Monthly Archives: July 2021

Outside the political sphere, much of Australias China panic centres on university campuses. This is hardly surprising, given the deep connections of the Australian higher-education sector to China.

In 2019, before the Covid-19 pandemic hit, higher education brought in some A$12bn in export revenue, most of it from China. With more than 150,000 Chinese international students enrolled, some institutions relied on that single revenue stream to make up a quarter of their total budget before the current drop-off. Mandarin is the second language of campus life in most universities these days; Confucius Institutes have been established at 13 universities; partnerships and MOUs with Chinese universities proliferate in many fields. Australian academics now collaborate more with colleagues in China than in any other foreign country: one report found that an incredible 16.2% of scientific papers by Australian researchers almost one in six were co-authored with researchers in China, with papers in the fields of materials science, chemical engineering and energy topping the list.

Having been among the most enthusiastic participants in the China boom, universities are now bearing the brunt of the political backlash. The public has been presented with a grim picture of the consequences of all of this China engagement. Financial dependency, it is claimed, has engendered political subservience. Critical discussion of China is falling silent, while administrations subcontract their core business to Peoples Republic of China state agencies and pursue partnerships that put Australias national security at risk. Its a picture replete with martial imagery. Andrew Hastie talks of universities as modern battlegrounds of covert influence and interference. Journalist Rowan Callick warns of a war being waged by Chinese international students against politically incorrect lecturers. A military-academic onslaught is how Alex Joske describes Chinas approach to international scientific collaboration.

How accurate is this picture? As a critic of Australian universities, Id never argue that all is healthy within the sector, including in its dealings with China. But as universities have become a microcosm for the wider China debate, its important that we characterise that debate correctly.

In many ways, we face the same choice here as we do in the political sphere: to remedy the erosion of Australian institutions, or to join in a campaign to isolate and exclude Chinese actors from them. At the same time, there are ethical and political questions specific to the university context that administrators and academics alike face. In tackling them, though, we have to remain conscious of the various ways in which university autonomy and academic freedom can be compromised, including of course by the intrusion of domestic political influences.

The language of war that now envelops campuses has, in my opinion, laid the basis for domestic government interventions that present more of a risk to universities autonomy and independence than anything China is doing.

As they do in the political sphere, openings for undue influence exist in universities. However, China is far from the only actor taking advantage of what are self-inflicted wounds. The basic crisis is the inexorable decline in public funding. At 0.7% of GDP, public investment in Australian higher education already sits well below the OECD average and will continue its downward slide thanks to recent reforms. This long-term transformation has put universities at risk from private philanthropists and foreign lobbying ventures alike, wheeling all sorts of ideological barrows into the halls of learning. As governing bodies reshape themselves along corporate lines and restrict the participation of academics in decision-making, transparency is eroded, and the attraction of get-rich-quick schemes only increases.

Universities have been put on the back foot in the current political climate. On the one hand, as public institutions they can hardly avoid the impact of the changing winds of political opinion on China. Yet at the same time, universities have in practice been all but privatised, with many vice-chancellors enriching themselves to the tune of more than $1m annually. Any effort to criticise the direction of Australian policy can easily be met with accusations that they have a pecuniary interest in the question. Its a simple fact that they do. In August 2020, when the Senate announced it would be conducting an inquiry into national security risks affecting the Australian higher-education and research sector, federal MP Bob Katter railed against universities that had their snouts ... well and truly in the trough and had gone from selling visas to selling their souls. Having long encouraged universities to find funding elsewhere, politicians now home in on their ties to China to argue that theyve lost their way, engendering a hostile public mood that blunts criticism of ongoing funding cuts.

What this highlights, I think, is the need for a perspective thats independent of both the government and the corporate university, one thats able to make the necessary criticisms of universities as institutions and international actors, without falling into uncritical subservience to the governments foreign-policy objectives. This is not the first time that universities have had to face this challenge. During the first cold war, through both enticements and pressure, western universities were encouraged to align their work with the states diplomatic and military interests. The conditions then were not conducive to free, critical inquiry, and theyre not likely to be a second time around either.

