In case the government hasn’t creeped you out yet this week: you may want to know whether or not your printer is on this list.
Some of my immediate reactions during the President’s speech today:
The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century.
Sweet! That means I can recycle the mindless fear and hatred of the sixties and seventies! Now I don’t even have to come up with a new mode of generalized disgust!
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy teaches that innocent individuals can be sacrificed to serve a political vision. And this explains their cold-blooded contempt for human life.
In a courtroom in the Netherlands, the killer of Theo Van Gogh turned to the victim’s grieving mother and said, I do not feel your pain because I believe you are an infidel.
I’m sorry, but at least he gave a reason.
Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be in an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies.
In truth, they have endless ambitions of imperial domination and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves.
I get it. Jon Stewart wrote this speech. It’s all a big joke. Right? Please?
[Transcript via NYTimes.com]
Who are the top five public intellectuals in the world? Damned if I know, but the periodical Foreign Policy wants to find out. Or at least, they’re running an internet poll on the question, The Prospect/FP Top 100 Public Intellectuals. They’ve thrown together a top 100 list of historians, political theorists, writers, scientists, and 10 (!) philosophers who they think make the cut, and are calling for votes on who makes the top 5.
While on the one hand I’m rather proud of the fact that I know maybe 50% of the people who made the list, it also marks the distressing fact that there are 50 or so people whose names I’ve never even heard. Even that rough 50% figure counts a lot of people I’ve just heard a reference to here or there, but know almost nothing substantive about who they are or what they do. Assuming the average reader is even moderately better informed than me (say, they’ve read a book or article by 50% of those on the list), it seems like this will come down to a popularity contest. Should I be voting for Dennett just because I’ve read his books and like them alot? This doesn’t seem like a fair criterion to prefer him over, say, E.O. Wilson, who I hear great things about but haven’t gotten a chance to read. The same goes for Jared Diamond, who I’d vote for in a second, except that Guns, Germs and Steel remains on my to-read list. And then there’s people like Jeffrey Sachs (American economist) and Shintaro Ishihara (a “Politician” and author from Japan). Should they fail to make the cut simply because I have no idea who they are?
Not that FP is offering any advice, since they don’t even recommend criteria for what makes someone a good “public intellectual”. Seeing as it’s left open to reader interpretation, everyone go and vote, and I guess just use whatever insights you have about the people on the list. We all know the Pope is going to win anyway.
Just one final note on the list: I’m happy to see Christopher Hitchens’ occupation listed as “Polemicist”. I find myself wondering “is that how he styles himself?” only momentarily, before I realize the answer is pretty obviously yes.