Daily Archives: May 8, 2020

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has approved a proposal for the abolition of 9,304 posts in the Military Engineering Service (MES), the Defence Ministry said on Thursday.

This is in line with the recommendations of the Lt. Gen. D.B. Shekatkar (Retd.) Committee, which had suggested measures to enhance combat capability and rebalance armed forces expenditure.

In line with the recommendations made by the Committee, based on the proposal of Engineer-in-Chief, MES, the proposal of abolition of 9,304 posts in MES out of the total 13,157 vacancies of the basic and industrial staff has been approved by the Defence Minister, the Ministry said in a statement.

One of the recommendations was to restructure the civilian workforce in a manner that the work of the MES could be partly done by departmentally employed staff and other works could be outsourced, it stated.

It was aimed at making the MES an effective organisation with a leaner workforce, well equipped to handle complex issues in the emerging scenario in an efficient and cost- effective manner, it added.

The 11-member committee, appointed by the late Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar in 2016 with a broad mandate, had made about 99 recommendations from optimising defence budget to the need for a Chief of the Defence Staff.

The recommendations, if implemented over the next five years, can result in savings of up to 25,000 crore in defence expenditure. Of these, the first batch of 65 recommendations pertaining to the Army were approved in August 2017.

You have reached your limit for free articles this month.

Register to The Hindu for free and get unlimited access for 30 days.

Find mobile-friendly version of articles from the day's newspaper in one easy-to-read list.

Enjoy reading as many articles as you wish without any limitations.

A select list of articles that match your interests and tastes.

Move smoothly between articles as our pages load instantly.

A one-stop-shop for seeing the latest updates, and managing your preferences.

We brief you on the latest and most important developments, three times a day.

Not convinced? Know why you should pay for news.

*Our Digital Subscription plans do not currently include the e-paper ,crossword, iPhone, iPad mobile applications and print. Our plans enhance your reading experience.

See the article here:

Rajnath Singh approves abolition of 9,304 posts in Military Engineering Service - The Hindu

Abraham Lincoln needed votes. In January of 1864, as the Civil War raged on, the president was gearing up for a re-election campaign, believing his loss was imminent. But in order to unify the shattered pieces of the nation and abolish slavery, he needed four more years. With more time, he could end slavery with a law, but that law needed votes, which, by his own count, he knew he didnt have.

In his hunt for votes for his re-election and for this new law, he turned to a map of the United States, focusing his dark eyes on a newly formed territory called Nevada.

By turning Nevada into a state, its citizens could vote for Lincolns second term. Votes from Nevadas two Senators and one Representative would provide the margin Lincoln needed not just to win a second term, but to ratify the 13th amendment and clinch the abolition of slavery. All he had to do was put some finishing touches on this untamed territory to transform it into an acceptable candidate for statehood and quickly. Elections were around the corner and Lincoln was at the mercy of the slow legal machinery of Congress to make his plan work.

Many of his cabinet members advised him against admitting the rough-and-tumble Nevada. For them, statehood was like a marriage: Once a state was created, there was no getting rid of it amicably. One cabinet member told Lincoln that Nevada was superfluous and petty. The mining of gold and silver from the Comstock Lode gave birth to Nevada as a territory and with these riches came the tradition of vice, particularly drinking, gambling and womanizing. As future states went, Nevada looked pretty shabby.

But, Lincoln thought about the weekly military reports that tallied the thousands of Civil War casualties. It is easier to admit Nevada, he told Charles Dana, his Assistant Secretary of War, than to raise another million soldiers. The math was simple in Lincolns mind, for a new state could cast three electoral votes, votes he needed for reelection. It is a question of three votes, said Lincoln or new armies.

Nevada, he reasoned, was his best chance to vote for him and his Republican party. While Nevada wasnt as populated, it was pro-Union, since many of the residents came from the North, and it was also pro-Republican in the truest sense of the word: It believed that power resided in the federal government, and that the federal government should intervene with economic policies. Nevada had also been a team player. It guarded the Overland Mail route, which allowed the East to communicate with the West via stagecoach, and also Nevada contributed hundreds of millions of dollars from its mines, offsetting the cost of the Civil War.

To help the birth of the state, an Enabling Act was approved by Congress to start the process of putting this largely uninhabited territory on equal footing with more populous states, like New York. The requirements for statehood were clear: The territory should not have slaves. (This was straightforward, since Nevada had at most 360 blacks.) A territory should tolerate various religious sentiments. (This was ignored, for Nevada was fashioned from a disdain for Mormons.) And, the territory should relinquish unappropriated public land. (This was simple too, for the region was vast.) The other stipulation of this Enabling Act was the state constitution had to be ratified and a copy had to be on the presidents desk (with enough time for elections in early November of 1864). That requirement was not going to be easy.