This is an edited extract from China Panic: Australias Alternative to Paranoia and Pandering by David Brophy, out now through La Trobe University Press

Original post:
China is far from alone in taking advantage of Australian universities self-inflicted wounds - The Guardian

MY father once told me you only find things offensive if you wish to be offended. It is in that spirit I write in answer to all those who think Scotssports fans should be above the Anybody but England mantra.

The history of Scots finding pleasure in English defeats is not a recent one, there is a long history of this sentiment which predates Bannockburn in 1314.

It is the reality of sharing an island with a nation which has long held predatory designs on Scotland and been seen as a blowhard and a bully lang syne.

READ MORE:Italy's victory over England sparks wild celebrations in Scotland

In the past the retribution Scots sought to contain our larger, bullying neighbour was often in raiding the English north as far south as York and on one occasion, with London at our mercy, we turned back at Derby.

These days we Scots no longer raid, kill, rape and pillage to keep our still-bullying neighbour in check. We do this, instead, through the safer prism of sport, where there may still be the odd injury on and off the field yet in the main it passes peaceably in comparison to earlier years.

So it is deep in the Scots psyche where the enjoyment of Englands failings as a nation are embedded. It is a vicarious pleasure but serves the same purpose as seeing any bully and blowhard being taken down a peg or two. It is not and never has been about the people of England but the self-proclaimed image of their nation state and arrogance of their ruling class.

Some may think the Anyone but England mantra is politically incorrect or outdated and should be done away with, they are welcome to their view yet I do not see many Scots will be in agreement as we yet again suffer under a bullying, blowhard Tory government which epitomises the Flanders and Swan view of the English national sense of superiority, reflected in one of their satirical songs, The English, the English, the English are best. I wouldnt give tuppence for all of the rest.

Peter ThomsonKirkcudbright

IT was with total disbelief that I read the letters page today. The rivalry between Scotland and England over any kind of sport has been legendary, if usually only one-sided. I have NEVER heard 1966 mentioned so much as I have this past week. The hype placed on this one game has been totally out of proportion.

Of course, as is usual, the Scots will favour Italy, Denmark, or whoever over the auld enemy, but had it been Scotland against Italy, would we expect the England supporters to rally around us? I think not.

READ MORE:Spectator's Rod Liddle claims 'performing geese' are better than Scotland

Would we also expect the BBC to cover up the destruction in Leicester Square, and Wembley, Italy supporters being attacked, England supporters fighting each other, AND the totally disgusting and offensive racial abuse of the players had this been perpetrated by Scotland fans? I wonder.

We Scots are well prepared to laugh at ourselves, THAT is what gives us the right to laugh at others.

Jim Mc GregorKirkintilloch

INrecent days I have seen and heard several people on the TV and radio complaining that many Scots will not be supporting the English football team. They seem to believe that we have a duty to do so because we are British.

I was interested to see that only 30 million people in Britain actually did tune in for the final. That suggests to me that at least half of the English population were not interested in the game.

Why then should non-English people be more supportive of the English team than the English themselves?

Harry KeyLargoward, Fife

I THINK that letter-writers Lewis Waugh and Pete Rowberry missed the point completely about Saturdays front page. We Scots have a strong sense of humour and it was against a sometimes wildly imbalanced media arrogance that The National chose the cheeky front page.

They should also recognise that we can be equally cheeky and critical about the Scotland team. Whether or not the best result was achieved in the final, theres nothing wrong with many Scots feeling pleased, even amused.

KHW CampbellTroon

WHY did the breakfast programme deliberately keep quiet about the dark side of the English fans and media?

