COLUMN: The statistical fallacy – The Auburn Plainsman

By Weston Sims | Opinions Editor | 05/31/17 11:10am

Theres a difference between understanding a statistical probability about someone and using that probability to make an assumption about that person.

The former merely involves knowing how to comprehend a statistic, while the latter consists of misusing that statistic to imprison a person inside a generalization or in other words, committing a logical lapse. It denies them their full humanity, their individual autonomy. This assault on personhood is the mechanism by which racism, sexism, xenophobia and a million other degrading modes of thought operate. And its incredibly easy to get caught up in it; humans have a propensity to do so.

By nature, we categorize and simplify to make sense of the complicated world we live in and truth is likely to get lost in translation. We become seekers of simplicity rather than seekers of truth, and oftentimes, others who share this world with us bear the cost.

This cost takes many forms, some more malicious than others. A woman is denied a promotion because of an employers unconscious inclination that women are too emotional to lead. A black man is denied a job because the name on his application has ethnic connotations, and thus all of the baggage that carries in America. A homosexual man is assumed to be more promiscuous than his straight counterpart.

But all are connected through a singular defect: Its a cage crafted from the often unconscious attempts by human beings to categorize other human beings.

Many stereotypes are the result of social conditioning oftentimes through exposure to Hollywood, the news media or society in general and sometimes stereotypes are created and sustained in the cesspool of overt racism. For example, racists will come across a statistic about other human beings like how African Americans in the U.S. have a higher incarceration rate than other races and use that statistic to assume the character of the demographic represented by it. Without caring much for how such statistics come to be, such as through systemic oppression, these statistics give racists a foundational sense of rationalism for their misguided and immoral beliefs. Under the guise of this rationalism, they proceed to strip away room for doubt, that precious space that buffers people from the worst of dogmas. Doing so provides fertile grounds for racist movements.

Once racist movements capture this misguided sense of rationalism, they open themselves to broader appeal, an effect compounded by Western cultures enlightenment influences. One doesnt need to look too deeply into history to see this effect, though the early 20th century provides a stark example; you only have to look at America today with the rise of the Alt-right, a movement whose leader paints himself as an intellectual racist.

Its important we dont fall into the trap of letting a statistic, especially those taken out of context, lead us toward allowing negative stereotypes to shape our minds.

Making an assumption about which horse will win the Kentucky Derby based off statistics must be distinguished from making an assumption about a human being based off statistics. The crucial distinction is that the consequences between the two assumptions are in no way equal.

There are different consequences for betting on the horse race the worst material outcome is you lose money. The worst immaterial outcome may be a loss of pride.

Betting on human beings is a completely different game. Imposing assumptions about human beings, which are often negative, can have terrible, life-changing effects for the victims. In a material sense, people are denied jobs, promotions, housing, and the list goes on. As for immaterial outcomes, people are denied respect, friendship and basic humanity. These negative outcomes often provide a feedback loop with marginalized people being more likely to be pushed into a position of committing actions that lend toward their social exclusion.

Because of the difference in consequences, our decision calculus must adjust accordingly.

We must keep our unconscious biases in check. The trouble is that, while the effects of stereotyping are completely manifest for the victims, the causes are often hidden from the perpetrator under years of social conditioning. Moreover, many perpetrators are under the false assumption that they completely understand their own minds.

If they think they arent a racist, they believe it follows they arent a racist. They believe unconscious biases dont exist, despite the vast amount of research that points to the contrary.

To mitigate this self-deception, we must all confront ourselves with the acknowledgment that we arent completely aware of some of our own beliefs. It will require humility and a great deal of internal debate.

We must leave room for doubt; its the only assurance youre looking for Truth and not a crutch for your world view.

Go here to read the rest:

COLUMN: The statistical fallacy - The Auburn Plainsman

Sophisticated Man Is Stupid – American Spectator

Man is stupid, you know, phenomenally stupid; or rather he is not at all stupid, but he is so ungrateful that you could not find another like him in all creation. I, for instance, would not be in the least surprised if all of a sudden, apropos of nothing, in the midst of general prosperity a gentleman with an ignoble, or rather with a reactionary and ironical, countenance were to arise and, putting his arms akimbo, say to us all: I say, gentlemen, hadnt we better kick over the whole show and scatter rationalism to the winds, simply to send these logarithms to the devil, and to enable us to live once more at our own sweet foolish will! Notes From the Underground, Dostoevsky

The logarithms Dostoevsky was talking about there would be the mathematical representation of all possible human action according to the laws of nature used to plan and build utopia.Rationalia, Neil deGrasse Tyson would have called it, but Dostoevsky chose the Crystal Palace after aglass exhibition hallbuilt in Hyde Park, which lives on in the name of an oft-relegated football club.

In this Crystal Palace, which is most assuredly LEED-certified, everything will be so clearly calculated and explained that there will be no more incidents or adventures in the world. Then this is all what you say new economic relations will be established, all ready-made and worked out with mathematical exactitude, so that every possible question will vanish in the twinkling of an eye, simply because every possible answer to it will be provided.

The Underground Man rejects all this calculation of his best interest, applauding the reactionary gentleman and his stupid followers, and insists: Ones own free unfettered choice, ones own caprice, however wild it may be, ones own fancy worked up at times to frenzyis that very most advantageous advantage which we have overlooked, which comes under no classification and against which all systems and theories are continually being shattered to atoms.

The Underground Man, you could say, is a Trumpkin. Dont let the leaders ironical countenance throw you off the resemblance; another more literal translation renders that a retrograde and jeering physiognomy.

This is the essence of President Trumps decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. Here comes this jeering, ignoble brute kicking over the whole show, when President Obama and the rest of the worlds greatest minds had just finished solving it for us. Certainly, the question of what to do about global warming vanished after models provided every possible answer, didnt it?

Of course, the models continue to spit out every possible answer as in a broad range of possibilities, not a single truth one either accepts or denies and thats for the questions the models are meant to answer. Heres how NASA summarizes the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on the unknowable questions: An increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will probably boost temperatures over most land surfaces, though the exact change will vary regionally. More uncertain but possible outcomes of an increase in global temperatures include increased risk of drought and increased intensity of storms, including tropical cyclones with higher wind speeds, a wetter Asian monsoon, and, possibly, more intense mid-latitude storms. So disasters, possibly. Or possibly not. But its certain that there will be either more disasters or not as many.

Yet leftists and journalists take dubious claims (it is possible to know the future! and we do!) and turn them into policy demands of supposedly incontrovertible merit. The question itself vanishes, ours not to reason why.

But doesnt the Paris agreement, surely, represent the global collective effort we need to save the planet? Well, to save it from an increase of 0.2 C degrees, yes. Thats what researchers at MIT figured would be the collective effect of the non-binding agreement. And thats if everybody else lived up to a plan that would cost us trillions $3 trillion over two decades, according to industry estimates that Trump cited.

Power plants would take a hit of $366 billion over 15 years under Obamas Clean Power Plan, according to industry estimates, but federal rulemaking reaches down into nooks and crannies few of us consider. The hit to the residential dehumidifier industry, which I didnt even know existed, from just one recent green rule is $220 million.

Instead of telling the truth, reporters obscure it. USA Today writes about how were missing out on a chance to develop our green energy industry, as if businesses are too stupid to make money without government telling them how. Business Insider promises devastating long-term economic consequences for the US. The reliably useless CNN Money reports that American businesses dont believe Obamas energy regulations were job killers.

My favorite was an AP news story headlinedLeaving Paris climate agreement unlikely to add U.S. jobs, economists say. The reporter then quoted exactly zero economists agreeing with that headline.

Withdrawing from the Paris agreement is hardly going to create jobs in the U.S., read the money quote from one Cary Coglianese, a professor of law. While specific environmental regulations can sometimes lead to job losses, they also can and do lead to job gains with the result being roughly a wash.

Thats also his position on regulations in general theyre roughly a wash.

A new study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute puts the annual cost of federal regulations at $1.9 trillion. My point isnt simply that the professor is wrong (though I think he is). Its not that there are no economists who would agree with that headline (there are; the far-left Economic Policy Institute, among others, imagines that regulation leads to harmony and efficiency).

There will always be geniuses with detailed plans for how to build the Crystal Palace. I mistrust them all.

Consider the gap between $1.9 trillion and zero. Consider the similarity between the economy and the climate both impossibly vast systems, with a googolplex of moving parts, few of them susceptible to study in isolation. We can identify some general principles and forces by observation certain incentives and physical effects but what do we know for sure? We can model a few things, but what are we leaving out that might matter more?

I think of the depth of research and the quality of data involved in economics, and theres still no consensus on the blueprint for a Crystal Palace. Yet the planners expect us to be impressed with the observations of climatologists. Ah, so clouds are shiny, and it gets hot when you do that one thing. So clearly, the snow in upper Canada and Norway is going to melt and drown us all.

Crystal Palace South transept & south tower from Water Temple, 1854 (Wikimedia Commons)

More here:

Sophisticated Man Is Stupid - American Spectator

French president to the resistance: The world believes in you – Shareblue Media

In a political environment where it can be challenging to maintain a sense of hope and optimism about the future, French President Emmanuel Macron offered a soothing balm of rationality and compassion.

After Donald Trumpproclaimedhe was withdrawing the United States from the Paris Accord on climate change, political and corporate leaders both within the U.S. and around the world unanimouslydenounced the move in the strongest terms.

But Macrons approach was different. Like other prominent voices, Macron indeed spoke out against Trumps decision as a mistake for our planet. But in addition to speaking out, Macron also reached out.

He spoke to those of us in the United States who are feeling despair, embarrassment, and hopelessness in the face of Trumps actions. With clarity and conviction, he told the American people that others believe in us, and he even issued an invitation:

To all scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, responsible citizens who were disappointed by the decision of the US: pic.twitter.com/qxjPX8MhKt

Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) June 1, 2017

Tonight, I wish to tell the United States: France believes in you. The world believes in you. I know that you are a great nation. I know your history our common history.

To all scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, responsible citizens who were disappointed by the decision of the President of the United States, I want to say that they will find in France a second homeland. I call on them: Come and work here with us, to work together on concrete solutions for our climate, our environment.

I can assure you: France will not give up the fight.

In striking contrast to Trumps bombastic and grandiose tone, Macron exhibited a return to calm rationalism an approach grounded in the ideology upon which our two countries democracies were founded. With a heartfelt empathy juxtaposed against theisolationist rhetoric of Trumps nationalism, Macron recognized our common humanity, the fate of which ultimately rests in decisions made not within borders but despite and across them:

We all share the same responsibility: make our planet great again. pic.twitter.com/IIWmLEtmxj

Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) June 1, 2017

I call on you to remain confident.We will succeed. Because we are fully committed. Because, wherever we live, whoever we are, we all share the same responsibility: Make our planet great again.

Diametrically opposed to the attempts by Trump and the GOP to leverage fear, tribalism, and the myths of nostalgia to take our nation backward, Macrons words were a gift of encouragement and solidarity not you but we, working together to overcome the divisive forces of avarice and Trumpism at home, and the global rise of white nationalism and rejection of a shared humanity.

Nothing less than the future of all of the worlds children is at stake.Macron knows that. And the majority of the American people do, too.

See more here:

French president to the resistance: The world believes in you - Shareblue Media

Pakistani thought process – Daily Times

Pakistan started off as a promised land, and after some struggle, started creating promising national and international narratives. The nation succeeded doing that because the society was focused, and created excellence in the given resources of the day. Those who have lived through the Pakistani society in any of the decades from 1950s, to mid-1980s find it hard to believe that they live in the same country that once had more of promise and less of pessimism. The latter did not topple the former by accident. There were political, social and interpretive-religious processes of failures that gave birth to a muddled thinking one finds rampant in a confused population giving way to even more confused youth.

Those who left for greener pastures should try and become loyal citizens of their chosen lands, and leave Pakistan to those who either could not find an opportunity to leave or deliberately chose to stay back

Heres how it happened. The political nexus of civil-military bureaucracy was already undercutting the reason and rationalism in our society since 1956, but the sudden political shifts between 1965 and 1977 bedazzled the collective Pakistani memory. Then the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan began in 1979, and this pushed us into a spiral of conflicts that has further confused the already-confused. This strange war brought death and destruction to our people and their hopes in strange ways. People started losing hopes for a stable, prosperous and peaceful Pakistan for them and their generations. Those who could afford or cheat to migrate, migrated. And while doing so, thousands of pucca Muslims did not even hesitate to obtain fake certificates of declaring themselves Ahamdis, Hindus, Sikhs or Christians when it came to tricking the immigration officers of the foreign governments.

Confused state narratives create confused social narratives, and vice versa. Hence, leaving Pakistan, particularly since 1977s martial law of Gen Ziaul Haq, has been a discussion that probably every lower-to-middle class household in Pakistan has had. The elderly implicitly or explicitly but commonly encouraged the younger to leave. Interestingly, this very stratum of the society comprises of the super-patriots, and the self-proclaimed guardians of the ideological narratives of Pakistan; yet, the discussions! War, any kind of war precisely does that to a people and their socio-political psychology. From sanity, it pushes people towards quick and mindless reactions reactions that create more noise and less of sound. Resultantly, a nation breaks down into groups, and groups devolve into individuals where each living person tries to do just one thing: survive either by fighting or fleeing away.

Fight and flight, both, have been in abundance since the General Zias military dictatorship failed to contain the negatives of Afghan war on the Pakistani society. Crisis of the Pakistani State and society aggravated as a sectarian-political revolution in our neighborhood tried spreading its wings in our courtyard, but the Arab-brethren wanted Pakistanis to rather grow Arbi and not the Ajmi wings. The melting pot of the geo-strategic and sectarian conflicts created an environment that culled the middle class creativity and their ownership of the society. Alongside, the state formally promoted a certain version of Islam and tried making people good Muslims, instead of responsible citizens. Consequently, neither good Muslims nor responsible citizens, a scaring majority of Pakistanis chose becoming habitual pessimists criticising the state and society with half-baked ideas and knowledge.

Look around, and you shall find a predominant number of people pressing their thoughts as information and knowledge. This mixture gets exponentially interesting if you get to interact with the expatriate community, particularly the ones living in established Western democracies. Themselves enjoying rights and freedom that the Western democracies ensure, many among these hyper patriots want quick and ruthless change, military rule, Islamic caliphate, or revolution. People who took the flight, should rather become loyal citizens of their chosen lands, and leave Pakistan to the competence or incompetence of their compatriots who either could not flight, or deliberately chose to stay back and fight whatever the menaces and opportunities their land offered.