During the second state constitution convention in Carson City in July of 1864, with only three months remaining to establish the state, attendees again contended over its name, as they had done in an earlier unsuccessful convening. In this second convention, they proposed Humboldt (after the German naturalist), Esmeralda (meaning emerald in Spanish), Bullion, Oro Plata, Sierra Plata, and Washoe (the name of the Native American tribe of the region). Arguments were made against the name of Nevada, since there was a well-known city in California called Nevada City as well as a Nevada County. Additionally, Nevada, which meant snow-covered in Spanish, was impractical for a land that rarely got below freezing. Consensus was formed when one voice reminded the attendees that most of the country knew it by Nevada, and it had to stay that way.

Over the weeks of wrangling at the convention, the name Nevada was settled on. On September 7, 1864, the citizens of Nevada voted 8 to 1 on their new constitution, approving it. Now, the task was to get a copy of the state constitution to the president. There was little over a month to get it to Washington. Given the means of delivery, there was just enough time.

One common way of getting a long document across the country was by boat. After a courier reached the Pacific Ocean at San Francisco, which took a couple of days, they would board a ship that headed to the Isthmus of Panama. They then crossed it by mule, and then continued on by boat up to Washington, D.C. The other way to get a document across was the stagecoach. In the 1850s, the Overland Stagecoach was created. It took over 20 days to reach the Missouri River from the West; from there a message could be carried by train, taking about a week. Nevadas Territorial Governor Nye sent several copies of the document both by land and by sea, and waited to hear the good news from Lincoln with a proclamation of statehood.

Page 1 of the Nevada Constitution.

National Archives, General Records of the Department of State

Statehood looked promising, particularly for Nye, who had great political ambitions. He preferred living on the East Coast and saw his post in Nevada as a way to launch himself into what he really wanted to be a Senator. Nye was charismatic and known for his winning friendly face, but his countenance changed rapidly when a telegram arrived the evening of Tuesday, October 25, 1864. The head of the California Pacific Telegraph passed on a telegram to him, which said, The President has not received a copy of your constitution. The deadline for the materials was just a few days away. There wasnt enough time to mail it to the President. If Nye was going to get 175 pages of this official document to Abraham Lincoln, he was going to have to use the new technology that was just installed three years prior the telegraph.

On the afternoon of the next day, Mr. Hodge and Mr. Ward, the regions best telegraphers had the job to transmit 175 handwritten pages containing the Nevada State Constitution to Salt Lake City, just over 500 miles away. In a room of Nevadas esteemed government officials whose names would go down in the annals of history, these two men, whose first names the world would never know, were actually the most important people in the room.

The fancy cursive writing of the document had to be translated into plain dots and dashes of Morse code and then tapped into the lines. Ward began sending electrical pulses in the first shift and Hodge in the second. When Wards lightning-fast fingers started their dance of pat-a-tat-tat on the telegraph key, the city officials breathed a sigh of relief. The beginning of the birth of their state had begun. They retired to the inn nearby for it was going to be a long night.

The document that Hodge and Ward had to send contained 16,543 words. The message began with, His Excy Abraham Lincoln. Official The Constitution of the State of Nevada, followed by what would be equivalent to 40 single-spaced pages of text. The work was onerous, but this was Nevadas opportunity to join the world stage, and also influence it. Opportunity knocked with the pitter-patter of telegrapher fingers.

The tapping went on for 12 hours, with Hodge, who was on the second shift, finishing at 5:30 the following morning, before the sun rose. Except for finger fatigue, there was no trouble sending the message. However, there was trouble on the receiving side. There was no direct line between Carson City and Washington, D.C., so the message had to be sent to three different relay stations on its way East where the dots and dashes were translated into words and then converted back into dots and dashes and then sent to the next leg.

In Salt Lake City, the telegrapher did not expect such a deluge and got tired after a while. One person substituted for him, but didnt last long, and then another sat in, and then a third, before the first operator returned and finished the work. Once the dots and dashes were received in Salt Lake City, they were copied down and then sent 1,400 miles to Chicago, and then 800 miles to Philadelphia, before finally reaching Washington, D.C., 150 miles away. Thousands of dots and dashes marched across the country inside metal telegraph wires with the mission to help Lincoln abolish slavery in the land.