The complete indiscipline with regards to Covid, the break-in at Wembley by hundreds of so-called supporters, the injury to 19 police officers, the incredible amount of rubbish and litter thrown on to the streets, the fans attacking and fighting on the streets, the booing of opponents national anthems, the disrespect of taking off their runner-up medals immediately and so on. And finally the racial hatred meted out to the black players, which is possibly the most repugnant.

D GillKinross

IT is of course very sad that Englands 55 years of hurt must continue, but as a large percentage of the population north of Hadrians Wall have apparently discovered Italian branches on their family trees, does Italys win mean that Scotland can have a bank holiday?

Ruth MarrStirling

ITS not surprising that Gary Neville attacks Boris Johnson after the racial abuse of England stars, as Boris Johnson has no concept of what is acceptable given his history of dubious comments based on race, ethnicity and nationality. His attitude and obvious contempt for Scottish MPs and Scotland at PMQs every week is ample proof that this English leopard has not changed his spots.

John JamiesonSouth Queensferry

I WOULD like to thank with all my heart your support to the Italian team in the final against England. Since ever I admire Scottish people, and I hope that one day your dream of independence can become true. Im sincerely grateful.

Marco Castellivia email

I WOULD just like to say, Saturday and Mondays front pages were without doubt the best front pages on a newspaper I have ever seen.

I live in England but buy The National regularly on my regular trips north. I only hope the front pages can be made into T-shirts.

Well done, absolutely brilliant.

Andy Drummondvia email

Original post:
No need to get offended at Scots adopting 'anyone but England' position - The National

The scholars working on the English Standard Version of the Bible were fiercely committed to producing a strictly literal translation. So whenever the ancient writers used the Hebrew or Greek words denoting slave, the ESV translators used that English word.

The problem, though, is that the connotations of that word for a 21st-century American reader would be very different than they would have been for a Bronze Age or first-century writer. For contemporary English-language readers, the word slave had acquired a monstrous host of additional meaning from centuries of American-style slavery meaning that would not have been intended by the ancient writers or understood by their intended readers. A strictly literal translation could therefore be misleading. Contemporary readers might see the word slave and think of someone like Levar Burton in Roots even though the passage was meant to describe someone more like Zero Mostel in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum.

Thats not to say that the form of slavery in the Roman Empire was a funny thing. It was oppressive, cruel, dehumanizing, and unjust. But it was also not as oppressive, cruel, dehumanizing, and unjust as the race-based, brutal, lifelong chattel slavery practiced in America. Its injustice was different in both form and degree. That difference matters to any reader who hopes to understand the ancient texts of scripture that address the various forms of slavery practiced in the ancient world.

The ESV translators thus were confronted with the same situation described by Leonard Bacon and a host of other 19th-century abolitionist Christians who as we discussed in the previous post argued, repeatedly, that it was inaccurate and immoral to equate American-style slavery with whatever the biblical writers had in mind when they used the word we translate into slave.

Initially, the ESV attempted to address this with a footnote warning readers not to project the connotations of American-style slavery to passages about slavery in the ancient world. The footnote suggested thinking of these ancient slaves, perhaps, as bondservants an odd, archaic word that I suppose attempts to convey that slaves in the ancient world were a bit more servant-like in their status than the people enslaved by white Americans, but were still in bondage, and not free, hired servants.

But a lot of readers dont read the footnotes. They stick to the holy writ of the main text the part that the ESVs intended audience of American evangelicals regards as inspired, inerrant, and authoritative. So eventually the ESV shifted to using the word bondservant in the text of the translation, with the footnote explaining the translators choice. And then, a few years later, they got rid of the footnote entirely.

Samuel Perry describes this change, emphasizing that its a major departure from the ESVs commitment to a strictly verbatim literalism. Thats worth emphasizing because, as he says, the ESV translators have, for years, condemned other translations for what theyve characterized as a dangerously liberal accommodation to worldly culture for straying from such absolute literalism:

They have marketed themselves as an essentially literal translation that resists the PC push. The general editor, Wayne Grudem, had for years denounced contemporary Bible translations, like theNew International Version, for doing those kinds of things: becoming [politically correct], changing the language to conform to modern sensibilities, that kind of thing, especially with regard to gender.