Probably for the first time in four decades since 1977, political elite as well as the deep state in Pakistan are talking about recreating a representative national narrative for varied audiences, locally and internationally. Whether it creates more muddles is yet to be seen, as Pakistanis have seen that happen before many times already. But heres a hope that the mess does not get messier, and a clear thinking process unfolds. Havent we had enough of muddled thinking already?

The writer is a social entrepreneur and a student of Pakistans social and political challenges. Twitter: @mkw72

See the article here:

Pakistani thought process - Daily Times

Anti-Intellectualism Is Just As Revolutionary As Liberalismand Much More Dangerous – Slate Magazine

Painting of Edmund Burke by the studio of Joshua Reynolds.

National Portrait Gallery/Wikimedia Commons

This article supplements Fascism, a Slate Academy. To learn more and to enroll, visit Slate.com/Fascism.

Adapted from The Anti-Enlightenment Tradition by Zeev Sternhell. Published by Yale University Press.

While the 18th century is commonly perceived as the quintessential age of rationalist modernity, it was also the cradle of a second and strikingly different movement. In fact, at the very moment when rationalist thought seemed to have reached its peak, a comprehensive revolt against the Enlightenments fundamental views erupted in European intellectual life. From the second half of the 18th century to the age of the Cold War and today, the confrontation between these two modernities has formed one of the most prominent and enduring features of our world.

The Enlightenment wished to liberate the individual from the constraints of history, from the yoke of traditional unproven beliefs. This was the motivation of Lockes Second Treatise of Government, Kants Reply to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?, and Rousseaus Discourse on the Origin of Inequality: three extraordinary pamphlets that proclaimed the liberation of man. It was against the liberation of the individual by reason that this new Anti-Enlightenment movement launched its attack, and its campaign was infinitely more sophisticated and subtle than that of the classical, undisguisedly authoritarian enemies of the Enlightenment. This anti-Enlightenment movement constituted not a counterrevolution but a different revolution. It revolted against rationalism, the autonomy of the individual, and all that unites people: their condition as rational beings with natural rights.

This second modernity was based on all that differentiates and divides peoplea political culture that denied reason either the capacity or the right to mold peoples lives, saw religion as an essential foundation of society, and did not hesitate to call on the state to regulate social relationships or to intervene in the economy. Importantly, it did this in the name of a certain liberalismadvocating for a pluralism of values. In making its objective the destruction of the Enlightenments atomistic view of society, this attack announced the birth of a nationalistic communitarianism, in which the individual is determined by his ethnic origins, history, language, and culture.

ZEEV STERNHELL

Anti-Intellectualism Is Just As Revolutionary As Liberalismand Much More Dangerous

ROBERT O. PAXTON

Fascism Doesnt Die. It Takes on New Forms.

TIMOTHY SNYDER

Are You Prepared for an American Reichstag Fire?

- MULTIPLE AUTHORS

How Does the History of Fascism Help Us Understand Whats Happening Today?

KEVIN PASSMORE

Its Difficult to Define Fascism. That Doesnt Mean We Cant Oppose It.

THOMAS DOHERTY

1930s Hollywoods Love Affair With Authoritarian Jerks

A liberalism opposed to the Enlightenment made sense up until to the second half of the 19th century. But when a new society emerged as a result of the rapid industrialization of the European continent and the rise of nationalism among the masses, anti-Enlightenment liberalismoften deceptively attractive because its dangerousness was not always obviousthreatened the very possibility of the survival of democracy.

It was at the end of the decade in 1789 when the Old Regime collapsed in France, and the split between these two branches of modernity became a historical reality. And when the thought of the Franco-Kantian and British Enlightenments was translated into concrete terms by the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, the British political theorist Edmund Burke put out his Reflections on the Revolution in France.

From the start of his political and intellectual activity, Burke defined the Enlightenment as the guiding spirit of a movement of intellectual conspiracy whose aim was the destruction of Christian civilization and the political order it had created. According to Burke, the essence of the Enlightenment was to accept the verdict of reason as the sole criterion of legitimacy for any human institution. Neither history, nor tradition, nor custom, nor experience could ever fill the role of reason. Burke added that a societys capacity to assure its members a decent life would not be acceptable for the men of the Enlightenment. They are not content with a decent life: they demand happiness, or, in other words, utopia.

Burke denied reason the right to question the existing order. He contended that the existing order is consecrated by experience, by collective wisdom, and has a raison dtre that may not be obvious to each individual at all times but is the product of the divine will present in history. A society only exists through its veneration for history and its respect for the established church and the elites. Replacing the elites with other people and destroying the power of the church may be compared to the conquest of a civilized country by barbarians. The defense of privileges is thus the defense of civilization itself. That is why force has to be used to assure the survival of what exists. In other words, all means were justified to crush the revolution in France.

A true pioneer of ideological warfare, Burke invented the concept of containment, if not the word itself. Though it became famous during the Cold War, Burke first tried the tactic on America. He had been concerned with containing the pretensions of the colonists who were breaking away from the mother country and translating their natural rights into limited political terms, because he had hoped to confine the danger to a distant land and prevent it from spreading to Europe. When this same revolution of the Enlightenment took place in France, however, a policy of containment was no longer appropriate. When it was at the very gates of England, at the heart of Western civilization, one could only respond with all-out war.

Thus, this great British parliamentarian was the founder of the school of thought known today as neoconservatism. Authentic liberal conservatives like Tocqueville in France and Lord Acton in England, or, closer to our time, Leo Strauss, Michael Oakeshott, and Raymond Aron, feared the corrupting effect of power. They were the heirs of Montesquieu and Locke, and their great objective was to protect liberty through a division of power and by developing the capacity of the individual to stand up to the authorities. Against this, the representatives of neoconservatism are fascinated by the power of the state. Unlike the classical liberals, they aim not at limiting its intervention in the economy or in society but, on the contrary, at molding society and government in their image.

It would be difficult to exaggerate the historical importance, both in his own time and in the long term, of Edmund Burke and his fellow Anti-Enlightenment revolutionaries. Indeed, the 20th century was only truly born when rejection of the Enlightenment suddenly became a mass phenomenon. It was in a world that was changing at a previously unthinkable pace, when new ways of life, techniques, and technologies appeared all at once, and economic development, the democratization of political life, and compulsory education became living realities that were only dreams for the previous generation, that Burkes legacy gained popular support. Democracy, political liberty, and universal suffrageall recently acquiredappeared to an important part of the urban masses to be a danger to the nation and to modern civilization.

For all these thinkers, rationalism was the source of the evil: it led to materialism, to utopias, to the supremely pernicious idea that man is able to change things.

The year 1936 would seem to be a somewhat unfortunate time to wage war against the Enlightenment. But this was precisely the moment when the German historian and Nazi sympathizer Friedrich Meinecke gave his definition of historism, which demolished the concept of a common human nature, of a universal reason that gives rise to a universal natural law, regarding this way of thinking as empty and abstract. The direct consequence of this concept was a more or less radical general relativism: Meinecke was convinced that German historism was the highest stage thus far reached in the understanding of human affairs.

There was also an attraction of the historist attack on the Enlightenment for the generation of the Cold War in the 1950s. It was at that time that the totalitarian school came into being and one of its chief representatives, Isaiah Berlin, following in the footsteps of Meinecke and in the face of a Europe dominated by a left-wing and often communistic intelligentsia, took up the case against the rationalist Enlightenment. Hypnotized by the Cold War, he launched his attack on Rousseau and then on the idea of positive liberty, and in the name of liberal pluralism wrote a fulsome panegyric to negative liberty.

In his series of essays in Against the Current, Berlin made clear that he considered the principles of the French Enlightenment to be fundamentally opposed to those of a good society. Moreover, his interpretation of the Enlightenment repeats the principal clichs handed down from one generation to the next from Burke onward. These clichs have made a strong reappearance in our time.

For all these thinkers, rationalism was the source of the evil: it led to materialism, to utopias, to the supremely pernicious idea that man is able to change things. It killed instinct and vital forces; it destroyed the almost carnal connection between the members of an ethnic community and made one live in an unreal world. The existing social order, though it may not be perfect, made it possible to live a decent, civilized life. The permanence of Western civilizationthe great Christian civilizationcould only be ensured if its reality was not touched in its essence.

These scorners of the Enlightenment, were not turned toward the past generally. Their nostalgia was for a highly selective historical landscape. Historians of ideas and cultural critics who considered themselves philosophers as well, they saw the nation as the supreme framework of social organization. The kind of solidarity provided by the nation seemed to them greater than that provided by any other form of social cohesion. It is no accident that Burke can be regarded as one of the originators of nationalism.

For Berlin, as for Meinecke, there seemed to be no relationship of cause and effect between the war against rationalism, universalism, and natural rights and the war against democracy and its fall in the 20th century. These people did not believe that blocking and neutralizing the revolutionary potential in society meant abandoning the new social classes created by industrialization to the free play of economic forces, which inevitably gives rise to poverty and hence to revolts and revolutions. And as they advanced into the 19th century, the role assigned by these thinkers to the state was to control democratic tendencies, viewed as a threat to the natural order of thingsas demagogic illusions.

The inevitable process of democratization, the progressive access of the male population to universal suffrage, did not reconcile these liberals opposed to the Enlightenment to the principles of democracy. Instead it caused them to accept the disagreeable and, as they saw it, dangerous realities of political democratic rule. Some became conscious of the role a state could play in intervening in the economy in order to curb and canalize democracy. Some resisted democracy until they died.

It was also no accident if, as a result of seeing themselves as the defenders of a minority point of view, all these nonconformists ended up creating a new kind of conformism in promoting concepts that very soon became commonplace.

The most common reproach that the Anti-Enlightenment thinkers continually made to the people of the Enlightenment was that of having never left their study or the realm of abstractions, and as a result, being ignorant of the realities of the world as it was. It was Burke, one of the best parliamentary orators of his age, who originated this idea, but in fact it was only a myth.

Beyond all that divided the founders of the United States from the men of the French Revolution, the heritage of Locke and the Glorious Revolution of 1689 from Rousseau and Voltaire, or James Madison and Alexander Hamilton from tienne Bonnot de Condillac, Condorcet, and Saint-Just, there were certain convictions that were common to both parties. They were all convinced that they were working in a specific context to change or create a given situation and at the same time enunciating principles of universal significance. They were working on behalf of their own time, they wanted to change a world that was theirs and only theirs, but at the same time they had an acute awareness that they were initiating actions that would affect posterity without any possibility of return.

The most cogent example of the dual nature of their work was the fate of the most important piece of political philosophy ever produced in the United States. The Federalist, a simple collection of electoral pamphlets written during the campaign in New York State for the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, had a clear and well-defined primary objective: to convince the population of this pivotal state that both liberty and property would be preserved and protected in a federal state with a strong central authority. Invoking the authority of Montesquieu and the Enlightenment, it also sought to show that liberty did not depend on the size of a country but on good institutions.

All while waging an excellent electoral campaign, The Federalists writers, Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay, were perfectly conscious of the universal significance of their writings and actions. The Constitution dealt with the concrete problems that the Americans of the end of the 18th century had to confront, and it was voted in because it corresponded to their needs and hopes, but it formulated general principles that the founders thought to be just and good and consequently valid for all men in all times and places. This opinion was never disproved in the course of the next two centuries.

It is true that this is an almost perfect example: men called at a critical juncture in the history of their community to provide solutions to concrete political problems in a country on the margins of civilization gave answers of universal value and produced a classic of political thought. And in fact, the same can be said about Burke. It is likely that if the revolution was merely a reaction to a crisis of regime, a palliative to deal with bread riots or financial bankruptcy, an accident en route or the product of some machination, Burke would not have risen to the level of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man or The Federalist, and his pamphlet, simply intended to fill a breach through which he saw the flood pouring in, would not have become, for more than two centuries, the intellectual manifesto of revolutionary conservatism.

All these writers wrote with the immediate application of their ideas in mind, but at the same time posed fundamental questions about human nature and the role of man in society. They gave an idea of what they thought a good society should be. They all tried to transcend the immediate context in which they lived and felt that they were stating eternal principles and essential truths. All the thinkers of the Anti-Enlightenment reflected on the rise and fall of civilizations and did not hesitate to position themselves within a perspective of 25 centuries when they engaged in dialogue with Plato and the principles of Athenian democracy.

The contentious coexistence of the Enlightenment and Anti-Enlightenment movements is one of the great invariables of the two centuries between our world and that of the end of the 18th century. But this is a point that generally escapes the attention of historians and critics of culture: If the enlightened modernity was that of liberalism which led to democracy, the anti-enlightened modernitycoming down into the street at the turn of the 20th centurytook the form of an intellectual and political movement that was revolutionary, nationalistic, communitarian, and a sworn enemy of universal values. Whether it is a matter of reactionary modernism or the conservative revolution, one is always confronted with the same phenomenon: the content and function of this movement remained the same. Its pet aversions remain Kant, Rousseau, Voltaire, and the philosophes of the Enlightenmentthe founders of the principles on which the democracies of the 19th and 20th centuries were founded.

Adapted from The Anti-Enlightenment Tradition by Zeev Sternhell;translated by David Maisel.Reprintedby permission of Yale University Press.

Read more here:

Anti-Intellectualism Is Just As Revolutionary As Liberalismand Much More Dangerous - Slate Magazine

Going overboard with cow protection – Kasmir Monitor

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar had attracted the ire of traditionalists when he wrote more than once that the cow is not a divine mother but only a useful animal. A substance is edible to the extent that it is beneficial to man. Attributing religious qualities to it gives it a godly status. Such a superstitious mindset destroys the nations intellect, he wrote in 1935.