When these electrical impulses finally reached the last leg of their journey, they were sent to the telegraph office of the War Department. This transmission was of such importance that intelligence from the warfront was put on hold for five hours to make way for Nevadas telegram. Hodges and Wards message took two days to get to Lincoln and the cost of sending the message was $4,303.27 ($60,000 today). Nevadas electric constitution reached Lincoln on the evening of October 28 and he proclaimed it a state on the 30th. On the 31st of October, Nevada officially celebrated its statehood, which gave it the right to participate in the election a week later on November 8.

On November 8 of 1864, Lincoln won a second term. Nevada had made good on its promise. Two out of three of its votes from the electoral college were cast for Lincoln. (The third voter got stuck in a snowstorm.) Nevertheless, the presidential election became less critical, when Lincolns chances of winning due to a three-way race improved when the race settled to just two candidates. Before Lincoln got to the business of leading the nation, he paused and declared the mission of his next four years. In his inaugural address, he stated that he would not be vindictive towards the South or ignore their transgressions as other candidates had promised. He set a tone for healing, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nations wounds. As president, he would serve, with malice towards none; with charity for all.

With this victory behind him, Lincoln now worried about the vote on the abolition of slavery act in the House of Representatives. This act had already passed in the Senate, but it had failed to get the majority of votes in the House the year before. Lincoln wished Nevadas sole Representative, Henry G. Worthington, a swift and safe journey from the West so he could cast his single vote. Worthington arrived in time to cast his vote on January 31, 1865. The resulting count was 119 yeas, 56 nays, (with 8 abstains). The amendment passed with Worthingtons vote as one of the two that put the number of yea votes safely in the majority. Those two votes were precious like gold to Lincoln.

Lincoln now had all the pieces to heal the country and states began ratifying the 13th Amendment to make it into law. Nevada was the 16th state to ratify it on February 16, 1865. The amendment needed 27 of the 36 states to pass and it would get them in December of 1865.

But Lincoln would never get to see it. He was shot by an assassin and died on April 15, 1865, a few days after the surrender at Appomattox, ending the Civil War. The great architect, who drew up the blueprints to abolish slavery, would never witness the nation he helped to build. His dream was made possible by many factors, however one of them being a very long and expensive telegram from Nevada.

Ainissa Ramirez is a materials scientist and the author of The Alchemy of Us. Twitter: @ainissaramirez

Thank you! For your security, we've sent a confirmation email to the address you entered. Click the link to confirm your subscription and begin receiving our newsletters. If you don't get the confirmation within 10 minutes, please check your spam folder.

Contact us at editors@time.com.

Link:

The $60,000 Telegram That Helped Abraham Lincoln Abolish Slavery - TIME

When the lockdown ends what will happen to tenants? Almost nine million households, more than a third of all families in Britain, rent from a private landlord, a council or a housing association.

Because of coronavirus, many are now in financial need. Nearly two million claims for universal credit have been made since lockdown measures were announced in the UK. Welfare claimants are entitled to payments equivalent to housing benefit. But, as a result of changes made to benefits over the last decade (like the bedroom tax and restrictions to local housing allowance), it is increasingly rare for housing benefit to pay all of a tenants rent.

Others, although ineligible for universal credit, are also in difficulty: because they have received a redundancy cheque that will soon be spent, or their self-employed grant hasnt arrived yet. Then there are furloughed workers, paid now, but waiting for news of redundancies from their employer.

Right now, all possession hearings the main step in evicting a tenant are stayed. This is the legal equivalent of putting food in a freezer. The cases are still there, ready to be thawed out at any moment.

Where a tenant is behind with their rent, landlords can issue them with a notice instructing them to leave, but (for the moment) the tenant can ignore it. On 25 June the housing courts will reopen for business. Judges will have to determine thousands of stayed pre-coronavirus cases, and the even greater number of new claims for possession arising from the lockdown.

Ministers have grasped that hundreds of thousands of homes are at risk. Earlier this week the housing minister, Robert Jenrick, announced that the government was working closely with judges to draft a pre-action protocol for when the stay is lifted.

He told MPs that the protocol will enable tenants to have an added degree of protection, because instead of embarking upon the eviction proceedings immediately, there will be a duty upon their landlords to reach out to them, discuss their situation, and try to find an affordable repayment plan.

The problem with the protocol is that it is toothless essentially depending on the benevolence of landlords.

The two most common ways landlords seek possession are under section 21 and ground 8. Section 21 provides that where a landlord has complied with certain procedural requirements (like issuing a notice using the correct form and waiting for a prescribed time before applying to court) the court must order possession.

The statute does not require a landlord to have complied with the governments proposed pre-action protocol. For that reason, even where landlords have rushed to issue proceedings, and have ignored requests from tenants to defer payments for a short time, judges will be required to approve evictions.

Ground 8 provides that where a tenant is in rent arrears (eight weeks if the rent is due weekly), both when the landlord serves a notice on them and when the hearing takes place, the court must order possession.

Again, the court takes no account of the landlords conduct; it focuses simply on the amount of the tenants arrears. In these circumstances, if the new protocol is as the minister describes it, it will not protect tenants at all.

There are alternatives. In last years general election, the Conservatives committed to abolish section 21 as part of their better deal for renters. The government reaffirmed that commitment in the Queens speech, announcing a renters reform bill to include the abolition of section 21. They should be held to that promise. As for ground 8, it too needs to be abolished. Or, if that is impossible, rescinded for such time until tenants have had a chance to reduce their debts once theyre able to go back to work.

Abolishing or rescinding ground 8 would not prevent landlords relying on other grounds of possession. But, without it in place, judges will be free to order possession only if reasonable thereby giving effect to the tenant defences the government says that it wants in place. One further advantage of abolishing ground 8 is that courts can turn to other possession proceedings in which possession orders are made but suspended, while tenants are given the chance to repay arrears to a realistic plan.

Muddling on without the abolition of section 21 and ground 8 will lead to millions of people forced out of their homes. It will send those evicted scattering some to stay with elderly relatives, some into local authority housing (although it is at breaking point) and many into homelessness.

The government accepts that street homelessness speeds the transmission of coronavirus: this is the grim calculation that underpins the governments granting of resources to councils to house rough sleepers. Drifting into a future where huge numbers of people lose their homes needlessly would be just as dangerous for those who are evicted, and for everyone else.

David Renton is a housing barrister at Garden Court Chambers

Read the original here:

Thousands of renters could be evicted in June. Will the government protect them? - The Guardian

The 2019 Common Field Convening in Philadelphia (photo by Constance Mensh, design by Margaret Anderson, Piping Hot Press)

Welcome to day five of the Common Field Convening, originally slated to take place in person in Houston, Texas. The gathering of more than 500 arts organizers in the US includes panels, workshops, and conversations touching upon topics of equity, collaboration, and sustainability across various arts fields.

With the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, the conferences have shifted online, taking place on April 23-25; April 30; and May 1-3. A full program, along with links to sign up for each conference, can be found on Common Fields website.

Hyperallergic will be live-blogging select conferences on every day of the convening. (Read our commentary on sessions from day one,two,three, and four.)

The ongoing health crisis, which has had a devastating impact on the cultural sector, means some of the issues addressed in the Common Field Convening are more urgent than ever before. Read about day fives discussions, below:

* * *

Live-blogged by Hakim Bishara

Speakers: Carol Stakenas (Brooklyn, NY), Damon Reaves (Philadelphia, PA), Jacqueline Mabey (Brooklyn, NY), Pato Hebert (Los Angeles, CA)

6:00pm EDT: Question Party is a place where sticky issues are welcome, Common Field announced in advance of the meeting. Sounds promising.

6:04pm EDT: Stakenas starts the meeting after some tunes by the band SOHN.

6:07pm EDT: The goal of the meeting is to create a space for collective learning, Stakenas says.

6:09pm EDT: The first section the meeting will be dedicated to generating questions, which will later be exchanged and discussed.

6:11pm EDT: Mabey says that the format of a Question Party allows people to ask questions they wouldnt normally ask out loud.

6:14pm EDT: Reaves continues the introduction, emphasizing that its important to acknowledge the things we dont know.

6:17pm EDT: Donning a red mask, Hebert welcomes the audience in Spanish.

6:18pm EDT: How do we shelter at home if we dont have a home? How do we wash hands if theres no clean water? Hebert asks.

6:20pm EDT: Hebert shares that he tested positive for COVID-19. He explains that his red mask was made by his aunt, a fabric artist, out of a shirt that used to belong to his grandfather.

6:23pm EDT: Participants are being asked to rename themselves on Zoom in order to keep their questions anonymous.

6:25pm EDT: Most participants changed their names to anonymous or anon.

6:26pm EDT: A free writing of questions session begins.

6:28pm EDT: Participants were asked to unmute their computer microphones while writing their questions. I hear humming, typing, an alarm clock, and a baby crying in the background.

6:32pm EDT: Participants are adding their questions to the group chat, anonymously.

6:33pm EDT: What if our organization ends up better off financially due to the pandemic? Is that wrong? one person asked.

6:34pm EDT: Is art just about putting more objects in the world that we dont actually need? another participant asked.

6:35pm EDT: Am I horrific? one person asked the group. Whats the point of anything? asked another.

6:35pm EDT: When will this end? someone asked. Will I become destitute? another added.

6:38pm EDT: Am I contributing to the inequality of this city?

6:40pm EDT: Do I even like working in the arts or do I just keep going because its all I know/Ive been doing okay at it?

6:41pm EDT: What if I am wrong about the value of moving slowly?

6:42pm EDT: A controversial question: How can we encourage minority groups to have a seat at the table when they do not show up?

6:44pm EDT: What can you do if you are part of an arts organization occupying a perceived gentrified space? What can be done to move past that negative narrative?

6:45pm EDT: When working to address power dynamics in the art world how do we ensure one set of biases are not replaced by another?

6:46pm EDT: Will my lover return? When?

6:47pm EDT: Can I, as a white cis male, queer myself, my family, the things I have influence over? Is it co-opting to use queer or queering this way? How do I move away from reinforcing my whiteness, my maleness?

6:48pm EDT: Who else is enjoying being locked down?

6:49pm EDT: How do I deal with someone who is being a Karen or a privileged person? How do I approach someone who has done something that is racist towards me in an institution, e.g. undermining my right to define myself and my own work, and not by my race or background? How do I get them to acknowledge the harm they have done? Do I even try? Im a POC artist.

6:50pm EDT: By contrast, How does a white person find the balance between accommodating POC in their community in acknowledging histrionic disparity, and becoming a doormat for POC in the hopes of balancing the scale: white people are people too, and theres a point at which we enable individuals who choose not to do their fair share of work as people, regardless of race?

6:50pm EDT: What does it mean if I cannot cry?

6:52pm EDT: Participants were asked to take a moment to reflect on these questions.

6:54pm EDT: Groups will discuss the questions in breakout rooms.

6:58pm EDT: I was sent to room 8 with four other people.

7:00pm EDT: The group is discussing the question: How do you preserve something that wasnt yours to begin with?

7:04pm EDT: The participants come from Houston, Dallas, and Seattle. They said they prefer to stay anonymous.

7:06pm EDT: The discussion goes into questions of gentrification and ownership.

7:08pm EDT: The room shifted to the question: Do we even need art?

7:09pm EDT: We need it now more than ever, one participant said while acknowledging that lees privileged people do not have the luxury to engage in the arts during this crisis.

7:11pm EDT: Another participant suggested discussing the question: Do you resent me for having more than you?

7:13pm EDT: Working in the arts sometimes feels like being a butler for exorbitantly rich systems, a participant said.

7:16pm EDT: Back to the main room, where good music is playing.

7:18pm EDT: Hebert throws the question, Whats the gesture of our curiosity?

7:20pm EDT: Silence in the room. Asking questions, I think? a person finally answered.

7:21pm EDT: Seeking understanding, someone added in the chat.

7:24pm EDT: Wanting to know and be known, another added.

7:25pm EDT: Participants are sharing some of the discussions they had in the breakout rooms.

7:27pm EDT: The moderators suggest to embrace the awkward pauses in the discussion.

7:29pm EDT: The party ended with a group toast (with mostly cups of water) and a collective Salute!

Live-blogged by Jasmine Weber

Speakers: Imani Brown (New Orleans, LA), Bryan Parras (Houston, TX), Priscilla Solis Ybarra, Ph.D. (Denton, TX), Regina Agu (Chicago, IL)

4:15pm EDT: Brown is reading a poignant missive on the exploitation of Earths resources, and the reliance of the art world on oil and gas funding.

4:16pm EDT: A panel on oil in Houston, an oil hub, is especially poignant. One standout line, by Brown: What does it matter if our institutions lights are on if their physical buildings are underwater, and if their politics are dying from cancer and are left more vulnerable to pandemics like COVID-19?

4:18pm EDT: The oil industry is collapsing Brown ponders how we can utilize our current moment 0f isolation and rapid transition to come out of this time with new tools for change.

4:25pm EDT: Brown introduced all of the panelists, and is now opening them up to speak with a few key prompts: Speak about your past work to address the propagandistic impact of fossil fuel philanthropy and fossil fuel environmental justice and transformative justice-related issues, reflecting as well on where you see us headed from this current moment, and how the tools that youve cultivated throughout your life and work will help us to get there. Is it possible for the unjust transition of this moment to end injustice?

4:35pm EDT: Agu says Alabama Song hosted Liberate Tate, from the UK, when they were in Houston. She explains: There are important lessons there for artists to learn at an individual and collective level, and looking at whats happening right now, Houston is being deeply impacted by the energy crash. This is not the first one since Ive been there. But the current moment is, of course, being compounded by the pandemic shutdowns.

4:37pm EDT: Snead moved to Houston shortly after the BP oil spill,the repercussions of which are still seen in wildlife in the Gulf of Mexico.

4:42pm EDT: Snead is sharing a satirical video that his organization shared on April Fools Day as part ofFossil Free Fest an announcement for a childrens book called Goodnight Refinery.

4:50pm EDT: Ybarra is discussing Indigenous and Latinx knowledge and futurism, and how we can learn from these modes of understanding the earth and society. She shares information from an interview with Cherre Moraga, who believes justice is about our relationship with the earth, rather than environmentalism being rooted in justice. Another highlight from their interview: Expose Capitalism and White Supremacys fetishization of life for the elites at the cost of early death for everyone else.

4:54pm EDT: Bryan Parras shares a beautiful poem by John Trudell, called Honor Song: You must remember the gentleness of time. You are struggling to be who you are. You say you want to learn the old ways. Struggling to learn, when all you must do is remember. Remember the people. Remember the sky and earth. Remember the people have always struggles to live in harmony and peace.

4:55pm EDT: Acknowledging indigenous erasure and violence against indigenous people is integral to understanding US capitalisms stronghold on the environment the exploitation of the land for fossil fuel extraction goes hand in hand with the USs tradition of stealing land and/or making land uninhabitable for the indigenous people that live there.

4:57pm EDT: Parras is sharing stories about the foul air in his mothers hometown, which used to make him nauseous. He developed asthma, and the water in his local spring was undrinkable. The destruction of natural resources in low income and predominantly POC neighborhoods is violence. He believes his grandmothers kidney failure was due to her environment, similar to his asthma. And they were not alone, many of his friends experienced similar issues.

4:58pm EDT: Barras speaks elegantly about the tragedy that is environmental racism: As I learned more about the fossil fuel industry, all these things really upset me. And made me feel like things had been taken from me. My full potential, the full capacity of my lungs, my attention in grade school, that irritability that these chemicals cause, that waft in the air every morning, so these are the things that compelled me and motivated me, to really think about other folks who grew up in these spaces, and how to get folks to think about these things.

5:00pm EDT: He continues: All of the oil that has been extracted from the earth, the earth remembers, and it will reclaim that. In one way or another. So when I think about the 6th extinction, and what oil really is, thats kind of a reckoning, but also, it is restorative justice for the planet. And were sort of the fallout.

5:17pm EDT: Brown asks the panelists how we can emerge from the pandemic as arts workers: How do we ensure that we are prioritizing this visioning for the world that we want to exit out into? That we want to build? And how do we ensure that our societies are supporting the arts and culture bearers? She believes our society demands a more robust social safety net, like Medicare for all.

5:19pm EDT: Parras explains that we are all working with a high level of trust for one another in this moment: We should keep that level of gratitude and compassion moving forward.

Beyond the Binaries Virtual Brunch (B.Y.O. Brunch), 2-3:30pm EDT

Live-blogged by Jasmine Weber

Speakers: Ashley De Hoyos (Houston, TX), Raven Crane (Houston, TX), Farrah Fang (Houston, TX), Frank Hernandez (Houston, TX), Philip Karjeker (Houston, TX), Slant Rhyme (Houston, TX), and Donald Shorter (Houston, TX) with support by Common Field Partners Ashley DeHoyos (Houston, TX) and Jessi Bowman (Houston, TX)

2:05pm EDT: Beyond the Binaries started last year; they also hosted an event called Gender Buffet. As Common Field was intended to take place in Houston, De Hoyos says they prioritized Houston voices to present at todays virtual brunch.

2:08pm EDT: Slant Rhyme wished us a happy May Day!

2:10pm EDT: Ahead of the event, everyone was asked to bring their brunch to eat while we convene (Im drinking iced coffee). People are sharing what their snack is in the chat (chocolate cake, mimosas, challah, papaya, etc.), and uploading photos in a Google drive.

2:15pm EDT: Crane shared footage from a group exhibition of Black and brown artists called Theres Enough for Everyone, which looked like a really interesting exploration of queer Southern aesthetics.

2:18pm EDT: Slant says their practice is about the act of giving something away you love. The act of setting it free.

2:20pm EDT: Check out some of the images from the brunch on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/beyondthebinariesbrunch/

2:21pm EDT: This weekend would have been the first queer job fair in Houston, Slant says. Theyre a part of a TGNC guild that offers job training opportunities prioritizing unhoused and undocumented people, as well as sex workers and people with disabilities.

2:23pm EDT: Slant and Raven are also co-curators of the Black and Brown Mail Art Biennale in Houston.