So for years they have said, Hey, were not going to translate certain things in a gender-neutral fashion, because we want to be as literal as possible, and if you like that its capitulating to the feminist PC culture. So ESV has marketed themselves as a very popular evangelical translation that is used most faithfully by complementarian Protestant Christians for that reason: because its conservative and because its supposed to be literal.

But at the same time, the fact that that the slave language in the New Testament is so obvious creates a real apologetics problem, because of all this talk about slaves obeying your masters, and how slaves should subject themselves not only to good masters but bad masters, and how slaves should stay in the station of life where they were called. It creates this really ugly impression of the New Testament, and especially Paul advocating for slavery.

So what you can see in the English Standard Version is that with each successive wave, from the 2001 revision of the Revised Standard Version to the 2011 revision and then finally in 2016, our most recent revision, was that they started by introducing a footnote in 2001 to the slave word, and then in 2011 they replace the slave word and put it in a footnote, and then they said, Were going to call this a bondservant. So its different from a slave.

By 2016 they didnt use slave language at all. If you read that translation you would have no idea that the original translation and I think the most appropriate translation would be slave. All you see is this kind of Christian-used churchy word bondservant, which you never hear outside of a biblical reference. Nobody knows what that means, but its a way that the English Standard Version and other Bibles like it can kind of say, Hey, these are slaves, but theyre not real,realslaves. Theyre not really bad slaves like we think of in the antebellum South, like chattel slavery. Its something different.

In Perrys description, the change in the ESV was less concerned with clarifying the meaning of the text than it was with defending the perception of the text. Perry calls this an apologetics problem, which is a nice way of saying a public relations problem.*

It would be one thing if Leonard Bacon had produced an antebellum bondservant translation to combat Christian appeals to biblical support for slavery. That might have been understood as unambiguously intended to prevent the use of the Bible as a tool of oppression. But after more than 150 years of reluctant, begrudging white Christian resistance to legal equality, and from vocal proponents of a partisan faith committed to rejecting the Reconstruction Amendments, it seems clear that Perry is correct to view this belated shutting of the barn door as less concerned with opposing injustice than with defending the reputation and alleged innocent righteousness of self-proclaimed biblical Christians.

It seems less like an effort to clarify the meaning of the Bible and more like an effort to defend its reputation and thereby to defend our own.

*That may seem uncharitable, but Perry has receipts to back up his skeptical take. The ESV translators, for one thing, werent bound by any strict commitment to literalism when they altered the language of the Revised Standard Version to make it more conservative in terms of gender roles. They actually made gender language more complementarian, more about mens and womens roles, he notes.

And then, more conclusively, theres the ESV projects abiding concern with political correctness. What does that mean? The only thing it ever means, which is nothing, substantially. The phrase politically correct (or, more recently, woke) is not used to convey meaning, or to name or describe a particular thing, or to articulate and communicate any specific idea. It is, rather, a tribal signifier. That is its only meaning and function. It is a secret handshake indicating ones proud membership in the international brotherhood of disingenuous assholes.

When someone unironically uses the words politically correct or PC, or speaks menacingly of the threat of wokeness, there is no reason to merely suspect that they might be acting in bad faith. They have confirmed that they are. Youre not being uncharitable or unduly suspicious when youre holding their signed confession.

This is also why Im not a fan of Paul Rosenbergs ironic appropriation of this language in his title and introduction to this interview with Perry:When evangelical snowflakes censor the Bible: The English Standard Version goes PC. Thats intended to highlight the apparent hypocrisy of the defiantly politically incorrect ESV marketers, but Im not sure hypocrisy is an applicable category. Its less a matter of a double-standard than it is of a lack of any good-faith standards at all. (See also: McConnell, Mitch.)