Recent events have not been a good advertisement for the national intellect. The party that pays homage to Savarkar has never come to terms with his modernist rationalism. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in Gujarat has amended a state law so that anybody found guilty of cow slaughter will be awarded a life sentence. The chief minister of Chhattisgarh has said that those who kill cows in his state will be hanged. Even acts of homicide or sexual assault do not usually result in the hanging of the guilty. Meanwhile, there is a massive crackdown on abattoirs by the new state government in Uttar Pradesh, ostensibly targeted at illegal establishments, but clearly trying to hurt the Muslim community that dominates the meat trade. Congress leaders such as Digvijaya Singh have said his party will back a nationwide beef bana useful reason to remember that the original laws against cow slaughter were introduced in many states when the Congress was the hegemonic force in Indian politics. This also opens up the possibility of competitive cow politics. And footloose vigilantes have taken it upon themselves to attack any person they believe is harming the sanctity of the cow, even by just throwing a stone at an animal. There have traditionally been two main arguments in favour of cow protection. First, the cow is the pivot of an agricultural economy. Second, it is central to Hindu religious beliefs. Neither of these two arguments can justify the harsh punishments that are rather casually being talked about. The economic argument does not survive an empirical test. First, as farming in India becomes increasingly mechanized, the demand for draught cattle in the fields is falling. Second, as milk-producing cows grow old and become unproductive, they become a financial burden on farmers. If farmers cannot sell them off to slaughterhouses, they either abandon the animals or starve them to death. Third, the rational response by farmers to the ban on cow slaughter has been to prefer buffaloes to cows, as is evident from both the official cattle census as well as price trends in cattle auctions across the country. The economics of an asset totally changes when its terminal value suddenly comes down to zero. Economists such as V.M. Dandekar and K.N. Raj showed many years ago that the factors determining cattle population are not slaughter bans or religious sentiments but the demand for livestock products such as milk and meat as well as the levels of technology used in agriculture. Indeed, the directive principle of state policy that says cow slaughter should be prohibited is itself derived from the economic argument. Article 48 of the Indian Constitution needs to be read in full: The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle. The issue of religious sentiments is a more tricky one. There is ample proof in old religious texts that beef-eating was not uncommon in ancient India. However, that does not necessarily mean that the current generation of Hindus should not worship the cow. There is also the undeniable fact that cow slaughter was one of the flashpoints in medieval India under Muslim rule. The real issue right now is that the state has no right to send someone to jail for killing an animal. It is also important to remember that beef is one of the cheapest sources of protein. Some 80 million Indians eat either beef or buffalo meat, including 12.5 million Hindus, as shown in an article by Roshan Kishore and Ishan Anand in this newspaper in October 2015, based on their detailed analysis of sample data. This does not mean that devout Hindus who worship the cow should not voluntarily devote themselves to its protection by setting up gaushalas, or cow shelters, though there simply arent enough of these to cater to the growing number of abandoned cattle. The problem lies elsewhere. Bans on the killing of cows are in effect a burden on farmers who own cattle. Punishment for consumption of beef is an attack on the basic Constitutional right of every citizen to live the life she wants to. (http://www.livemint.com)

Read more here:

Going overboard with cow protection - Kasmir Monitor

How James Ramsey of RAAD Studio, Carlos Arnaiz of CAZA, and BalletCollective turned design into dance – The Architect’s Newspaper

Troy Schumacher is a corps de ballet member with New York City Ballet, one of the mostprestigious dance companies in the country. And while a job as a full-time athlete might be enough for some people, Schumacher is also the artistic director and choreographer for his own chamber-sized troupe, BalletCollective. All of its members are Schumachers fellow dancers at NYCB.

For the companys latest performance at the New York University Skirball Center for the Performing Arts, Schumacher explored his observations of how human bodies respond to built space. He approached architects James Ramsey, founder of RAAD Studio, and Carlos Arnaiz, founder and principal of CAZA, to collaborate on a project that would turn design into dance. Last season, I was already sold on the idea of working with architects because I thought our processeswould be very similar, said Schumacher. Whether youre creating performance or buildings, youre thinking about somethingthat has a larger scope but shows details. Youre thinking on two scales.

(Courtesy Whitney Browne)

Schumacher and his team took care to thoroughly investigate how the two disciplines could come together for a final project. We discussed how our respective disciplines are organized, how we record our work, how we make changes to our work as we go, and how our respective practices overlap, said Arnaiz.

Its not unusual for architecture and dance to go hand in hand. Just last year, Steven Holl created set pieces for Jessica Lang Dance, while the Guggenheim Museum frequently holds performances in its iconic rotunda. But these dances coexist with built architectural elementsnot so for BalletCollective. Instead, Schumacher chose to feature the dancers in a stripped-down environment. The stage at the Skirball center was entirely bare, with curtains lifted to reveal the dancers waiting on the sides, and their costumes were casual rehearsal wear. Until they started moving, there was no indication of the evenings architectural component.

One of Schumachers strengths as a choreographer is his unusual way of using formations. He often asks one dancer to move against the group or pairs a tall woman with a short man. Trios and duets are widely spaced around the stage, playing out contrary to the traditional ballet structure of a principalcouple and a shifting background of corps dancers. In Until the Walls Cave In, Ballet Collective dancers moved through lines, boxes or huddles that washed across the stage. Ramseys work, in comparison, also carves out space where heretofore there was none. Jamess work is about restoring or facilitating life in a place where it wouldnt normally exist, said Schumacher. We were really driven by light, concrete spaces and the growth happening within them.

(Courtesy Whitney Browne)

For his part, Ramsey entered the collaboration unsure of what to expect. I had little to no idea about the creative process for dance, Ramsey said, and I was completely blown away by how naturally our processes were able to mesh. Our conversations had to do with the lifeand death of human spaces, renewal, and the idea of tension as a dramatic architectural design tool. Here, though, Schumacher might have picked something up from his collaborator. The start-stop energy of his choreography makes it nearly impossible to establish dramatic tension.

Arnaizs contribution involved one specific drawing, resulting in The Answer, a duet for Anthony Huxley and Rachel Hutsell. Choreographers are always looking for new pathways, said Schumacher. Carlos emailed us a sketch on top of a photo of Allen Iverson. I was floored by the energy and idea behind it, and we just went with it. Arnaiz wrote about Iverson in his recent monograph, reflecting on how static geometric forms are brought to life by the creative process of architecture. As a result, The Answer plays off friendly competition.

Huxley is an elegant dancer who, while still able to have fun, is quite serious onstage. Hutsell, who is just beginning her professional career, might be expected to be timid, especially dancing with Huxley (he is several ranks higher than her at NYCB). Instead, shes remarkably grounded for a woman dancing in pointe shoes, which can complicate quick direction changes and off-balance steps. She eats up space with infectious energy. The dancers darting limbs seem to leave trails of lines and spirals across the stage, reminiscent of Arnaizs drawing.

Schumacher wasnt worried about disappointing audiences who might have expected structures or set pieces designed by Ramsey and Arnaiz. All the artists who contribute to BalletCollective are a source, he said. But invariably, the starting and ending point arent the same place. Asking for architectural input is about giving us a place to start.

Arnaiz and Ramsey were both surprised at what that starting place was able to yield. Ive worked with musicians, but never with dancers, said Arnaiz. It was fascinating to see how something transformed from concept to physical performance. Ramsey agreed: Troy brought a level of clarity and rationalism to the projects that was startling, and even led me to understand my own work more succinctly.

What Comes NextBalletCollective The NYU Skirball Center for the Performing Arts October 2728, 2016

Read more from the original source:

How James Ramsey of RAAD Studio, Carlos Arnaiz of CAZA, and BalletCollective turned design into dance - The Architect's Newspaper

I watched Alex Jones give his viewers health advice. Here’s what I … – Vox

The YouTube video shows girls convulsing in hospital beds, on the floors of their schools, losing control of their bodies, unable to walk or talk.

The young women have allegedly just been given shots of the HPV vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. Instead of a lifesaving treatment, theyre left crippled, chemically lobotomized.

A voice over the disturbing footage screams: I am not a slave. You cannot force me to inject my kid with this poison. This is sick!

That voice belongs to Owen Shroyer, a reporter for Infowars, the right-wing, conspiracy theoryladen news site. Hes anchoring a classic Infowars health segment, featuring a passionate rant against mainstream medicine. In this case, the subject is a favorite on Infowars: vaccines and the damages they do to our youth.

When Shroyer appears onscreen again, his face is flushed and twisted in rage. You know what? Im sorry but F you! Okay? he says, squinting at the camera. F you if youre going to sit here and watch a video of young girls literally convulsing because of a vaccine that you say is safe and effective. F you! Youre disgusting.

If you know anything about the HPV vaccine or vaccine safety, its easy to dismiss this video as fringe lunacy. But Infowars is no longer a peripheral media player. The website now reaches more than 6 million unique US users each month. The YouTube channel has more than 2 million followers about as many as Vox.

I watched more than six hours of the show, and came away steeped in a dark view of the world. On Infowars, truth is provisional, science means nothing, and you cant trust anyone especially not your doctor, researchers, or experts of any kind. This is a parallel information universe, with deep suspicions of the establishment and government agencies and a deep appreciation for the populist president, Donald Trump.

As a medical reporter, Ive written a lot about shady peddlers of health misinformation; Infowars felt like familiar terrain. Exaggerated claims, cherry-picked studies reported out of context, and the promise of treatments and foods that will either kill or cure are more the rule than the exception in this corner of journalism.

But Infowars makes Dr. Oz and the Food Babe seem benevolent. The show goes so much further than simply misleading people about their personal health choices and a range of other subjects. Jones and Infowars are part of a political movement aimed at undermining and delegitimizing the institutions that are fundamental to democracy especially science. They also have connections that run all the way up to the White House.

Alex Jones is an ally and champion of President Trump, who told Jones in a 2015 interview, You have an amazing reputation. Trump may disparage institutions like the New York Times and the Washington Post on Twitter and Fox News, but he shares Infowars articles and videos.

It doesnt seem to bother the president that Jones has a long history of spreading conspiracy theories through his various media channels. Jones launched his first radio show in 1996, and the day after 9/11 he went on the air calling the tragedy an inside job.

A theme he returns to again and again is that the US government is actually controlled by an international faction called the New World Order. The globalists big banks, billionaires, mainstream media, pharmaceutical companies are actively conspiring against the interests of regular Americans.

Jones has said Oprah Winfrey is trying to reduce the African population by half, that Sesame Streets new autistic Muppet was designed to normalize an increasingly common disease thats caused by vaccines, and that the Atlantic and other lefty periodicals are hinting at an imminent decapitation of President Trump.

In this world, Andrew Wakefield, the discredited doctor who falsified data to suggest vaccines are linked to autism, is a pioneer and trailblazer who just wants to help keep people healthy. By contrast, Bill Gates is running a mass eugenics effort through his charitable work, and the HIV epidemic was actually created by the American government (which has incidentally been part of a Russian disinformation campaign about the US government).

Jones often talks about the pedophile rings that elites are helping to organize, and his suggestion that Hillary Clinton was running one out of a pizza restaurant in Washington, DC, was the reason a man walked into that shop with a gun last year threatening to kill people, in what has become known as Pizzagate.

Inciting violence is one problem with the show. Less obvious but equally worrying is that over the years, scientific experts and doctors have been popular targets, and empiricism and rationalism are under constant attack.

According to Infowars, vaccines are just one part of a serious attack on our health. Its also happening with fluoridation of the water supply, GMOs in our food, the chemicals in the environment, and the medications prescribed by doctors.

More recently, Infowars has aired segments about another health problem youve probably never heard of: a rarely discussed fungus epidemic [that] is spreading throughout America. Its a useful example of how the site spreads misinformation and denigrates science.

Instead of actual researchers, the fungus segments feature Infowars associate Dr. Edward Group. Group is not a doctor but a naturopath who also frequently alleges that researchers and mainstream medicine are colluding with government in a mass conspiracy to poison people. Hes said Food and Drug Administration officials raided his office because he was onto a promising cure for cancer. (I reached out to Group to interview him for this story. He declined the request.)

To establish this fungus epidemic, Group draws on science or the feeling of science. He talks about all the research hes done, and refers to citations from stacks of papers in front of him to support the idea that fungus and yeast overgrowth is causing everything from brain tumors and brain fog to skin conditions, itching, difficulty with vision, anxiety, fatigue, and the obesity epidemic.

It really is a problem most people are not familiar with, Group says on the show. The scientific community is deliberately hiding this fungus from view. As a matter a fact, most doctors and hospitals really do not take the time to check people for fungal infections.

Not to worry: Group and Jones have the solution.

They are peddling supplements called Myco-ZX to fight an epidemic theyve invented. Group claims the pills cleanse the body and boost the immune system to fight fungal overgrowth. These fungus fighters are one of numerous health products hawked on the show.

Watching these segments, I felt confused, disturbed. I understood why people might believe Jones and Group. Its hard to falsify many of the health claims they make. They also draw on real uncertainty and problems in science medical studies are often funded by the drug industry; the industry has done shady things to undermine the entire research enterprise.

The health care system has also failed many people. Doctors make mistakes and leave patients jaded and suspicious of their expertise. Medicine has come so far over the past century, but it often falls short of patients expectations. Its not difficult to see why the quick fixes and simple solutions Jones offers the game-changing pills to fight the fungus thats really causing all your health woes might resonate with millions of Americans.

Theres also the current political climate to consider. An environment in which people are distrustful of institutions can be fertile ground on which to promote conspiracy theories, said Brendan Nyhan, a professor at Dartmouth College who researches misperceptions about politics and health care. With Infowars, Jones is tilling that soil.

Exaggerating scientific uncertainty to sow doubt and confusion is nothing new. We saw this during the tobacco wars. We see this in the ongoing debate about climate change (which scientists agree is not actually a debate). Fake news isnt novel either, nor is medical misinformation on the internet.

Whats different about Infowars is the concerted effort to undermine institutions and politicize topics that have mostly been neutral like immunizations for children.

Dr. Oz may have brought anti-vaccine campaigners on air or spread magical thinking about health, but he didnt wrap it up in identity politics. Jones and his associates do, making a rejection of the medical establishment and science part of what it means to be on the populist right.

If to be skeptical of vaccines means to be a good conservative, [theres a problem], said Alan Levinovitz, a professor of philosophy and religion who has been studying pseudoscience. This misinformation is dangerous when it gets tied up with political ideology.

It's concerning in part because of the right-wing media's growing influence over the GOP. Infowars frequently calls on Trump to enact policy based on conspiracy theories. Sign an executive order to take fluoride out of the water! Group said once. And while the administration doesn't seem to be entertaining that particular idea, it's conceivable that the show could have some influence over the shaping of vaccine or abortion policy with deadly effects.

Science as an institution has, for hundreds of years, been viewed as the best method for producing knowledge. Until recently, science has also been relatively sacred across administrations and across partisan lines, said Dietram Scheufele, a professor of science communication at the University of Wisconsin Madison. Once we start eroding [science], we get into dangerous territory, he added. Think about how important science is for national security, how important it is for business. The very laptops this stuff is being written on wouldnt be possible if not for the science thats under attack.

This war on science playing out in the right-wing media is poised to damage one of our most valuable institutions a key driver of the economy, a source of our military strength and leadership in medical and technological innovation. In the Infowars universe, though, science is the enemy part of the globalist elite movement thats poisoning people, keeping them down. Anyone who cares about evidence and science: Ignore this seething movement at your peril.

Continued here:

I watched Alex Jones give his viewers health advice. Here's what I ... - Vox

The bewildered present-day world – The New Indian Express

Some years ago, a precocious writer arrived on the Indian literary scene. His book Butter Chicken in Ludhiana was charming, fresh and funny, a little like Kingsley Amis Lucky Jim. Butter Chicken in Ludhiana announced the advent of a new, major talent, at least for this reviewer.

Strangely, however, its author Pankaj Mishra later dismissed his own work, virtually disowning it, and was seemingly embarrassed by it. One suspects that he did not think it serious enough and did not want to be branded essentially as a comic writer, like Amis (who after that never reached the heights of Lucky Jim). But in Mishras case a series of well-received serious books followed, and Age of Anger is the latest.

Its main theme, outlined in a 35-page Prologue, is an interesting one: With the break-up of the Soviet Union and the virtual demise of communism in 1989, along with the formation of the European Union (EU) and the promise of a globalised free-market economy, how come that everything has unravelled in the past two or three decades?

Why did Brexit take place and why is the EU failing, even threatening to break up altogether? How could Donald Trump, with no political experience, triumph over Hilary Clinton, and why have Hindu supremacists come to power in India? What explains the rise of the Islamic State (IS), and its attraction for educated youngsters in Western democracies? How have the forces of globalisation given way to protectionism and xenophobia?

These are the leading questions of the day. They have been perplexing most thinking people. It is to the credit of Mishra that he attempts to answer them by looking back into history, to the main thinkers and philosophers of the 18th and 19th century. He feels that a deep study of the past is necessary to make sense of the present and that a thread links those thinkers and philosophers with what is now happening around us.

In the late 20th century, the old dream of economic internationalism was revived on a much grander scale after Communism, the illegitimate child of Enlightenment rationalism, suffered a shattering loss of state power and legitimacy in Russia and Eastern Europe, writes Mishra.

The financialisation of capitalism seemed to realise Voltaires dream of the stock exchange as the embodiment of humanityand the universalist religion of human rights seemed to be replacing the old language of justice and equality within sovereign nation states.

The magic of the market seemed to be bringing about the homogenisation of all human societies. As Louis Vuitton opened in Borneo, and the Chinese turned into the biggest consumers of French wines, it seemed only a matter of time before the love of luxury was followed by the rule of law, the enhanced use of critical reason, and the expansion of individual freedom. Thats well and eloquently put.

Almost 25 pages of bibliographies at the end is an indication of how much research has gone into the book. Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Bakunin, Tocqueville, Spencer, Hegel, Wagner, of course, Marx and Engels, are a few writers who are extensively quoted.

However, this reviewer found the profound influence that the Italian Mazzini exerted on not just the Indian independence movement but the Arabs and Jews as well.

Both Mahatma Gandhi and Veer Savarkar imbibed the works of the Italian (he was also the main architect of Italian unity) but to different purposes, one for non-violence and the other for the very opposite of ahimsa. Mishra also shows that Savarkar not only offered to abjectly collaborate with the British after he was sent to jail in the Andamans, but was also part of the conspiracy to assassinate the Mahatma.

Though learning seems to sit heavily on the shoulders of Mishra, rather than lightly, this is essential reading for anybody who wants to make sense of the bewildering and confusing present-day world.

See original here:

The bewildered present-day world - The New Indian Express

Stand on Tradition – The Weekly Standard

"To put it in a nutshell, Joo Carlos Espada tells us, his book "aims at providing an intellectual case for liberal democracy." This aim puts The Anglo-American Tradition of Liberty on a crowded shelf of mostly desiccated husks. What gives his work vitality is his wish to clarify why European democracy differs from England's and ours, and his search for what is common among various figures from the past 60 years whom he admires, and earlier thinkers similar to them.

These goals lead him to defend the substance and conditions of our Anglo-American life of liberty, not to attempt to explore freedom's deathless merits. To accomplish his task, Espada briefly discusses a large number of philosophers, statesmen, and scholars. This breadth means that he does not attend to scholarly minutiae, chains of philosophical abstraction, or detailed questions of policy. Each of his discussions is interesting, although some are more telling or reliable than others. I would especially recommend his remarks on Karl Popper, Michael Oakeshott, and Edmund Burke. His discussion of Alexis de Tocqueville is as good a 20-page presentation of what matters in him as one is likely to find.

Espada's concern is more with tradition than principle. John Locke's principled arguments promoting free government were useful in Britain and America because they entered countries that already practiced or defended limited government and the rule of law. In France, however, the "effect of the importation of Locke's doctrines," Espada tells us, quoting Anthony Quinton, "was much like that of alcohol on an empty stomach." Lockean principles came to light there as a wholesale reordering or destruction of traditional ways.

In general, indeed, the Europeans made themselves dizzy with rationalistic schemes. Their hope, stemming from Descartes, not to ground politics and morals on anything that we merely assume is, however, doomed to fail. In fact, it leads finally to relativism. For if all is not completely rational, then it seems that nothing is. Along the path to such relativism, however, came the disasters of the Marxist and Nazi attempts at total amalgamation and control. These were liberty's very opposites.

If the Anglo-American tradition of liberty is vital to liberty's existence, how can liberty prevail where this tradition never existed, or is now withering? Espada's answer to this pressing question is not simple, partly because of what he has in mind with "tradition." Sometimes he points to matters that were, or are, primarily English, quoting John Betjeman and T.S. Eliot on peculiar English tastes that range from "boiled cabbage cut into sections" and dartboards to Tennyson's poetry and Elgar's music. Other times he includes American practices advocated or instituted by Madison or noticed by Tocqueville. Occasionally, he points to tradition as attachment to one's own familiar routines. But we can see that such attachments could, in many places, as easily be illiberal as liberal.

What we most usefully learn from Espada's approach is that liberty requires (or is strongly aided by) a public and private disposition to allow competitive spheres of social, political, and economic influence rather than social and political monoliths; a proclivity to let people lead their lives without much interference from others; and support of government that is "limited and accountable." These dispositions and their objects are broader than "traditional" ways simply, and we can see how several concrete practices could be compatible with them. Espada, however, does not explore the varied ways to advance these liberal dispositions.

To what degree are these dispositions the seedbed or material of liberty, and to what degree are they liberty itself? Espada's intelligent discussion of liberty's tradition leads him to downplay some of its concrete institutions and principles. There is occasional mention, but little discussion, of religious toleration, a free and responsible press, free speech, good character, and the rule of law. There is mention, but little analysis, either of the place of expanding economies in modern liberal countries or of their disruptive effects on traditional ways.

Some of these practicessay, religious tolerationcould perhaps be dealt with within the general dispositions I just discussed. Some omissions might also be explained by Espada's wish not to identify liberal democracy with any current political party or movement, or to allow figures who range from Hayek to Oakeshott to near-socialists and social democrats such as Raymond Plant and Ralf Dahrendorf exemplify the Anglo-American tradition. Liberal democracy covers a wide range. Nonetheless, it is important to discuss these practices because instituting them clarifies areas where the limits, accountability, competition, and variety in authority that Espada connects to liberal democracy must be won and defended, and cannot merely grow. Tradition, habit, or "political culture" are not enough to support them, whatever their importance. This is especially clear with religious toleration and competitive economies.

In general, Espada downplays the place of principles, or the revolutionary ground, of American and even British liberty. He is taken with Hayek's notion of spontaneous order, and is wary of the schemes of founding and constructing that he believes belong to the hyper-rationalism that is one of liberalism's enemies. Yet the United States was founded explicitly, England had its own principled revolution in 1688, and the Locke (or Lockean) principles that thrived in welcoming Anglo-American traditions or practices are not identical with those traditions. The meaning and benefits of equal rights, religious toleration, voluntary action, liberated acquisitiveness, and limited government all needed to be rationally explained, justified, and defended, even in welcoming situations.

Indeed, relativism or irrationalism arises not only from an extreme reaction to reason's disappointed hopes but from eschewing reason in favor of guidance from race, nation, tribe, or other identities. From Nietzsche on, in fact, relativism is defended by some thinkers themselves. Liberal democracy deserves (and its founders present) an intellectual defense that can bring out what is true in it, even if this is not the whole truth about human affairs. Espada offers little defense of liberty itself, or even of the liberal way of life, beyond its moderation and the growth in economic and other information it might provide. He writes thoughtfully about the possibility of truth in the absence of comprehensive certainty, but he reaches no firm conclusion.

We should also point out that liberal democracies do not rely completely on already-friendly soil. They also produce resources with which to buttress their traditions, and favor practices that are conducive to them. Among these are virtues of character such as responsibility, tolerance, and industriousness that citizens need in order to live successfully in liberal democracies, and the attraction of friends and family that reasserts itself even amidst liberalism's geographic dispersal. In this regard, restless American individualism buttresses free government somewhat differently from the mixture of tradition, respect for authority, limited government, and "inner contentment with life which explains the Englishman's profoundest wish, to be left alone, and his willingness to leave others to their own devices."

It is not clear why the basic goals of liberal democracy could not be approached within several "traditions" were these virtues and natural charms to assert themselves, within limited, accountable institutions. Liberal principles must be asserted and defendednatural rights examined as true guides not arbitrary onesif one is to see why we should protect them, and how, when their traditional soil seems increasingly barren.

One virtue of Espada's wariness of rationalistic schemes is his distrust of experts and his keen sense of the current gap between ruling elites and many of the people they purport to help. This view informs his discussion of the European Union. Here we should remind ourselves that "experts" do not understand better than their clients the ends they serve, that much specialization is false, and that legalistic or pseudo-philosophic expertise in "just" distribution and "correct" behavior is often mere political imposition.

We cannot take freedom for granted todayanywhere. Liberalism cannot rely on practices, traditions, or dispositions alone, but also requires reasonable, convincing argument. Still, Joo Espada is correct to point to the importance of liberal traditions, and to the importance of the writers and statesmen who defended them. This thoughtful book will be valuable for all lovers of liberty.

Mark Blitz is Fletcher Jones professor of political philosophy at Claremont McKenna College and the author, most recently, of Conserving Liberty.

Read the original here:

Stand on Tradition - The Weekly Standard

Abortion Debate Poisoned By ‘Pro-Choice’ And ‘Pro-Life’ Labels – Huffington Post Canada

"Women should have the right to kill children, as long as they are still inside of them. But, it is killing children. It's just that it is OK if they do."

These are the words of comedian Louis CK when he performed last month in Toronto at the Air Canada Centre. The 20,000 people in attendance applauded and laughed, pushing down any evidence of being offended and basking in the hilarious logic, wavering in their own minds as to whether it was offensive, non-fictional or both.

Pro-life marchers go to the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C. to mark the Roe v. Wade decision, Jan. 22, 2015.

Abortion is probably the most divisive, complex issue in modern times. It ensnares every other polarizing conversation like religion, gender, socioeconomic conditions, class warfare, politics, even race. A collision of emotional anguish and legalese envelops all those who dare engage with the impassioned teams from the other side -- the enemies of truth, the hypocrites too drunk on ideology to engage sensibly.

I always believed that as a man I should just keep my head down when tempted to weigh in on the abortion debate. A part of me still feels that way, but after my partner and I brought two kids into this world I felt an incorrigible, nagging voice that will not go away. This voice, when I allow it to speak, feverishly runs through the typical pro-life and pro-choice mantras, arguing with itself until I am mentally exhausted from the mutual blind spot of each side. I only knew two things for certain: if my wife had had an abortion a year and a half ago, my daughter would not be on my lap as I type this piece, and she should never lose the right to end a pregnancy.

There are several contradictions embedded within the two accepted positions of abortion politics. In the pro-choice camp, the definition of a fetus changes depending on whether or not the mother wants to keep the baby. If she doesn't, a fetus is just a bunch of mingling cells, an organic compound that does not constitute an actual living thing. But if she does want to start a family, that fetus becomes a miracle, something to be protected at all costs. This malleable definition is understandable, given the enormous magnitude a decision like having an abortion carries, but is still impossible to reconcile considering the deference to logic and consistency we must give the definition of a singular thing.

Meanwhile, the pro-life camp continues to place religious people front and centre to articulate the notion of a fetus being a living thing. After decades of losing the argument by putting god before science, religion before logic, they still appear unable to grasp why theocracy is not an effective starting point if your goal is to increase the support for preventing abortions in the first place. Add to that a vehement tendency to place abortions side-by-side with strangulations and drive-by shootings, and you have a camp unwilling to adjust their dogma to the detriment of society itself.

Anti-Trump demonstrator protests at abortion rights rally in Chicago, Jan. 15, 2017. (Photo: Kamil Krzaczynski/Reuters)

Everything about this issue makes my head explode. First and foremost, there is an unhealthy prerequisite of undying support for one group or the other, a destructive starting point steeped in deliberate polarization that works as a barometer and an albatross for both groups.

You are either with us, or you are a murderer.

You are either with us, or you hate women.

Lovely, I know, but also an accurate depiction of the insanity that grips this issue. Accusations of misogyny are a typical ruse by pro-choicers when describing pro-lifers, a fallacy of epic proportions as it ignores one obligatory fact: far more women are against abortion than men. In fact, if it were not for men co-signing a woman's right to choose, abortion laws would have been challenged more fiercely a long time ago.

But in our hyper-chivalrous society, men are being asked to shut up and nod politely as they help hold the abortion door open, a cynical reality given the vital role they play in the debate. And while there is some fodder to spotlight where old men attempt to be the sole arbitrators of women's health, by and large men are the most valuable allies in the fight to keep abortion legal.

All of this leads me to believe that we need to scrap the pro-life and pro-choice labels so we can usher in a new era of rationalism and honesty. Taken on its face, I am more inclined to side with a pro-choice argument from a legal standpoint, but the branding of that label has been poisoned, commandeered by radicals who are disinterested in discussing real ancillary issues such as mental health and the societal impact of abortion. If you've ever known a woman who has had a miscarriage or who has given birth to a stillborn baby, you know the emotional toll both those situations carry. Abortion, from what I am told by women who have had to make that difficult choice, is nearly identical.

On the other hand, from a biological perspective, I am more inclined to side with a pro-life position; abortion means ending a life. But again, this label has been politically poisoned and is a paradoxical position if you do not believe in forcing women to give birth, or in punishing them if they do.

Once you really boil down the dominating talking points and focus on the scientific, emotional and legal realities, you come to a fairly uncomfortable conclusion: Louis CK was right. Abortion should remain legal, and it is literally like ending a life. Our society, for better or worse, has decided that this is a self-defence issue, in the realm of justifiable homicide where a woman is given the authority to destroy another human being in the early stages of life, and I believe as a society we should strike the balance between supporting this right and labelling it accurately. By doing so we can probably better educate men and women on birth control, mental health, and the impact abortion has on relationships between mothers and their families.

And perhaps, by erasing the pro-choice/pro-life labels, we can succumb to a more rational, less polarized dialogue where demonization becomes a relic from the past.

Also on HuffPost:

Close

REALITY: Over 99.75 percent of abortions do not cause major medical problems. Less than one-quarter of 1 percent of abortions performed in the United States lead to major health complications, according to a 2014 study from the University of California, San Francisco, that tracked 55,000 women for six weeks after their abortions. The researchers note that this makes an abortion statistically about as risky as a colonoscopy. If that fact seems surprising, consider how American pop culture misrepresents the risks of abortion: Nine percent of film and television characters who have abortions die as a direct result of the procedure, according to another 2014 study from UCSF.

REALITY: About one in five abortions are medical abortions. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 19 percent of abortions in 2011 were medical abortions and that 28.5 percent of those took place in the first nine weeks of pregnancy. The Guttmacher Institute also found that medical abortions increased substantially from 2008 to 2011, meaning more women have ended their pregnancies with this alternative to surgery.

REALITY: Most women will not regret their decision, and are no more likely to experience mental health problems than women who carry an unplanned pregnancy to term. While many women experience mixed emotions after an abortion, 95 percent of women who have abortions ultimately feel they have made the right decision, according to an August 2013 study from UCSF. "Experiencing negative emotions postabortion is different from believing that abortion was not the right decision," the researchers explained. Furthermore, while unplanned pregnancies often cause emotional stress, there is no evidence to suggest that women who choose to terminate their pregnancies will be more likely to suffer from mental health issues, according to a 2008 report from the American Psychological Association that investigated all relevant medical studies published since 1989. The APA found that past studies claiming abortion causes depression and other mental health problems consistently failed to account for other risk factors, particularly a woman's medical history. The APA accounted for these factors and found that, among women who have an unplanned pregnancy, those who have abortions are no more likely to experience mental health problems than those who carry the pregnancy to term.

REALITY: Fetuses cannot feel pain until at least the 24th week of pregnancy. Experts ranging from Britains Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists agree with that timeline. In fact, research from UCSF found that fetuses can't perceive pain before 29 or 30 weeks of development. Then why have so many states banned abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy? Perhaps misrepresentation of research is partly to blame: Many of the researchers most frequently cited by pro-life politicians told The New York Times that their research does not prove anything about fetal pain.

REALITY: Most Americans support a woman's right to choose. According to a Gallup poll from 2014, 78 percent of Americans think abortion should be legal in some or all circumstances. (Fifty percent said "some circumstances," while 28 percent said all.) What's more, in 2012, Gallup found that 61 percent of Americans think abortions that take place during the first trimester of pregnancy should be legal. (Nine out of 10 abortions in the U.S. do take place during that time period, according to Guttmacher.)

REALITY: The abortion rate in the United States is the lowest it's been since 1973. The abortion rate has been on the decline for years, and hit its lowest level in 2011, according to the latest data available from the Guttmacher Institute. The study's author partially credited the decline to better contraceptive use and more long-term contraceptive options, such as the IUD.

REALITY: Women face a growing number of barriers to accessing abortions. More than 57 percent of American women live in states that are hostile or extremely hostile to abortion rights, according to the Guttmacher Institute. That represents a marked increase from 2000, when 31 percent of American women lived in such states. In 2011, 89 percent of counties in America had no abortion clinics. This is no accident: Across the U.S., lawmakers have enacted 231 new abortion restrictions over the past four years, according to a Guttmacher analysis from January 2015. As a result, many women have to travel great distances to reach an abortion clinic, where they may face 24-hour wait periods. These barriers particularly affect women living in rural areas and low-income women, who often can't afford to take time off work and pay for gas and a hotel room. Other laws force women to go through potentially distressing procedures, such as viewing their own ultrasound photos, in order to move forward with an abortion.

REALITY: Women rarely cite pressure from family or partners as leading to their decision to abort. A 2005 study from the Guttmacher Institute found that less than 1 percent of women surveyed cited such pressure among their main reasons for having an abortion. A 2013 study from UCSF reached a similar conclusion, and found that while women rarely cited partner coercion as a reason they sought an abortion, many did cite the desire to escape a bad relationship or domestic violence.

REALITY: Most women who have abortions are already mothers. Sixty-one percent of women who had abortions in 2008 were mothers, and 34 percent had two or more children, according to the Guttmacher Institute. That number only increased after the 2009 financial downturn. The National Abortion Federation told Slate that between 2008 and 2011, 72 percent of women seeking abortions were already mothers. A study from Guttmacher found that mothers typically have abortions to protect the children they already have; they simply cannot afford to raise another child.

REALITY: Requiring abortion clinics to meet these standards does little to improve patient safety and forces many to shut down. Currently, 22 states require abortion clinics to meet a set of restrictive and often arbitrary standards, dictating that they be close to hospitals and that their hallways and closets meet certain measurements. Clinics often need to undergo expensive renovations in order to comply, and leading doctors' groups say the laws do little to improve patient safety. What's more, 11 states now require that doctors at abortion clinics obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, but many hospitals flat-out refuse to grant these privileges. As a result, hospitals essentially have the power to shut down nearby clinics.

Read the rest here:

Abortion Debate Poisoned By 'Pro-Choice' And 'Pro-Life' Labels - Huffington Post Canada

Saturday (novel) – Wikipedia

Saturday (2005) is a novel by Ian McEwan set in Fitzrovia, London, on Saturday, 15 February 2003, as a large demonstration is taking place against the United States' 2003 invasion of Iraq. The protagonist, Henry Perowne, a 48-year-old neurosurgeon, has planned a series of chores and pleasures culminating in a family dinner in the evening. As he goes about his day, he ponders the meaning of the protest and the problems that inspired it; however, the day is disrupted by an encounter with a violent, troubled man.

To understand his character's world-view, McEwan spent time with a neurosurgeon. The novel explores one's engagement with the modern world and the meaning of existence in it. The main character, though outwardly successful, still struggles to understand meaning in his life, exploring personal satisfaction in the post-modern, developed world. Though intelligent and well read, Perowne feels he has little influence over political events.

The book, published in February 2005 by Jonathan Cape in the United Kingdom and in April in the United States, was critically and commercially successful. Critics noted McEwan's elegant prose, careful dissection of daily life, and interwoven themes. It won the 2005 James Tait Black Memorial Prize for fiction. It has been translated into eight languages.

Saturday is McEwan's ninth novel, published between Atonement and On Chesil Beach, two novels of historical fiction. McEwan has discussed that he prefers to alternate between writing about the past and the present.[1][2]

While researching the book, McEwan spent two years work-shadowing Neil Kitchen, a neurosurgeon at The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery in Queen Square, London.[1][3][4] Kitchen testified that McEwan did not flinch in the theatre, a common first reaction to surgery; "He sat in the corner, with his notebook and pencil".[1] He also had several medical doctors and surgeons review the book for accuracy, though few corrections were required to the surgical description.[1][4]Saturday was also proof-read by McEwan's longstanding circle of friends who review his manuscripts, Timothy Garton Ash, Craig Raine, and Galen Strawson.[1]

There are elements of autobiography in Saturday: the protagonist lives in Fitzroy Square, the same square in London that McEwan does and is physically active in middle age.[1]Christopher Hitchens, a friend of McEwan's, noted how Perowne's wife, parents and children are the same as the writer's.[5] McEwan's son, Greg, who like Theo played the guitar reasonably well in his youth, emphasized one difference between them, "I definitely don't wear tight black jeans".[1]

Excerpts were published in five different literary magazines, including the whole of chapter one in the New York Times Book Review, in late 2004 and early 2005.[6] The complete novel was published by the Jonathan Cape Imprint of Random House Books in February 2005 in London, New York, and Toronto; Dutch, Hebrew, German, French, Spanish, Polish, Russian, and Japanese translations followed.[7][8]

The book follows Henry Perowne, a middle-aged, successful surgeon. Five chapters chart his day and thoughts on Saturday the 15 February 2003, the day of the demonstration against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the largest protest in British history. Perowne's day begins in the early morning, when he sees a burning aeroplane streak across the sky. This casts a shadow over the rest of his day as reports on the television change and shift: is it an accident, or terrorism?

En route to his weekly squash game, a traffic diversion reminds Perowne of the anti-war protests occurring that day. After being allowed through the diversion, he collides with another car, damaging its wing mirror. At first the driver, Baxter, tries to extort money from him. When Perowne refuses, Baxter and his two companions become aggressive. Noticing symptoms in Baxter's behaviour, Perowne quickly recognises the onset of Huntington's disease. Though he is punched in the sternum, Perowne manages to escape unharmed by distracting Baxter with discussions of his disease.

Perowne goes on to his squash match, still thinking about the incident. He loses the long and contested game by a technicality in the final set. After lunch he buys some fish from a local fishmonger for dinner. He visits his mother, suffering from vascular dementia, who is cared for in a nursing home.

After a visit to his son's rehearsal, Perowne returns home to cook dinner, and the evening news reminds him of the grander arc of events that surround his life. When Daisy, his daughter, arrives home from Paris, the two passionately debate the coming war in Iraq. His father-in-law arrives next. Daisy reconciles an earlier literary disagreement that led to a froideur with her maternal grandfather; remembering that it was he who had inspired her love of literature. Perowne's son Theo returns next.

Rosalind, Perowne's wife, is the last to arrive home. As she enters, Baxter and an accomplice 'Nige' force their way in armed with knives. Baxter punches the grandfather, intimidates the family and orders Daisy to strip naked. When she does, Perowne notices that she is pregnant. Finding out she is a poet, Baxter asks her to recite a poem. Rather than one of her own, she recites Dover Beach, which affects Baxter emotionally, effectively disarming him. Instead he becomes enthusiastic about Perowne's renewed talk about new treatment for Huntington's disease. After his companion abandons him, Baxter is overpowered by Perowne and Theo, and knocked unconscious after falling down the stairs. That night Perowne is summoned to the hospital for a successful emergency operation on Baxter. Saturday ends at around 5:15a.m. on Sunday, after he has returned from the hospital and made love to his wife again.

McEwan's earlier work has explored the fragility of existence using a clinical perspective,[9] Hitchens hails him a "chronicler of the physics of every-day life".[5]Saturday explores the feeling of fulfilment in Perowne: he is respected and respectable but not quite at ease, wondering about the luck that has him where he is and others homeless or in menial jobs.[5] The family is materially well-off, with a plush home and a Mercedes, but justifiably soPerowne and his wife work hard. McEwan tells of his success rate and keeping cool under pressure; there is a trade off, as he and his wife work long hours and need to put their diaries side by side to find time to spend together.[5]

Perowne's composure and success mean the implied violence is in the background. His personal contentment, (at the top of his profession, and "an unashamed beneficiary of the fruits of late capitalism"[3]) provides a hopeful side to the book, instead of the unhappiness in contemporary fiction.[2] McEwan's previous novels highlighted the fragility of modern fulfilled life, seemingly minor incidents dramatically upsetting existence.[9]Saturday returns to a theme explored in Atonement, which plotted the disruption of a lie to a middle-class family, and in The Child in Time, where a small child is kidnapped during a day's shopping.[10] This theme is continued in Saturday, a "tautly wound tour-de-force" set in a world where terrorism, war and politics make the news headlines, but the protagonist has to live out this life until he "collides with another fate".[2] In Saturday Perowne's medical knowledge captures the delicate state of humanity better than novelists' imaginations: his acquaintance with death and neurological perspective better capture human frailty.[9]

The burning aeroplane in the book's opening, and the suspicions it immediately arouses, quickly introduces the problems of terrorism and international security.[5] The day's political demonstration and the ubiquity of its news coverage provide background noise to Perowne's day, leading to him to ponder his relationship with these events.[11]Christopher Hitchens pointed out that the novel is set on the "actual day the whole of bien-pensant Britain moved into the streets to jeer at George Bush and Tony Blair" and placed the novel as "unapologetically anchored as it is in the material world and its several discontents".[5]The Economist newspaper set the context as a "world where terrorism and war make headlines, but also filter into the smallest corners of people's lives."[2] McEwan said himself, "The march gathered not far from my house, and it bothered me that so many people seemed so thrilled to be there".[12] The characterisation of Perowne as an intelligent, self-aware man: "..a habitual observer of his own moods' [who] is given to reveries about his mental processes," allows the author to explicitly set out this theme.[1]

"It's an illusion to believe himself active in the story. Does he think he's changing something, watching news programmes, or lying on his back on the sofa on Sunday afternoon, reading more opinion columns of ungrounded certainties, more long articles about what really lies behind this or that development, or what is surely going to happen next, predictions forgotten as soon as they are read, well before events disprove them?"[13]

Physically, Perowne is neither above nor outside the fray but at an angle to it; emotionally his own intelligence makes him apathetic, he can see both sides of the argument, and his beliefs are characterised by a series of hard choices rather than sure certainties.[5][14]

He is concerned for the fate of Iraqis; through his friendship with an exiled Iraqi professor he learned of the totalitarian side of Saddam Hussein's rule, but also takes seriously his children's concerns about the war. He often plays devil's advocate, being dovish with this American friend, and hawkish with his daughter.[12]

McEwan establishes Perowne as anchored in the real world.[5][15] Perowne expresses a distaste for some modern literature, puzzled by, even disdaining magical realism:

"What were these authors of reputation doing grown men and women of the twentieth century granting supernatural powers to their characters?" Perowne earnestly tried to appreciate fiction, under instruction from his daughter he read both Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary, but could not accept their artificiality, even though they dwelt on detail and ordinariness.[11]

Perowne's dismissive attitude towards literature is directly contrasted with his scientific world-view in his struggle to comprehend the modern world.[11] Perowne explicitly ponders this question, "The times are strange enough. Why make things up?".[11]

Perowne's world view is rebutted by his daughter, Daisy, a young poet. In the book's climax in chapter four, while he struggles to remain calm offering medical solutions to Baxter's illness, she quotes Matthew Arnold's poem Dover Beach, which calls for civilised values in the world, temporarily placating the assailant's violent mood.[3] McEwan described his intention as wanting to "play with this idea, whether we need stories".[16] Brian Bethune interpreted McEwan's approach to Perowne as "mercilessly [mocking] his own protagonist...But Perowne's blind spot [literature] is less an author's little joke than a plea for the saving grace of literature."[15]

Similarly he is irreligious, his work making him aware of the fragility of life and consciousness's reliance on the functioning brain.[11] His morality is nuanced, weighing both sides of an issue. When leaving the confrontation with Baxter, he questions his use of his medical knowledge, even though it was in self-defense, and with genuine Hippocratic feeling. While shopping for his fish supper, he cites scientific research that shows greater consciousness in fish, and wonders whether he should stop eating them.[11] As a sign of his rationalism, he appreciates the brutality of Saddam Hussein's rule as described by the Iraqi professor whom Perowne treated, at the same time taking seriously his children's concerns about the war.