2:27pm EDT: Donald Shorter worked in commercial theater and on Broadway tours, but felt she wasnt able to be her authentic self and drag became a space where I was able to really find myself. She started a one-woman show, Generosity, where she shares her story about being gender non-conforming and coming to a place of radical self-acceptance. She lived in NYC for over 15 years before coming to Houston.

2:30pm EDT: Philip Karjker is an organizer and contributing artist in Qollective for Queer Houstonian artists.

2:33pm EDT: Frank started a program called Draw, to gather queer artists at a bar to make art. Shes currently out of work, but along with her partner, works as a videographer for things like weddings and music videos hire them!

2:37pm EDT: Frank is sharing a video compilation of performances called Smoke Break showing some of his work in Houston it started with a video of them in a cage, nude with America the Beautiful playing in the background.

2:45pm EDT:Weve moved into the breakout session, and will be discussing the following questions: What does it mean for us to think about gender and TGNC limitation, access, and representation now and how do we want to shift for the future? How is COVID-19 affecting people, how are we treating and giving resources to TIGNC folx? In what ways, we can share resources? How do we imagine safe digital spaces and access for TIGNC folx? How do we center TIGNC folx without tokenizing in workspaces? What can be done to negate the amount of labor placed in TGNC folx in workplaces?

2:55pm EDT: To respect their privacy, I wont be live-blogging the answers of the participants in my breakout group, but well be convening again as a larger group soon.

3:19pm EDT:And were back. A poignant note from the group: As we learn people are hurt, people are harmed. We need to continue to discuss the growing pains as we build with one another rather than brushing this pain that has been caused under the rug. Regardless of intention, impact is fundamental and ignoring it will stunt our betterment overall.

3:38pm EDT: Shorter, who uses movement to communicate, is inviting us all to spend a minute making shapes with our body to respond to the session. Its amazing.

The rest is here:

Live Blogging Discussions on Fossil Fuel Abolition and Representations of Gender in the Arts - Hyperallergic

The E-pass system, that was brought in the restrict and control the flow of traffic, could be abolished on Monday. In its first phase the E-Pass system meant that citizens wishing to travel from one borough to the next had to apply for a special pass. This first phase was then relaxed as citizens could then travel within their county, in most cases, without having to first obtain the pass. And that second phase is the one that is under consideration as the possibility of the whole country opening up is being considered. The Minister of the Interior, Davor Boinovi, said at todays press conference of the Civil Protection Directorate that the E-Pass system would be considered by May 11.

"Depending on the epidemiological trend, we will make an appropriate decision that could go in the direction of complete abolition," commented Boinovic on E-passes.

In the third phase of the relaxation of COVID-19 measures for Croatia air transport will once again open up through Croatia with flights from Croatia Airlines already scheduled from Dubrovnik to Zagreb and Split to Zagreb. However, under the current regulations every passenger on these internal flights would have to have a special E-pass before boarding the plane because their flight would end in a different county. Although the acquirement of these E-passes has been made easier, by moving to an online system, the whole concept of an E-pass could well be redundant.

One of the first moves and indeed wishes of the tourism sector is concentrated on the domestic market. This would therefore seem another compelling reason to abolish the E-passes, to inject some much needed capital into the tourism industry. However, as always the final decision will be made by the experts and the Civil Protection Directorate. And after the great work they have done so far in preventing the spread of COVID-19 in the country it is only fitting that they continue to guide the nation through the difficult times ahead.

Read the rest here:

Will the E-passes in Croatia be abolished on Monday - The Dubrovnik Times

The authors have done well in providing the substance for a critique of Jordan Peterson, but they need someone to spice up their style, which is precisely what Jordan Peterson, himself, did in his own career.

After Jim Posers Savage Messiah: How Jordan Peterson is Saving Western Civilization (a ridiculously laudatory portrayal of Jordan Peterson), some critical engagement with Petersons ideas is urgently needed. (See my review of Prosers book here.) Authors Ben Burgis, Conrad Hamilton, Matthew McManus, and Marion Trejo provide just that with Myth and Mayhem: A Leftist Critique of Jordan Peterson.

They acknowledge Peterson has some interesting things to say, but they are quick to raise objections. Unfortunately, the book amounts to a long collection of disagreements with Peterson, sometimes in dry academic style. That is simply no match for Posers engaging prose, who knows very well how to hook readers to the lives of saints, just as Medieval hagiographists did. The authors of Myth and Mayhem are preaching to the converted; it is unlikely that they will be able to persuade the disgruntled young men, who are so fascinated by Peterson to think more critically about their gurus claims. This is simply because halfway through the book, these readers will likely become bored.

