Page 40«..1020..39404142..5060..»

Category Archives: Rationalism

The Tesla Freight Network? It’s a guessing game – FreightWaves (blog)

Posted: August 5, 2017 at 6:07 am

Since everyones favorite game these days is guessing what is behind every move companies like Uber and Tesla are up to, it was likely only a matter of time before someone came up with the idea that Tesla could be building its own freight network. The key word being could.

Trent Eady, who advises buying Tesla stock and holding it long term, suggested in a Seeking Alpha commentary that a Tesla freight network is worth at least $10 billion in annual revenue based on a 1% market share but could eventually generate tens of billions or even hundreds of billions in revenue for Tesla.

Perhaps Eadys a bit optimistic, but he lays out his path to these billions, and it starts with a news flash Tesla semi truck. By now, most everyone knows that Tesla is building a big rig, expecting to debut it in September. Eady surmises that this truck will be the gateway to an on-demand freight network, much like Tesla has planned for passenger cars.

The freight network would launch in the early 2020s, Eady predicts.

In October [2016], Tesla announced the Tesla Network for passengers, an autonomous ride-hailing service that will compete with Uber, Eady writes. With Tesla now working on self-driving freight trucks, the logical next step is to develop a competing service to Uber Freight.

Eady also notes that this concept is tied directly to Teslas value, as the company is currently priced at a point only achievable by autonomous driving.

Contrary to popular belief, Tesla is not already priced for perfect execution of its strategy, he writes. That could only possibly be true if Teslas strategy did not include self-driving, which CEO Elon Musk has stated is the companys No. 2 priority, behind only the Model 3 launch. Self driving for passengers would likely grow Teslas market cap several times over. Self driving for freight represents another opportunity for growth that ranges from around a 20% increase in market cap at 1% market share and a several-fold increase at higher market shares.

Back to the freight model, Eady believes that Tesla is well positioned to dominate the market of self-driving, electric trucks. He bases this simply on the lack of competitors.

The economic rationalism of the freight trucking industry and the anticipated dramatically lower cost per mile of self-driving electric freight trucks means these vehicles will dominate the freight trucking industry, he says. No other company is known to be developing this kind of vehicle.

View post:

The Tesla Freight Network? It's a guessing game - FreightWaves (blog)

Posted in Rationalism | Comments Off on The Tesla Freight Network? It’s a guessing game – FreightWaves (blog)

A New Short Film Offers a Private Look Into the Life of an Italian Architect and Design Enigma – Vogue.com

Posted: August 4, 2017 at 1:01 pm

Though he was one of Italys most influential mid-20th-century architects and interior designers , very little is known about the inner world of Turinese legend Carlo Mollino. Born in 1905 in the northern Italian city of Turin, Mollino became a figure of fascination for design enthusiasts worldwide, many of whom were transfixed by his hidden private life and ability to create dreamy, sensuous spaces inspired by his various obsessionswhich ranged from the voluptuousness of the female form to symbols and talismans of witchcraft and the occult. At a time when the style of the day was, for the most part, defined by a movement known as Rationalism (led by fellow design giants like Gio Ponti and the Castiglioni brothers, who looked to architecture primarily as a self-effacing entity, created more for streamlined functionality than for decoration), Mollinos work was particularly unique, overtly romantic, and a far cry from the goings-on in Milan.

Carlo Mollinos RAI Auditorium, built in 1952. Photo: Courtesy of Oscar Humphries

After graduating from college, where he studied engineering, architecture, and art history, Mollino began working for his fathers architecture firm. There, he entered several design competitions and won for projects like the Agricultural Federation in Cuneo, Italy, and the Turin Equestrian Association headquarters, both of which, for buildings intended for public use, were unusually artsy and illustrated his predilection for sloping forms and circular spaces. After Mollino left his fathers firm, he spent the rest of his life picking and choosing his own projects, many of them commissions for private homes that were hidden from public view. His most famous work, the grand Teatro Regio in Turin, an opera house, is one of his only buildings still standing today.

As Mollinos oeuvre has grown in appreciation over the years, the scarcity of what is available to view and acquire has only added fuel to the fire. In 2005, a Mollino table earned a record-high sale for 20th-century furniture at Christies, going for $3.8 million. Its great appeal is the immediately seductive look, a former director at Christies, Philippe Garner, told The New York Times in a 2009 interview. The fact that virtually every piece can be traced to a specific commission and that production was very limited add the appeal of rarity.

The chairs in Carlo Mollinos RAI Auditorium. Photo: Courtesy of Oscar Humphries

It was only until Mollino expert and curator Fulvio Ferrari and his son Napoleone discovered and restored an apartment Mollino had been secretly working on did the doors to the architects world open. A social recluse for most of his life, Mollino spent years creating and decorating a home for himself on the River Po in which to live out his later days. Inside, both his dark strangeness and genius were revealed: Rooms immaculately decorated, strange voodoo imagery hung on walls and ceilings, and hundreds of erotic Polaroids taken of women who modeled for him were found. Obsessed by the Ancient Egyptian mummification process and beliefs, Mollino also created a wooden boat-like bed that served as a symbolic vessel of passage into the afterlife, placed in a room prepared meticulously for his death. Though he never actually lived in this apartment, it spoke most aptly to his deep love of all things beautiful, revealing how carefully he tried to construct the world around him. It is within this spacenow known as the Museo Casa Mollino, a highlight for visitors to Turinthat Mollino has been brought back to life.

In a beautiful new short filmdirected by Felipe Sanguinetti, produced by Oscar Humphries, narrated by Fulvio Ferrari, and given exclusively to Vogue we are offered visits to Mollinos Teatro Regio and Casa Mollino. It provides private insights into Mollinos mind and how he saw the world. Shot from around corners and through half-opened doors, the visual narrative is atmospheric in its secrecy, just as one would imagine for spaces of Mollinos. His presence is palpable and, in many ways, evidently vulnerable in the navigation of the cameras lens: As viewers, we get the distinct impression that we are walking side by side with Mollino himself, reseeing the spaces so close to his heart.

The completed Teatro Regio, 1973. Photo: Courtesy of Oscar Humphries

Mollino is so famous for the Polaroids he took and his iconic pieces of design, that as an architect hes often overlooked, said Humphries, who shot the film with friend Sanguinetti in June. But he was an architect first, and we wanted to show that.

Of the films humanized perspective, Sanguinetti noted: I wanted to share what I felt in these two spaces. Its unlike anything Ive ever experienced before, and what Mollino brings out in people is such a unique and emotional response to his work. I hope the spectator, when watching the film, can feel that.

Read more:

A New Short Film Offers a Private Look Into the Life of an Italian Architect and Design Enigma - Vogue.com

Posted in Rationalism | Comments Off on A New Short Film Offers a Private Look Into the Life of an Italian Architect and Design Enigma – Vogue.com

Reading the Bible with the Founding Fathers by Daniel Dreisbach – Church Times

Posted: at 1:00 pm

NAME the American Founding Fathers, or at least the ones everyone knows, and then describe their religion. George Washington: reticent, probably lukewarm; Jefferson: accused of atheism, disliked organised religion, basically a deist; Franklin: another deist; Hamilton: youthfully religious, lost his enthusiasm, not keen on churchgoing. Madison: largely indifferent. Only really John Adams and John Jay can lay claim to piety.

Add to this the Fathers undeniable enthusiasm for Enlightenment rationalism, the new nations desire to keep Church and State separate, and the First Amendment to the Constitution (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion), and you seem to have built up a pretty godless, or at least God-uninterested, picture.

One of the many merits of Daniel Dreisbachs book is to show how misleading this picture is. Against this popular image, the Bible was referenced more often than any other text, or even writer, during the Revolutionary period. The most prominent Founding Fathers were not typical of American revolutionaries, and even they were steeped in, and often fascinated by, biblical ideas and figures.

Dreisbach shows how prevalent the Bible was in early American culture and politics: think England or Scotland c.1650, and you wouldnt be far wrong. He also demonstrates, in the books best chapter, that the Revolutionaries political theorising, in particular their justification for rebellion, would have been impossible (or at least unrecognisable) without two preceding centuries of Protestant resistance theology: Vindiciae contra tyrannos was an extremely useful text when you found yourself defending liberty against those you considered to be tyrants.

Dreisbach recognises that the Fathers biblical rhetoric was sometimes only skin deep, borrowing figures and phrases to lend political speechifying a weight, dignity, and significance that it would not otherwise have had. Nevertheless, to dismiss it all as theological window-dressing is mistaken. Even when the Bible was not embedded in the Fathers lives (and chapter three shows that it often was), it underpinned and defined the sense of justice, rights, duty, liberty, providence, and destiny that created the new nation.

Reading the Bible with the Founding Fathers is a scholarly book, drawing on an abundance of source material and demonstrating an admirable familiarity with the period and the Bible. It is also somewhat repetitive: having established that the Fathers were deeply informed by biblical language, narrative and ideas, Dreisbach effectively goes on repeating the conclusion with different examples and from different angles. By the end, you have well and truly got the point.

Still, it is a point that needs to be got. In the United States polarised climate, this book will remind culture warriors that the nations robust constitutional secularism was grounded, paradoxically, in its equally robust Christianity.

Nick Spencer is Research Director at Theos.

Reading the Bible with the Founding Fathers

Daniel Dreisbach

OUP 19.99

(978-0-19-998793-1)

Church Times Bookshop 18

The rest is here:

Reading the Bible with the Founding Fathers by Daniel Dreisbach - Church Times

Posted in Rationalism | Comments Off on Reading the Bible with the Founding Fathers by Daniel Dreisbach – Church Times

Rationalism and Nuclear Lunacy – Center for Research on Globalization

Posted: August 3, 2017 at 10:02 am

The Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea is ramping up its nuclear deterrence, and this is causing consternation and wild proclamations from western officials and corporate media. What is particularly galling for the United States side is that North Korea appears to have achieved the capability of hitting the US mainland with ICBMs.

However, is the US not capable of hitting North Korea from wherever? So why does a rival created by the US [1] cause panicked rhetoric upon achievement of an ICBM capacity?

If your castle is capable of being targeted by a bellicose castle with inter-castle projectiles, would you leave yourself undefended? Especially when the bellicose castle has already destroyed the disarmed Iraqi castle as well as the disarmed Libyan castle.

US Senator Lindsey Graham said,

The only way they [the North Korean government] are going to change is if they believe there is a credible threat of military force on the table.

Graham believes any war will be confined to the East Asian region.

Why would Graham speak such provocative words? Follow the money. Grahams campaign fundraising appears aimed at the arms industry: Security through Strength.

US secretary-of-state Rex Tillerson is advocating peaceful pressure against North Korea and a willingness to hold talks. However, there is a condition, which certainly will not entice the North Koreans to talks. That condition is that the North Koreans disarm themselves of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. What is unstated is thatthe US will not disarm in any way whatsoever. The lessons of the disarmed and subsequently destroyed Iraqi and Libyan castles would seem to urge a cautionary approach.

Jack Rice, a former CIA agent, referred to North Korea as a threat. Why? Who is threatening who? North Korea haspledged no-first-use of nukes. The US has not. So who is the actual threat?

The US is modernizing its nuclear stockpile which is a stark abrogation of its undertaking as a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The NPTs Article VI states:

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating tocessation of the nuclear arms raceat an early date and tonuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general andcomplete disarmament under strict and effective international control. [emphasis added]

North Korea has never attacked the US. It was the US that attacked North Korea during the so-called Korean War. The US used chemical and biological weapons, resulting in an estimated 4-10 million Koreans being killed. [2]

A Rationale Analysis of What a Nuclear-armed North Korea Portends

1. It is clear from the cases of Iraq and Libya that a disarmed US-designated enemy is not spared from a violent opportunistic attack. That North Korea was included on George W Bushs axis of evil along with Iraq triggered alarm bells in North Korea.

2. The US refuses a peace treaty with North Korea. [3] And the sanctions against North Korea constitute anact-of-war. Trump tweeted, China could easily solve this problem. But it is not China maintaining a state-of-war with North Korea.

3. The US is nuclear-armed, has used nuclear weapons, and does not adhere to a no-first-use policy.

Given the above three points would it be rationale to be without an effective deterrence against a military attack?

Furthermore, when North Korea did enter into anAgreed Frameworkwith the US in 1994, among the obligations was an end to hostilities; normalization of relations, no nuclearization of the peninsula; freezing operation and construction of North Korean nuclear reactors in exchange for two proliferation-resistant nuclear power reactors; and, while awaiting completion of the nuclear reactors, the US was to provide oil for North Korean energy needs. The US did not fulfill its obligations. In other words, the US cannot be trusted to uphold its end of any agreement.

If North Korea were ever to launch a nuclear weapon or even launch a non-nuclear attack against another country, then the North Korean government would be committing an act of suicide. Kim Jong-uns grandfather and father were not suicidal, so there is no reason to suspect familial psychosis.

If North Korea has achieved and maintains an effective nuclear deterrence, then a US attack is only imaginable in a nightmare Bizarro World. An attack on a nuclear-armed North Korea would be mad. The US would not be unscathed in such an attack. Major population centers such as Seoul, Busan, and Tokyo (all where US troops are stationed) and perhaps the US mainland would be hit. Of course, North Korea would be obliterated. Even if continental US were not hit by nukes, the radiation from nuclear fallout and a potential nuclear winter will affect the entire planet.

Consequently, all the talk in the media of a war is irrational conjecture or bluffing.

Rationality demands that all sides avoid any brinkmanship.

Kim Petersenis a former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be reached at:[emailprotected]. Twitter:@kimpetersen.

Notes

1. At the end of World War II, the Korean Peoples Republic arose and the first cabinet was formed on 14 September 1945. US scuttled the Korean Peoples Republic. See Nhial Esso,What You Dont Know about North Korea Could Fill a Book, (Intransitive Publishers, 2013): 15%. See Bruce Cumings,Koreas Place in the Sun: A Modern History(New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2005): 238.

2. SeeKorean Truth Commission, Report on U.S. Crimes in Korea: 1945-2001(New York: 2001).

3. Said former US secretary-of-state Colin Powell: We wont do nonaggression pacts or treaties, things of that nature. Quoted in Steven R. Weisman, U.S. Weighs Reward if North Korea Scraps Nuclear Arms,New York Times, 13 August 2003.

Featured image is from Infowars.

Read the original:

Rationalism and Nuclear Lunacy - Center for Research on Globalization

Posted in Rationalism | Comments Off on Rationalism and Nuclear Lunacy – Center for Research on Globalization

More and more Puneites come forward to donate body for research … – The Indian Express

Posted: at 10:02 am

Written by Anuradha Mascarenhas | Pune | Published:August 3, 2017 6:34 am Taher Poonawala

The family of Taher Poonawala, a rationalist who died on Monday night, donated his body for educational and research purposes at the Sane Guruji Hospital, Hadapsar. This is not an isolated case as, according to anatomy experts across the city, the practice of body donations is increasingly being seen in the city. Taher Poonawala had already pledged to donate his body for medical research several years ago, said Dr Girish Kulkarni, associate professor of the Department of Anatomy at the Sane Guruji Hospital.

The hospital has the capacity to preserve as many as 30 bodies and every month, they receive at least four forms pledging body donations. This is a trend that has picked up over the years. Noted socialist leader G P Pradhan had donated his body and several prominent people had pledged to donate their bodies, said Kulkarni.

At the B J Medical College and Sassoon General Hospital, Professor B H Baheti, head of the Department of Anatomy, said that nearly 40-45 bodies are donated every year. The trend has picked up. In fact, the hospital has a capacity to preserve 30-35 bodies and we receive a lot of applications pledging body donations, said Baheti.

The Armed Forces Medical College has also seen an increase in body donations, said official spokesperson Colonel Abhijit Rudra. This year, till July, we have had 10 body donations and many have also filled forms pledging body donations. Overall, the awareness levels have increased and people are encouraged after they see a sympathetic interaction between the staff and relatives of those who donate their bodies, said Colonel Rudra.

Other activists remember Taherbhai: A grateful salaam for him

For several activists in the city, the death of eminent rationalist and progressive thinker Taher Poonawala was a huge loss. Taherbhai was a friend, philosopher and guide for my father Dr Narendra Dabholkar. A strong supporter of the Maharashtra Andhashradda Nirmulan Samiti, he was the one who actively supported the need for progressive thinking, said Hamid Dabholkar, son of the slain activist. Poonawala, who was 95, died on Sunday night. He is survived by his wife and a daughter.

Anwar Rajan, who was a member of the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties along with Poonawala, recalled how he had been ex-communicated due to his revolutionary views.

Phir bhi kisike saath dushmani nahi thi. (Still, he did not have any enemies) We thought his shop would shut down due to immense pressure but Taherbhai is an example of how the ex-communication turned out to be a good opportunity to spread his progressive thinking, said Rajan.

Social activist Razia Patel said Poonawala had strongly opposed orthodoxy in the Bohra community. It is difficult to stand up against religious authorities, but he did it. In his personal life, he staunchly followed principles of secularism and rationalism. How can we ever forget him? A grateful salaam for our Taherbhai, said Patel.

Ajit Abhyankar, a member of the CPI-Ms state secretariat, remembered Taherbhais kind heart and great sense of humour. He was a committed rationalist and was associated with several social organisations like the Mahatma Phule Samata Pratishthan, Rashtriya Ekatmata Samiti, Samaji Krutdnyata Nidhi and Peoples Union for Civil Liberties.

For all the latest Cities News, download Indian Express App

Read more:

More and more Puneites come forward to donate body for research ... - The Indian Express

Posted in Rationalism | Comments Off on More and more Puneites come forward to donate body for research … – The Indian Express

We can’t rehabilitate our way out of Baltimore’s crime problems – Baltimore Sun

Posted: at 10:02 am

The Readers Respond comments regarding crime and punishment in Baltimore (Yet another reminder of why I left Baltimore, Aug. 1) prompt reconsideration by Baltimore civic leaders on how best to address our horrific homicide rate and increasing criminal activity. Their perspective on the causality of crime, and the corresponding more lenient sentencing trends, seem rooted primarily in a belief that the best approach to mitigating crime is through a rehabilitative approach. While rehabilitation and resolution of some of our systemic poverty issues are certainly needed, our city leaders need to not forget that there are other mitigation models that must continue to be used in order to prevent further rampant crime and homicide in the city.

In 2010, David Mulhausen, Research Fellow in Empirical Policy Analysis for The Heritage foundation, testified before Congress on the foundations analysis regarding theories of punishment and mandatory minimum sentences. In his testimony, Mr. Mulhausen cited the generally accepted methods of reducing criminal activity: deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation.

Deterrence postulates that increasing the risk of apprehension and punishment in society deters members of society as a whole from committing crime. In layman terms, deterrence ensures that the administration of punishment is certain, swift, and imposes a severity commensurate with the crime, sending a message that crime will not be tolerated. According to the deterrence model, criminals are no different from law-abiding people. Criminals rationally maximize their own self-interest subject to constraints that they face in the marketplace and elsewhere. