "NASTY polemic thing", I do believe that all the venom in the analogy is lost when he immediately recants that very connection then goes on to refer to Barak as civil, sensitive, intelligent, and inspiring. Take it or leave it, I think that he at least points out that inspiration is blind to it's cause, that is neither inherently good or bad, but it's results are defined by the cause.
Now, about this "change scary" rap that the Obama campaign tries to paint on every non-supporter out there. For Christ sakes, I return your own "Arrogant much?" plus interest. Don't philosophize about the nature of man and change to me or assume just because I don't hop on board the Barak bandwagon that I'm some terror-stricken primate who runs back into his cave for fear of the light. That is the very labelling and fear-mongering that I'm saying is repugnant and scary. Change is the natural order of things, life is nothing less than constant change which is why the Obamaniac "only hope" attitude is simply ridiculous. Neo-conservativism has run it's course, this was readily apparent in the 2006 election season and if not then certainly by the Republican primary campaigns this year. Hell, every candidate is change, it's merely a matter of areas, degrees, and abilities.
Listen, if you'd read my previous post you should have gotten that I am not anti-inspiration, anti-emotion, or anti-passion. As if you couldn't tell, you've invoked my ire by your response despite your quaint labelling of me as an "objectivite". What I am against is placing inspiration, emotion, and passion on a pedestal and letting oneself get swept away by sentiment. You say change only ever happens when people are passionate, but I say lasting real change only happens when people are passionate about an issue, an idea, or a plan that they connect with on it's merits. The reason objectivity, actually attainable or not, should be the goal that one strives for in decision-making is because ends reached in that manner are more likely to weather the test of time and actually be effectuated. Passions are fickle and flighty, one can be let down as easily as uplifted and just as swiftly. What I argue for is temperance and placing the horse before the cart. There is nothing wrong with being inspired by a man's vision, there is something wrong with being inspired by a man without a clear grasp of his vision.
Addendum: It is not my intention to lump you, Rat, into a group with the man before merit supporters. Whether you are or not isn't known to me, nor does it make any real difference one way or the other. I realized while typing that last paragraph that I had been weaving in and out of responding to you specifically and re-making my general argument about such supporters and, rather than delete the entire post and try to hurdle possible misinterpretation. So just know that, while I disagree with your assessment of my position, it is not necessarily my intention to make you the object of that position.