Saturday is a "post 9/11" novel, dealing with the change in lifestyle faced by Westerners after the 11 September attacks in the United States. As such, Christopher Hitchens characterised it as "unapologetically anchored as it is in the material world and its several discontents".[5] "Structurally, Saturday is a tightly wound tour de force of several strands"; it is both a thriller which portrays a very attractive family, and an allegory of the world after 11 September 2001 which meditates on the fragility of life.[14]

In this respect the novel correctly anticipates, at page 276, the July 7, 2005 bombings on London's Underground railway network, which occurred a few months after the book was published:

London, his small part of it, lies wide open, impossible to defend, waiting for its bomb, like a hundred other cities. Rush hour will be a convenient time. It might resemble the Paddington crash twisted rails, buckled, upraised commuter coaches, stretchers handed out through broken windows, the hospital's Emergency Plan in action. Berlin, Paris, Lisbon. The authorities agree, an attack's inevitable.

The book obeys the classical unities of place, time and action, following one man's day against the backdrop of a grander historical narrative the anti-war protests happening in the city that same day.[9] The protagonist's errands are surrounded by the recurring leitmotif of hyper real, ever-present screens which report the progress of the plane and the march Perowne has earlier encountered.[11]Saturday is in tune with its protagonist's literary tastes; "magical realism" it is not.[5] The 26-hour narrative led critics to compare the book to similar novels, especially Ulysses by James Joyce, which features a man crossing a city,[15] and Virginia Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway, of which Michiko Kakutani described Saturday as an "up-to-the-moment, post-9/11 variation."[10]

The novel is narrated in the third person, limited point of view: the reader learns of events as Perowne does. Using the free indirect style the narrator inhabits Perowne, a neurosurgeon, who often thinks rationally, explaining phenomena using medical terminology.[1] This allows McEwan to capture some of the "white noise that we almost forget as soon as we think it, unless we stop and write it down."[16] Hitchens highlighted how the author separates himself from his character with a "Runyonesque historical present ("He rises " "He strides ") that solidifies the context and the actuality."[5]

Saturday was both critically acclaimed and commercially successful, a best-seller in Britain and the United States. It spent a week at No. 3 on both the New York Times Best Seller List on 15 April 2005,[17] and Publishers Weekly (4 April 2005) lists.[18] A strong performance for literary fiction, Saturday sold over 250,000 copies on release, and signings were heavily attended.[19] The paperback edition sold another quarter of a million.[20]

Ruth Scurr reviewed the book in The Times, calling McEwan "[maybe] the best novelist in Britain and is certainly operating at the height of his formidable powers".[9] She praised his examination of happiness in the 21st century, particularly from the point of view of a surgeon: "doctors see real lives fall to pieces in their consulting rooms or on their operating tables, day in, day out. Often they mend what is broken, and open the door to happiness again."[9] Christopher Hitchens said the "sober yet scintillating pages of Saturday" confirmed the maturation of McEwan and displayed both his soft, humane, side and his hard, intellectual, scientific, side.[5]

Reviewers celebrated McEwan's dissection of the quotidian and his talent for observation and description. Michiko Kakutani liked the "myriad of small, telling details and a reverence for their very ordinariness ", and the suspense created that threatens these.[10] Tim Adams concurred in The Observer, calling the observation "wonderfully precise".[21] Mark Lawson in The Guardian said McEwan's style had matured into "scrupulous, sensual rhythms," and noted the considered word choice that enables his work. Perowne, for example, is a convincing neurosurgeon by the end of the book.[22] This attention to detail allowed McEwan to use all the tricks of fiction to generate "a growing sense of disquiet with the tiniest finger-flicks of detail".[14]

The "set-piece" construction of the book was noticed by many critics; Mrs Scurr praised it, describing a series of "vivid tableaux",[9] but John Banville was less impressed, calling it an assembly of discrete set pieces, though he said the treatment of the car crash and its aftermath was "masterful", and said of Perowne's visit to his mother: "the writing is genuinely affecting in its simplicity and empathetic force."[3] From the initial "dramatic overture" of the aircraft scene, there were "astonishing pages of description", sometimes "heart-stopping", though it was perhaps a touch too artful at times, according to Michael Dirda in The Washington Post.[14] Christopher Hitchens said that McEwan delivered a "virtuoso description of the aerodynamics of a squash game," enjoyable even "to a sports hater like myself",[5] Banville said he, as a literary man, had been bored by the same scene.[23] Zoe Heller praised the tension in the climax as "vintage McEwan nightmare" but questioned the resolution as "faintly preposterous".[11]

John Banville wrote a scathing review of the book for The New York Review of Books.[3] He described Saturday as the sort of thing that a committee directed to produce a 'novel of our time' would write, the politics were "banal"; the tone arrogant, self-satisfied and incompetent; the characters cardboard cut-outs. He felt McEwan strove too hard to display technical knowledge "and his ability to put that knowledge into good, clean prose".[3]

Saturday won the James Tait Black Prize for fiction;[24] and was nominated on the long-list of the Man Booker Prize in 2005.[25]

According to songwriter Neil Finn, the Crowded House song "People Are Like Suns", from Time on Earth (2007), begins with lyrics inspired by the beginning of Saturday, stating "...when I wrote it, I was reading Ian McEwan's novel Saturday, which begins with a man on his balcony watching a plane go down, so the first lines borrow something from that image."[26]

More here:

Saturday (novel) - Wikipedia

Martyn Lawrence Bullard’s Sumptuous Palm Springs Hideaway – Architectural Digest

When one discusses the midcentury-modern architecture of Palm Springs, its best to be specific. On the one hand, there are those archetypes of classic California modernismperhaps best exemplified by Richard Neutras famed Kaufmann Housethat echo the language of the International Style, all glass and steel and elegant rationalism. But then theres another, more playful school of modernism, one that embraced historicist elements, purely theatrical effects, and no small portion of camp to conjure a suitably sybaritic mise-en-scne for the leisure class at play. To the surprise of absolutely no one familiar with interior designer Martyn Lawrence Bullard or his sumptuous settings, the effervescent British expat selected a prime example of the latter for his own Palm Springs hideaway.

Bullard and his partner, property developer Michael Green, soak up the sunshine in a 1963 house by James McNaughton, a Hollywood set designer who found the ultimate canvas for his flights of fancy in the desert sands of the Coachella Valley. With an arched exterior canopy that segues into interior colonnades, the structure looks a bit like an early maquette for Wallace K. Harrisons Metropolitan Opera House at Lincoln Center. The analogy is apt, given the unapologetic drama of the design, which is centered on a semicircular living room that is completed in a bowfront wall of glass overlooking the swimming pool and a black-banded terrazzo floor that was originally intended for dancing.

Its all a bit mad but divine, Bullard says of the house. Hugh Hefner supposedly owned it in the 70s, then Roger Moore, who had it tricked out in fabulous James Bond finery. This place was built for relaxation and fun, so we use it in that spirit.

1 / 12

Bullard largely preserved McNaughtons floor plan, restoring sections of the home that had been altered over the years. To make the place more accommodating for visitors, he converted a pool cabana and what had been a lavish dressing room into additional guest quarters. Bullard also transformed an erstwhile library into a seriously plush screening room bathed in emerald-green lacquer and furnished with topographical de Sede Terrazza sofas covered in Ultrasuede.

During the holidays, we hole up there with our dog, Daisy, a bunch of screeners, and a lot of candy, the designer says. (For those unfamiliar with Hollywoods mysterious customs, screeners are copies of the latest movies that are distributed by the studios to industry bigwigs and apparatchiks at the end of every year, in advance of awards season.)

Bullard describes his interior appointments as a mix of swinging 60s with a touch of disco 70s. In specific terms, that vision translates into a roster of stellar furnishings by Vladimir Kagan, Willy Rizzo, Paul Evans, Milo Baughman, Angelo Mangiarotti, Karl Springer, and Charles Hollis Jones, among other avatars of groovy modern furniture. There are also more idiosyncratic pieces, like the Pierre Cardin stools at the bar and the living rooms vast zebra-skin rug (a gift from model Cheryl Tiegs, it once graced Andy Warhols Factory).

For the full story, subscribe now and get the digital edition immediately.

Here is the original post:

Martyn Lawrence Bullard's Sumptuous Palm Springs Hideaway - Architectural Digest

How to Use Imagination to Grow Your Business – Business 2 Community

In a 1929 interview, Albert Einstein said:

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution.

Do you think he was correct?

Einstein was voicing his opinion regarding scientific research, an area traditionally dominated by pure rationalism.

How about in business? Do you value imagination more than (or as much as) what you know?

Its unlikely. We favor knowledge over imagination, reason over intuition.

But its imagination that creates the new, the better, the unforeseen. Imagination fuels all great visions.

All inspired leaders can envision a future that doesnt yet exist.

When we understand the source of creativity, we are better positioned to access it more freely.

When Einstein says knowledge, hes referring to our conscious, rational minds. It is from our conscious minds we operate each day.

We mainly use our intellect or reason to evaluate our surroundings, make decisions, and communicate.

Modern science, however, continues to reveal that most of our behavior, attitudes, and decisions are influenced, even ruled, by unconscious processes.

The source of our imagination lies in what we can call the unconscious mind. This unconscious mind is a storehouse of every memory, image, thought, feeling, and experience weve ever had.

More interestingly, in The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious, Carl Jung illustrates how this unconscious has a collective or universal element that accesses the memories, images, thoughts, feelings, and experiences of all humanity throughout time.

Its as if, deep inside each of us, untold imaginative treasures, insights, and ideas are just waiting for us to discover.

Living strictly conscious lives, most of us rarely tap into these imaginative capacities. Those who do, we call artists.

Ancient traditions and modern integrative therapies suggest theres a mediating factor that enables our conscious mind (or ego) to access, communicate, and even befriend the forces of the unconscious.

The Egyptians called it the Ba-Soul. Ancient Greeks called the inner daimon. The Romans saw it as genius in everyone.

Webcast, March 15th: How to Scale Upmarket with Enterprise Field Sales

Western religions call it our guardian angel or soul. Eastern philosophies and transpersonal psychologies call it the Self (capital S).

Many artists call it the Muse. William Blake called it Poetic Genius.

By whatever name, it is this Inner Guide that we tap into when our imagination flows.

Just as our conscious mind is providing us with a constant stream of thought, our unconscious mind is perpetually trying to express itself.

Only, we havent learned how to give it attention, relate to it, and understand it.

Using our conscious mind, humans communicate with one another through language.

Language is a process of the rational mind (or cerebral cortex).

The difficulty in approaching the unconscious is that it doesnt communicate to us in words. It expresses itself as images and symbols.

Only a select few have learned to access these images and symbols that come to us in dreams, fantasies, visions, and daydreams.

Accessing and paying attention to these images is the first step; learning to interpret them is the second.

To balance out our bias toward rationalism, we need to create space for the imagination.

Disney uses a method for producing creative work that any business can emulate.

They differentiate three roles necessary for generating creative ideas and actualizing them: the Dreamer, the Realist, and the Critic.

The Dreamer accesses the unconscious by allowing the mind to wander without bounds. Daydreaming isnt just allowed; its encouraged.

The Realist accesses the conscious mind that organizes ideas, develops plans, sets forth strategies for execution.

The Critic tests the plan, plays the role of Devils Advocate, and looks out for what could go wrong.

A process such as this gives the Dreamer its rightful place in business that might otherwise treat humans as purely rational beings that need to be at their desks working at all times.

See this guide for a comprehensive look at the creative process.

Its difficult to access your creativity when your body is holding unnecessary tension or anxiety.

Start by taking a few slow, steady, deep breaths. Breathe into the bottom of your belly and exhale, allowing an imaginary balloon in your belly to deflate. (See, were already using our imagination.)

Close your eyes.

Visualize yourself at work. See the faces of your team. Notice what they are doing. Feel the overall energy in your environment.

How are they relating to each other? How do they perceive you? Try to get a realistic picture of the average day at work.

Now, imagine how you want it to be. Imagine the potential of your people. See them collaborating earnestly with each other.

Feel the energy, playfulness, openness, and creativity in the air. Notice the positive and passionate attitude of your people.

Can you see the untapped potential within your business?

Can you envision new and better ways of serving your customers?

Your Inner Guide can. Trust that this is true and look and listen within yourself.

Steve Jobs never saw Apple as a business that sells computers. In his imagination, Apple made products that unleashed peoples creativity.

Imagination is vital to creating a bold, inspiring vision.

Never underestimate the power of such an image. It can rally your people around a common goal. It can fuel the creation of something that will have a positive impact on humanity.

Adapted from an article originally published on scottjeffrey.com.

Visit link:

How to Use Imagination to Grow Your Business - Business 2 Community

Junk restrictive faith-based laws: Mumbai atheists – Daily News & Analysis

The Atheists community from Mumbai will be coming together in a conference to demand abolition of the Indian Penal Code Sections 295 (hurting religious sentiments), 295A (deliberate act intended to outrage religious feelings) and 298 (Uttering, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person). The community will also demand that an elected leader should not take an oath in Gods name to maintain the sovereignty of the state.

The fourth atheist conference which will be organised by The Brights will have speakers who promote rationalism. Advocate Asim Sarode will talk about the IPC Sections 295, 295A and 298 which were written during the British era.

When the President of our country is elected, the person is subjected to say I, (name), do swear in the name of God (or solemnly affirm), which should not happen. We will also demand change in the swearing-in the court witness box in which people are forced to take oath under a holy book, said Kumar Nage, Country Head for a multinational company and founder of The Brights.

The Sections 295, 295A and 298 are draconian which were established to control the colonies in which the Brits ruled. Even today we follow these laws in case if we speak against god in our democratic country, said Nage.

The group of atheists who reject the fiction called God want civil equality and development. In the name of God and religion people are now indulging in anti-social activities, says Nitin Worlikar, a banker and co-founder of The Brights.

On March 19, the conference will be held in Pune, in Nashik on March 26, and in Mumbai on April 9 in Yashwantrao Chavan Centre at Nariman Point.

Our motto is to spread awareness among the countrymen that they should not believe in any fanaticism which disturbs peace and harmony, said Worlikar.

Follow this link:

Junk restrictive faith-based laws: Mumbai atheists - Daily News & Analysis

A French Surrealist’s Eclectic Remembrances of His Cohort, Finally in English – Hyperallergic

Philippe Soupault, Lost Profiles: Memoirs of Cubism, Dada, and Surrealism

Lost Profiles: Memoirs of Cubism, Dada, and Surrealism is a diminutive, stylish book that kicks off by appreciatively documenting a curiously seedy period of transition within the anti-rationalist French avant-garde: from Dada to Surrealism. Published by legendary City Lights in late 2016, this alluring collection of amiable reminiscences was penned by co-founding Surrealist poet Philippe Soupault (18971990) and first appeared in French in 1963 as Profils perdus. City Lights has bracketed this English translation with an introduction by Mark Polizzotti, the director of the publications program at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and an afterword by poet Ron Padgett.

Polizzottis contribution is essential, as he not only contextualizes Soupault within the Parisian avant-garde but corrects some dating errors of Soupaults and reverses some of Andr Bretons bowdlerizing, revealing the essential conceptual contribution that psychologist, philosopher, and psychotherapist Pierre Janet played in Soupault and Bretons budding Dada-cum-Surrealist movement. (Breton had neglected the erudite Janet in his accounts.) On the other hand, Polizzotti keenly reports that Soupault tends to assign himself the starring role a bit more than is warranted, thus advancing the thesis that every biography is a disguised autobiography.

Though essentially about his experiences as a rather blissful young man, Soupault wrote this book of portraits at age 66, sparing it the typical excesses of literary juvenilia. Indeed, his generally urbane tone is neither ironic and frivolous, nor competitive and facetious. His clipped, fluid prose avoids academic stodginess with lan, and there is nothing insolent, narcissistic, lecherous, or self-protective about it.

The translation by poet Alan Bernheimer has flair too, delivering Soupaults appealingly eclectic text in delightful form to the Anglophone audience for the first time. Soupaults sharp but sweet anecdotal memories of fellow experimental artists and antagonists include laudable short portraits of Guillaume Apollinaire, Marcel Proust, James Joyce, sad surrealist Ren Crevel, novelist Georges Bernanos, painter Henri Rousseau, poet Charles Baudelaire (whom he sketches as a precursor avant-gardist) and lesser-known poets Pierre Reverdy and Blaise Cendrars. Given the heroic stature of some of these audacious subjects, within their chapters Soupault seems to delight in making large small and small large, humanizing the celebrated with intimate particularization and paeanizing the obscure with encomium.

With a seductive cubist cover painting by Robert Delaunay of a scowling Soupault ignoring a quaking Eiffel Tower, this enjoyable collection of crisp recollections popularizes what was once essentially arcane. Like Marc Dachys essential Discoveries: Dada: The Revolt of Art, Soupaults book with its pocket size, short chapter format, and reasonable price makes for the perfect travel companion. Even though the essays presume a certain level of familiarity with the French avant-garde, they have an engaging quality that transmits Soupaults palpable love for experimental art and for his quelle surprise exclusively male subjects. Lost Profiles offers witty and unexpurgated views of venturesome men during a daring era, but it is in no way a sufficiently broad-spectrum historical overview of the birth of the avant-garde in Paris.

Soupault, whose style of disaffection favored plain living and high thinking, lived a lengthy literary life, never ceasing to write improbable tales. Rather young during World War I when he served in the French army, he saw the Parisian art spirit of the times as one based in Dada iconoclastic destruction, bent on devastating conventional systems of representation, traditional morality, and all sorts of rational social organization (which the Dadaists saw, in light of the war, as depraved and crazed). This effervescent mood, which fted scandal, was particularly incited in Paris by the arrival of Tristan Tzara. This closed a circuit, as Dadaist Tzara had been influenced by Parisian Cubism: borrowing and intensifying the anti-logic of juxtaposition, condensation, and displacement specifically from Synthetic Cubist collage. For Soupault, Tzaras tipsy Dada showed the nonsense latent in all sense.

As Soupault writes, Dada was out to destroy all the established values, the literary practices, and the moral bias in the interests of what Apollinaire (an outspoken and thought-provoking defender of Cubism) called the new spirit in art. Perhaps that is one reason that the essay Steps in the Footsteps (Les pas dans les pas) has been moved from the end in the French edition to open the collection in English: It is here that Soupault recalls how he and Breton were first affiliated through Apollinaires friendship and encouragement as they came to know Tzara and participate in the earliest performances of the Paris Dada movement. In 1919, with Breton and Louis Aragon, Soupault co-founded the Dada journal Littrature. That same year, Soupault collaborated with Breton on Les Champs magntiques (The Magnetic Fields), the text of automatic writing that inspired Andr Massons automatic drawings. Together, these works are widely considered the foundation of the Surrealist movement and the greatest contributions by the original Surrealist group.

Of course, Soupault had a famous falling out with Bretons goatish brand of Surrealism (a term taken from Apollinaires text Onirocritique that was itself snatched from Artemidoruss ancient Greek treatise on dream interpretation) arising from the movements increasingly Soviet Communist ties and Bretons self-anointment as leading arbiter. In 1927 Soupault and his wife Marie-Louise translated William Blakes Songs of Innocence and Experience into French, and the following year Soupault authored a monograph on Blake, arguing that he had anticipated the Surrealist movement.

After putting down this fulfilling read, a few nasty thoughts kept haunting me. Soupaults anti-rational Dada-Surrealism was largely the art of generalizing where the particular was in play. Dada-Surrealism rejected the tight correlation between words and meaning, which perhaps sounds familiar in our era of Trump post-factuality: slippery conceptual bullshit moves that exploit Soupault-type forms of verbal extrapolation in the interests of far-right political manipulations. It seems to me that what Soupault wanted to show us was that verbal impossibilities could produce astonishing transgressions that liberate the mind from conservative militaristic convention something quite the opposite of spectacular post-factual speculative conspiracy theories (think Pizzagate) that support Trump by liberating thought from a concern for credibility.

In that sense (and that one alone), Soupaults avant-gardism helped cultivate a taste for the ambiguity of the post-truth political economy of the alt-right, with its toxic mix of white supremacy, misogyny, xenophobia, militarism, and oligarchic tendencies. Indeed, hard-right Trump trolls are similar to their Dada predecessors in that they do not recognize any limits to truth claims. For some, merely saying things that are not usually said openly is part of the transgressive thrill of Trumpism. Even when Trump himself is caught in an egregious lie, his anti-globalist, nationalist supporters manage to believe that he is instead revealing critical truths, and that any reporting to the contrary actually exposes the anti-conservative bias of the perceived media and cultural lite.

Like the Dadaists, the trolling radical right has always been acutely sensitive to the emotions of shockingly vulgar communications whose primary goal is cognitive manipulation. Trump panders to prejudice by liberating previously repressed aggression, viciousness, and mockery and redirecting it at immigrants, people of color, women, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. So it saddens me to say that I could not help but notice that the alt-right trolls and the Dada-Surreal heroes share many of the clever cognitive-dissonant techniques in their messaging. Of course, the evil onus is on the alt-right (already a pass term, as this groups objectives are no longer an alternative to anything but central to sites of forceful power). Therefore, it is important to note that Soupault did not stop his intellectual pursuits with the anti-rational Magnetic Fields. Following his co-founding of Surrealism, he practiced journalism and directed Radio Tunis from 1937 to 1940 after he was arrested in Tunisia by the pro-Vichy regime during WWII. After the war, he resumed his journalistic activities, worked for UNESCO, and taught at Swarthmore College while writing essays and novels.

The reality of Trump has now sunk in, and the sense of trauma on the cultural left has deepened (with the stakes only likely to get higher). As a starting point for political activism/artivism, perhaps artists engaged in increasingly vehement expressions of dissent may wish to consider how best to combat the normalization of Trumps impulsive anti-rationalism through the refusing anti-rationalist eyes of Soupaults disaffection, conversely tempered by his journalistic rigor and educational commitment. This double-bladed approach of utilizing anti-rational (post-truth) mind games and facts-based objective accuracy may best frustrate Trumps insatiable desire for recognition and get under his oh-so-thin skin.

Lost Profiles: Memoirs of Cubism, Dada, and Surrealism is now available from online booksellers and City Lights.

Continued here:

A French Surrealist's Eclectic Remembrances of His Cohort, Finally in English - Hyperallergic

SBCC Presents ‘A Flea in Her Ear’ – Santa Barbara Independent

Theatre Group at Santa Barbara City College Performs OutlandishFarce

Bedroom farces, such as the current Theatre Group at SBCC production A Flea in Her Ear, are excursions into a universe liberated from the consequences of social grievances. The outlandish mad-cappery of Flea is set in motion when two socialite wives, Raymonde (Addison Clarke) and Lucienne (Courtney Schwass), conspire in an ill-fated plot to trap Raymondes husband in flagrante, by sending him a steamy proposition letter soaked in perfume. Three acts worth of mistaken identities, doppelgangers, slapstick, innuendo, and skirt chasing ensue but rest assured that conclusion brings complete resolution, and all the characters forget and forgive the buffoonish offenses theyve both suffered and perpetuated throughout theplay.

SBCCs production of Flea, which runs through March 18 at the Garvin Theatre, is a surprisingly honest presentation of farce. Featuring several suitably over-the-top characterizations and tireless physical performances, the cast tore the set to shreds literally. Doors were slammed off their hinges, and costumes were bursting at the seams, which provided a strangely apt sense of destruction within a piece where the humor depends on a reality exaggerated far beyond rationalism. Commanding performances by Sean Jackson (as both Victor Chandebise and his double, drunk bellhop Poche) and Pacomio Sun, as jealous, deranged Spaniard Don Carlos Homenides de Histangua, kept a stumbling performance on its feet, forcing the story to stay in scene despite numerous chaotic moments that brought the cast desperately close to completebreakdown.

While slow to start, A Flea in Her Ear hit its stride in the second act when the characters all meet up through coincidence and deceptive design at the Frisky Puss Hotel. There was an atmosphere of true mirth onstage that conveyed the deliciously ridiculous elements of the story in a satisfying manner. The Theatre Group at SBCCs Flea doesnt have polished choreography, but it still delivers joyful, vigorous performances that inspire genuinelaughter.

Presented by the Theatre Group at SBCC. At Garvin Theatre, Sat., Mar. 4. Shows through Mar.18.

Be succinct, constructive, and relevant to the story. Leaving a comment means you agree to our Discussion Guidelines. We like civilized discourse. We don't like spam, lying, profanity, harassment or personal attacks.

More:

SBCC Presents 'A Flea in Her Ear' - Santa Barbara Independent

Is Democracy Dying Before Our Eyes In America? OpEd – Eurasia Review

By Emanuel L. Paparella, Ph.D.*

Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Freedom Thomas Jefferson

And at the end they go crazy Giambattista Vico

John Adams, the second president of the United States, did a study on the life of Republics from their inception all the way to the 18th century. To his great surprise, he discovered that they all died, sooner or later. In other words, they were mortal. The ones who lasted longer were what he calls republics of virtue.

By republic of virtue Adams meant a polity based on the rule of law, concern for the common good of the whole polity, rationality, justice, personal virtues such as courage, honesty, sobriety, wisdom, harmony, enterprise, magnanimity. These were the virtues as enunciated by the ancient Greeks ethical treatises, considered essential components of personal as well as collective well-being.

Rome could also function as an example of that stance toward republicanism, at least at the beginning. That may explain why it lasted so long, some 500 years as a Republic based on democratic principles of peoples representation via the Senate. It was built on a solid political foundation.

But as that other great observer of republicanism in Roman history, Giambattista Vico, well observed, it too eventually succumbed to the process of an historical law wherein republican polities begin with a basis in necessity and a need to survive (the poetical era of the gods), continue with a basis in utility based on prosperity (the era of the heroes), and finally, as he puts it, they become corrupt with abundance and luxury and they go mad (the era of men) The process of madness comes in the third and final cycle. Then the process repeats itself and from extreme rationalism there is a gradual return to the poetical.

That is to say, at the end republics manage to destroy themselves. The destruction happens interiorly, with the corruption of the essential moral core of the republic based on virtue. And this was the second great surprise to Adams: they did not succumb to external invasions by fierce enemies; they committed suicide.

The best example of that sad situation is to be found in Roman history in the reign of Caligula which was the culmination of imperial corruption. Prominent on stage, at that time, there was a deranged emperor sitting on top of a pyramid of power which had lost even the memory of its virtuous republican heritage.

He was a vindictive sort of fellow and thought of himself as a magnificent god before whom his subjects had to kneel in adoration, even when he presented himself naked in every respect, especially the moral sense. Few dared shout that the emperor is naked. In effect, the Romans had become sychophantic narcissistic idolaters worshipping themselves. Caligula was the supreme representation of that narcissistic idolatry. Rome worshipped itself as a goddess. It was nothing less than the beginning of the end.