Read the rest here:
'For you were [redacted] in Egypt' (part 2) - Patheos

When Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen declined to reprise their role of Michelle Tanner for "Fuller House," some fans speculated that the past comments alleging sexual misconduct from Saget were true (via HITC). But in a 2016 interview with "People Magazine," "Fuller House" producer Bob Boyett reported that when he had approached the twins about returning to the role of Michelle, "Ashley said, 'I have not been in front of a camera since I was 17, and I don't feel comfortable acting,' [and] Mary-Kate said, 'It would have to be me because Ash doesn't want to do it. But the timing is so bad for us'" (via Newsweek).

It's also hard to believe that "Fuller House" would have allowed Saget onto the show without looking into the actor's past. "Fuller House" premiered in February 2016 two years after the actor's memoir was published and eight years after the Comedy Central Roast first aired. "Fuller House" also had to shake up its showrunners in the middle of production after it came out that Jeff Franklin allegedly established a pattern of giving small roles to women with whom he was romantically or sexually involved. If that was reason enough to get fired, "Fuller House" producers would not have allowed Saget onto the show.

For Saget's part, despite the comedian's disturbing past gestures, he recently stated that he had a positive relationship with Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen. In a 2021 interview with Michael Rosenbaum for the podcast "Inside of You," Saget said, "Ashley and Mary-Kate... I love so much. When I'm in New York or when they're here, when we can, we see each other."

Ultimately, there is no evidence of any actual assaults, just (wholly unfunny) jokes. But, as Devon Godhe noted in his article for The Ramapo News, these jokes and gestures will definitely become more important if serious allegations of sexual misconduct ever do arise.

Read the original:
The Bob Saget Controversy You Never Knew Existed - Looper

Ananya Pandey broke down into tears when she bid her final goodbye to her grandmother. Her tear-struck face became viral within moments. The renowned actress became inconsolable by the death of her grandmother Snehlata Pandey. Not only she, but even Chunky Pandeys wife Bhavana Pandey bid her farewell to her mother-in-law and shared old photographs from their family album where we see her daughters Ananya Pandey and Rysa Pandey as kids.

In memoriam of her grandmother, Ananya Pandey shared various memories of her childhood on her Instagram handle by addressing he grand-mom as the life of her family. Her heart-wrenching yet mighty post mentioned, Rest in power, my angel. When she was born the doctors said she wouldnt live beyond a few years because of a defective heart value, but my Dadi lived and how. She worked every day up until the age of 85, going to work at 7 am in her black heels and red-streaked hair. She inspired me every single day to do what I love and Im so grateful to have grown up basking in her energy and light.

She further added on a special note, She had the softest hands to hold, gave the best leg messages, she was a self-proclaimed (and very politically incorrect) palm reader and never failed to make me laugh. The life of our family. Youre too loved to ever be forgotten Dadi I love you so much

On Ananyas Instagram handle, she shared some beautiful posts of her grandmother, while on the occasion of Womens Day, she shared, The epitome of grace, beauty, perseverance, humor, badass energy and boss woman vibes. My Dadi and Nani Happy Womens day to my best and happy Womens Day to all the lovely ladies out there you are so very special and everything you need is right inside of you. I love you guys, you rock.

These posts of Ananya received a lot of heart reactions including respectively from Karishma Kapoor, Siddhant Chaturvedi, Navya Naveli Nanda, Neelam Kothari Soni, and few others. Numerous stars, inclusive of Bhavana and Chunkys friends attended the funeral and consoled the family.

We also in the same way extend our well-wishes and consolation towards the whole family and hope that Ananya will be able to fight back to this baffling condition and will not be plunging into it.

We wish her more power, stability, and steadiness. May the family get out of this situation comfortably.

Primary Excerpt Taken From Hindustan Times (Hindustantimes.com)

See more here:
Ananya Pandey Mourns Upon Her Late Grandmother, And Shares A Heart - Woman's Era

Last week, Cape Town announced that it will host a round of the FIA Formula E World Championship in February next year. It will be the first official World Championship single-seater race in Mzansi since the 1993 South African Grand Prix. Motorsport followers in general have a somewhat jaundiced view of electrically powered motorsport. The reasons are simple. Conventional motorsport involves really noisy cars or motorcycles charging around circuits while dispersing eye-watering, noxious petrol, methanol or Castrol oil fumes. The smell of racing fuel is intoxicating and the sound of a bellowing V8 dragster, a shrieking V12 Ferrari F1 or...

Last week, Cape Town announced that it will host a round of the FIA Formula E World Championship in February next year. It will be the first official World Championship single-seater race in Mzansi since the 1993 South African Grand Prix.

Motorsport followers in general have a somewhat jaundiced view of electrically powered motorsport. The reasons are simple. Conventional motorsport involves really noisy cars or motorcycles charging around circuits while dispersing eye-watering, noxious petrol, methanol or Castrol oil fumes. The smell of racing fuel is intoxicating and the sound of a bellowing V8 dragster, a shrieking V12 Ferrari F1 or an eardrum-ripping, stratospherically high revving two-stroke motorcycle orgasmic.

All very politically incorrect and socially irresponsible, yet adored by millions the world over. The mere thought of race cars with hardly any sound seemed like heresy when it arrived in 2011.

From the beginning, Formula E played out in front of large crowds, and motor manufacturers knowing electrical cars are the future grabbed the opportunity to showcase their latest technology to their next generation of customers.

If you havent been following the world of electric racing, here is what you need to know:

Formula E continues to grow apace as the only single-seater race series outside of Formula One to boast world championship status. And, its organisers could not care less what dyed in the wool old enthusiasts think of their car format.

Their show is meant for younger people cell phone addicts and computer junkies. They do not want to travel to a racetrack far from home, pay for admission, endure eardrum-punishing noises and try to keep track of long races.

ALSO READ: Cape Town gets the nod as host for Formula E in 2022

Hence, in 2011 FIA President Jean Todt and Spanish business mogul Alejandro Agag came up with the concept of city-based electric car racing. It was a compelling idea with zero carbon emissions, the cars would be welcome in city centres.

Thus, Formula E attracts many incidental spectators, who happen to be in the city, wander across to see what the fuss is about, and get to witness live motorsport for the first time. Conventional circuit racing would have zero chance of attracting those people.

The South African round will be one of 12, held in a wide variety of countries between the end of January and the middle of August. Cape Town apart, host cities for next years title chase will include Rome, Berlin, London, New York, Monaco, Vancouver, Mexico City and Seoul.

Temporary tracks are erected with the assistance of the involved city. How long are the races? Races are be short today, with the series latest Generation 2 cars, drivers tackle a 45-minute plus one lap format.

Involved car makers currently include Porsche, BMW, Audi, Jaguar, Mercedes-Benz, Mahindra and Nissan.

The current Spark-Dallara SRT05e car has an electric motor power output of 250 kW, weighs in at 800 kg, including the driver, and boasts a theoretical top speed of 280 km/h. We say theoretical because inner city race tracks are designed with utmost spectator safety in mind, which precludes long straights and high top speeds.

The Spark-Dallara has a Hewland sequential gearbox, runs on 18-inch Michelin all-weather treaded tyres and the chassis has the same halo, plus T-shaped safety cage as found in Formula One, Two and Three cars.

Next years third-generation Formula E car will have 300 kW of power. The chassis will be built by Spark Racing Technology, Williams Advanced Engineering will supply the battery and Hankook will bring all-weather tyres to the party.

To keep the new attendees happy, Formula E has added computer game aspects to the show like Attack Mode where drivers can receive an additional 25 kW of power by driving through a designated area of the circuit off the racing line. It worked.

As to be expected, the pace car also has zero emissions and is none other than an electric Mini.

Visit link:
Formula E is heading to Cape Town: What you need to know - The Citizen