Remember that, and Carl Schmitt, if you feel as though sports should or could be “apolitical”. Whether you support or boycott Nike, or willfully ignore the whole issue, you are taking a political stance. Sports don’t become political, they’ve always been political. Any change felt to the contrary is you being upset because the shell that encloses your understanding is breaking.
Some new facts have appeared in the mental health field. If you live in The Matrix. And you undergo Inception. While wearing the glasses from They Live.
Kipling would be surprised by good signs emerging from the Korean peninsula. Seeing such a backtrack from ideas of confrontation and braggadocio may mean that, perhaps, policies of sunshine can win out after all. That has precedence, and things look favorably towards that approach as big players get on board.
Unfortunately, there’s also a history of such agreements breaking down.
Worst case scenario, let’s make sure no tertius gaudens occurs:
“What happens after we close the racial achievement gap? Would it imply that a bigotry against those not blessed with strong academic potential would be justified? That’s what “meritocracy” argues, and I believe it’s a moral error. I believe that this tendency, called the hereditarian left by some, will only grow in a world where the logic of meritocracy has brought us spiraling inequality, the division of our country into essentially two different societies with profoundly different qualities of life.”
So agree and disagree at the same time. Hegel would be pleased.
How do we justly divvy up the resources we have in the world? Continue reading “All the Standards Fit to Test”
According to the commander-in-chief: “as long as we are proud of who we are, and what we are fighting for, there is nothing we cannot achieve.” Is this encouraging? Or megalomania?