Enter Thomas Jefferson: he agreed with Adams that virtue was essential but added that it was also important to keep up ones guard and not sleep on ones laurels, so to speak, and not take the democratic system, as brilliant as it might be, too much for granted. That too can be corrupted. Hence he coined the famous dictum: Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

When Jefferson counseled eternal vigilance he did not mean the installment of a powerful invincible army buttressed by state-of-the-arts weapons that would keep the peace world-wide (the pax Americana, similar to the pax Romana), but the preservation of the virtues on which the republic had been built: its democracy, its checks and balances, its freedom of speech, its Constitutional guarantees, its bill of rights, its freedom of religion. Unless those were preserved, Democracy would eventually turn into a shamble of sorts. Democracy can be powerful in a military sense, but to remain a democracy, its foundations cannot be based on sheer power, in a Machiavellian mode, so familiar to European nationalism, but on virtue as the Greeks and early Romans understood it.

Lets now briefly look at the present situation. The parallels between Trump and Caligula are uncanny. Undoubtedly we still have all the trappings of democracy in America: three branches of government, elections, congress, executive, judicial, constitutional guarantees of human and political rights, free unfettered debates.

All this in theory. In practice we have an electorate of which 50% and more does not bother to vote; of the other 50% approximately 25% have opted to vote for a madman who has somehow managed to become a president by the subversion of democracy even if never won the popular vote (which he lost by 3 million votes). He won mostly by electoral college count and, most importantly, by harnessing the help of an undemocratic foreign power run by authoritarian oligarchs, Putin at the forefront. That remains to be investigated.

To be perfectly truthful and frank, the whole process was rigged and fraudulent. Had Congress insisted on the revelation of Trumps tax returns, as all other modern presidents had done, his financial connections with Russia, going back 30 years, would have come to the surface and would have revealed malfeasance and corruption. He has no intention of doing so, and the Republican controlled Congress has no intention, so far, to demand the disclosure; which in effect means that they are in on the malfeasance.

This illegitimate president reigning like Caligula and demanding constant adulation, has so far fooled some 40% of the electorate by making it look like populism: he feigns to be for the people and by the people. In reality he has surrounded himself with fat cats who are beginning to show their bias for tax cuts for the rich and diminishment of social benefits for the poor and middle class, not excluding their health insurance. This is in process as we speak.

Behind the scene, pulling the strings, there is his strategist Steve Bannon, who is in possessions an historical theory of clash of civilizations and white supremacy. His allies are those who believe that there is an alternate government at work (consisting mostly of Intelligence agencies) which they call deep alternate government.

It stand to reason that the enemy would be perceived to be intelligence agencies, globalization in any shape or form, the liberal media, and, by default, genuine democracy itself. And that is exactly what we have been witnessing for the last few weeks. Few pundits and media experts have shouted the Emperor is naked.

The allies, on the other hand, are perceived to be white supremacist authoritarian fascist-leaning nations like Russia or Hungary who have little use for democracy and social justice. Its all grab what you can for yourself, at the personal and collective level and to hell with democracy.

We have now reached the sorry stage when some 30% of Americans have more sympathy for Russia than for our traditional allies in the European Union. The same people continue deluding themselves that they live in a thriving democracy. I suppose derangement is like a disease: it spreads exponentially.

So the urgent question resurfaces: are we witnessing the beginning of the end of American and Western democracy as we know it? Will Jeffersons dictum come back to haunt us when America and the EU will have destroyed themselves by destroying their own principles and ideals? Indeed, Jefferson had in on target: eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

Let me end with a modest proposal. The Romans had in place a system of emergency in case of a political disaster. It was the equivalent of desperate measures to confront desperate situations, like a Hannibal, for example. We should install such a measure, democratically installed and approved, of course: when the republic is in mortal danger, and it is discovered that a national election was rigged and fraudulent, it should be declare null and void and the citizens be invited to return to the urns and vote again, this time in a legal and fair mode. Any takers? Let those who have ears, let them hear.

About the author: *Professor Paparella has earned a Ph.D. in Italian Humanism, with a dissertation on the philosopher of history Giambattista Vico, from Yale University. He is a scholar interested in current relevant philosophical, political and cultural issues; the author of numerous essays and books on the EU cultural identity among which A New Europe in search of its Soul, and Europa: An Idea and a Journey. Presently he teaches philosophy and humanities at Barry University, Miami, Florida. He is a prolific writer and has written hundreds of essays for both traditional academic and on-line magazines among which Metanexus and Ovi. One of his current works in progress is a book dealing with the issue of cultural identity within the phenomenon of the neo-immigrant exhibited by an international global economy strong on positivism and utilitarianism and weak on humanism and ideals.

Source: This article was published at Modern Diplomacy.

The Modern Diplomacy is a leading European opinion maker - not a pure news-switchboard. Todays world does not need yet another avalanche of (disheartened and decontextualized) information, it needs shared experience and honestly told opinion. Determined to voice and empower, to argue but not to impose, the MD does not rigidly guard its narrative. Contrary to the majority of media-houses and news platforms, the MD is open to everyone coming with the firm and fair, constructive and foresighted argumentation.

Read more:

Is Democracy Dying Before Our Eyes In America? OpEd - Eurasia Review

Interview with Deo Ssekitooleko Representative of Center for Inquiry International Uganda – Conatus News

Interview with Deo Ssekitooleko Representative of Center for Inquiry International Uganda

In brief, what is your family story?

I was born in a poor African family. I firstsaw my biological father when I was ten years old. I am the heir of my late father, Fulgensio Ssekitooleko. He was a very committed catholic, very social, and a committed humanitarian. I grew up with my mother Noelina Nalwada which was typically asingle-parent household (but atother times I had step-fathers). I am the only child. My fathers children, apart from one, died after getting infected with HIV/AIDS in the 1980s and 1990s. My mother is an atheist, agnostic or skeptic. When I tried to enter a catholic seminary, she abused me and challenged me whether I hadever seen somebody who has ever seen God or returned from death.

However, one of my last stepfathers who was both a devout catholic and a believer in African traditional religion influenced me to be a very religious person (Catholic) in my early youth. My mother knew how to fight for my (and her) rights, so I never understood issues concerning human rights violations during my youth except when seeing teachersapply corporal punishment to my fellow students. As I was growing up, I was not aware of the massive human rights abuse by the governments of the day, but, once in a while, I could hear whispers about somebody who has disappeared or killed by the government. Those were regimes of president Iddi Amin Dada, and the second regime of Apollo Milton Obote as he was fighting guerrillas lead by Yoweri Museveni the current president of Uganda

I am married to Elizabeth, and we have been togetherfor 17 years. We have four children: Sylvia (16 years), Diana (12), Julius (11), and Nicholas (3).

Are there any others things about your personal story you would like to share? I grew up striving to succeed in education so that I could escape poverty, ignorance, and unfairness in society. My mothers relatives were always exploited by witchdoctors who claimed to have healing-powers and thus could curediseases including HIV/AIDS. My uncles and aunts gave away their land to witchdoctors in order to get cured from HIV/AIDS, but they later died leaving no property to their offsprings.

In the years to come, the Pentecostal movements emergedpromising prosperity on earth, good health and many other opportunities. The two groups, i.e. the traditional religions and the Pentecostals, were undermining the struggle against HIV/AIDS, exploiting poor people. Yet, nobody could talk about them or challenge them.

This was a traumatising experience. I never knew whether this was a human rights issue or mere belief, or ignorance. As the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights defends the right to belief, all governments have gone on to include that article in their constitutions.

This means that ignorant people can be exploited in the name of belief as it is their human right to be exploited as long as they believe. This has been one of my most traumatising struggles in life. I have lost so manyrelatives out of their ignorance of science concerninghealth issues. Yet, governments cannot do anything about this because the politicians are also superstitious and the laws protect the charlatans.

In Uganda, almost 80 per cent of FM radio stations spend most of their time promoting the work of faith healers and witchdoctors. Rationalists do not have resources to own a radio station or to buy time on radio and television.

In my struggleto promote rationalism, I founded the Uganda Humanist Association. I became the East African Representative of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (2007-2012). Now, I am the Ugandan Representative of the Center for Inquiry International.

As advocacy campaigns are difficult, we now engage with local communities to talk about science and superstition in health and community development. Our work is now to invite whoever happens to be involved to discuss these issues openly and inform communities of the dangers of superstition in health and community development.

As of now, I have personally suspended armchair conference-hall humanism. I am in the trenches of community practical humanism. Whatever little I do, I feel proud that at least I am part of the struggle to rationaliseAfrican communities.

What are your religious/irreligious, ethical and political beliefs? I grew up as a staunch Catholic, and then at university I became a radical secular humanist. Now, having interacted with various so-called humanists and observed their limitations (especially in building harmony, inclusive communities, practical approaches to society problems, and a general lack of openness)I have reviewed my humanism.

I am now a free thinking, liberal, practical humanist. I do not mind other peoples beliefs on the condition thatthey do not infringe on the rights, happiness, and welfare of other human beings. I can work with Catholics on a health project, but I tell them point blank that the use of condoms should not be underminedand that family planning is essential in our families.

I tell Pentecostals that by preaching miracles such as faith-healing they are committing homicide. However, I enjoy my intellectual philosophical humanism as we debate Darwinism, the Big Bang theory, the environment, and the future of humanity among others. Politically, I am a social welfare democrat. Democracy should not be only about elections, but on how society shares opportunities and resources and how it promotes harmony.

I do not support the winner takes it all type of democracy. I prefer proportional representation in government as a form of democracy,as is the case in many countries which suffered the madness of the second world war.

How did you become an activist and a sceptic? When I enrolled inhigh school, I was still a very confused young man. I had experienced a lot in my childhood. My Biology teacher, the late Mathias Katende, made an explosion in my brain and changed my ideological worldview. He introduced evolutionary biology to us.

The more he taught, the more we became confused. All along, I had prepared myself to go to heaven and meetMary, the mother of Jesus, and escape worldly problems. However, by the time I entered University to study Botany, Zoology, and Psychology, I had become completely healed from this ideological and philosophical trauma.

At University, we got more lessons on evolution, but the lecturers were not as committed to evolution as my high school teacher. In fact, most students never took evolution seriously. They just wrote their examinations and moved on with life.

At university, by luck, a friend gave me a book on discovering religions. I read about most religions, worldviews, and philosophies. I found Humanism to be more related to my new worldview. I wrote to the British Humanist Association and got a positive response from Matt Cherry who encouraged me to form a humanist organisation. That was the birth of the Uganda Humanist Association.

He connected me to the center for Inquiry International through Norm Allen who was the Director of African Americans for Humanism (AAH). The Free Inquiry Magazines that Norm sent us opened our eyes wider on how humanity sees itself. Later, we were to work with the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) on many secular projects.

Do you consider yourself a progressive?

I am very progressive. I have always been evolving in my ideological, philosophical, cultural, and political views. I used to be a staunch believer in American democracy, but now I am more rotated towards European Social Parliamentary Democracy. I used to hate Chinas politics, but now I see it relevant in order to maintain orderliness and social welfare to a country (that has over one billion people) under one authority. I am a progressive because I am ever open to new challenges, new ideas, and new world views for the good of humanity and the environment at large.

Does progressivism logically imply other beliefs, or tend to or even not all?

I dont look at progressivism as a confined ideology or philosophy. If so, then I need more education about it. In my view, progressivism should be open to all aspects of human life including but not limited to culture, beliefs, politics, philosophy, and views about the environment among others.

How did you come to adopt socially progressive worldview?

As I explained earlier, it is a combination of my childhood experience, my culture, my environment, and possibly my inherited biological genes. I am lucky to have been introduced to evolutionary theory by my high school biology teacher and through reading various related literature including Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker. The works of Philosophers such as Thomas Paines The Age of Reason taught me critical reasoning skills. Studying the American revolution was equally important in my political thought development. I was humbled by the sacrifices of Nelson Mandela and his colleagues to liberate South Africa from apartheid. Julius Nyereres trials with community socialism in order to liberate Tanzanians from poverty and to unite them into one nation was a positive human commitment. I can not forget reading the life of Bill Clinton in his voluminous autobiography. It is a story of moving from no where to the top of the mountains of his country.

Thank you for your time,Deo Ssekitooleko Contacts: Email: [emailprotected] The website is being worked on.

See original here:

Interview with Deo Ssekitooleko Representative of Center for Inquiry International Uganda - Conatus News

Philharmonic program celebrates passion, youth – Albuquerque Journal

.......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........

Cellist Edvard Pogossian will join the New Mexico Philharmonic as the featured guest.

Cellist Edvard Pogossian of the Juilliard School will join the musicians on Josef Haydns Cello Concerto in C Major on Sunday at the National Hispanic Cultural Center.

Musicologists knew Haydn had written a second cello concerto, but the score remained undiscovered until 1961, guest conductor Oriol Sans said. The composer had written the beginning of the principal theme of the first movement in his draft catalog in 1765.

The music was discovered in a library in Prague, Sans said.

Oriol Sans will be guest conductor for Sundays concert.

Whats funny is it has become more famous than the other one, he said. Its one of the first great cello concertos.

The concert will open with Piazzollas Meloda en La menor (Melody in A minor). Piazzolla is considered one of the masters of tango.

The composer penned the piece during a love affair that dissolved, Sans said. He had originally called the piece October Sky.

He had to change it because he was upset with her, Sans said. It has a beautiful melody with very typical Piazzola rhythms that remind us of tango.

Haydns Symphony No. 49, La passione, was written in 1768 during his Sturm und Drang (Storm and Stress) period. The movement encouraged extremes of emotion in response to the confines of rationalism.

We are not sure why it has this name, Sans said. Some people think it comes from this piece being used at Easter celebrations.

The concert will end with Mendelssohns Sinfonia No. 7 in D minor, written when the composer was just 12.

Mendelssohn was one of the most amazing prodigies in the history of music, Sans said.

His wealthy parents provided him with his own orchestra.

They had money, Sans said. Besides that, he had talent.

Its kind of like an exercise, but he has that incredibly beautiful music. Its packed with ideas like a young composer was practicing what hes learned.

More:

Philharmonic program celebrates passion, youth - Albuquerque Journal