The authors have done well in providing the substance for a critique of Jordan Peterson, but they need someone to spice up their style, which is precisely what Jordan Peterson, himself, did in his own career. Peterson had written academic books, and few people took notice; he then changed his style to resemble more the self-help gurus and, bang!, the professor morphed into a rock star. Like it or not, if the authors of Myth and Mayhem want their message to be heard, they have to play this game.

Be that as it may, the authors do sensibly point out some of the problems with Petersons claims. However, in doing so, sometimes they have problems of their own. Consider McManus criticism of Petersons views on lobsters. As most readers will know by now, Peterson is very enthusiastic about these creatures social hierarchies. McManus makes the obvious point that lobsters are not exactly close to humans in terms of evolutionary history, so why are they relevant to understand human nature? If anything, I might add, comparisons should be made with bonobos or chimpanzees (species that, as it turns out, are far more egalitarian than crustaceans).

But, in his critique of Peterson on this point, McManus goes out of his way to claim that the Left is not as radically egalitarian as Peterson thinks. In McManus words, despite Petersons denunciation of figures who blame all dominance hierarchies on culture and politicsno one I am familiar with has ever blamed all dominance hierarchies on culture and politics. This includes even the most egalitarian thinkers on the Left. Well, Rousseau certainly comes to mind. Yes, he acknowledged there were natural inequalities, but he believed they were inconsequential because they were not truly based on dominance. For Rousseau, all dominance hierarchies could indeed be blamed on culture and politics, as in his famous quotation, the first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. We should come to terms with the fact that, after the Soviet collapse, Rousseau and his navet are becoming more influential than Marxs more rational approach. So, while Peterson may be off in many of his critiques of the Left, he is onto something when he worries about Antifa and similar agitators. After all, these radicals owe more to Rousseau and utopian socialists, than to Marxs more down-to-Earth views.

The authors are concerned that Peterson makes a big strawman out of the Left. So, throughout much of this book, there is a great effort to deradicalize Marx and other leftist authors. The authors of Myth and Mayhem are effective enough in setting the record straight and correcting some of Petersons distortions regarding Marx. As such, Conrad Hamilton is quick to remind readers that Marx did not think that all hierarchical structures are due to capitalism; he did acknowledge the existence of nature; he did not see History as a simplistic class struggle; he did not assume all good was on the side of the proletariat and all evil is on the side of capitalists.

These are good clarifications, but the arguments do come across as sugarcoating Marx. It seems as if the authors are embarrassed by Marxs more radical sayings, so they go to great lengths in order to make Marx appear less extreme. For example, McManus writes:

Marx mostly mentions equality only to make the point that it is an exclusively political notion, and, as a political value, that it is a distinctively bourgeois value. Far from being a value that can be used to thwart class oppression, Marx thinks the idea of equality is actually a vehicle for bourgeois class oppression, and something quite distinct from the communist goal of the abolition of classes. Marx even makes the standard argument that equal right can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only.

McManus does not tell us where that quotation comes from. However, I looked it up, and it comes from Marxs 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. Yet, MacManus leaves out a far more relevant passage in that particular text, further discussing equality:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but lifes prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantlyonly then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

This is undiluted Marxism, and it is radical in the extreme. It goes beyond equality of outcome (equal pay for everyone). It advances wealth distributionnot on the basis of effort or contributionbut on the basis of need. As the Soviet Union and every single communist country (including my own, Venezuela) has learned the hard way, this is a recipe for disaster, inasmuch as it takes away any incentive to work: If you get paid according to your need (and not according to your own efforts or qualifications), there is no point in going the extra mile. Everyone sits at home waiting for the paycheck to come to satisfy their needs, until there are no more paychecks to be delivered.

So, McManus quotes Marx from this 1875 text, as if to prove that Marx is not the radical egalitarian that Peterson makes him to be. However, in fact, Marxs views are so extreme that they even go beyond equality of outcome and embrace the removal of any distinction between mental and physical labor. It goes to the point of arguing that if the factory worker has more children than the manager, the former should earn more than the latter, simply because wealth should be allocated on the basis of need, not merit.

Despite these shortcomings, Myth and Mayhem is a valuable book, and the authors are to be commended for deeply engaging with Petersons work. Yet, I am afraid that, ultimately, this book will be a further confirmation of the well-known maxim, There is no such thing as bad publicity. Perhaps because the authors have chosen not to write in a more engaging style, this book will only serve the purpose of giving Peterson even more publicity. I worry that it will not reach those who need to read it most: youngsters who have been satisfied with Petersons self-help sound bites but who are not aware that Petersons views have problems of their own.

Dr. Gabriel Andrade is a university professor. His twitter is @gandrade80

See original here:

The Book-Length Critique of Jordan Peterson Isn't Perfect, Either - Merion West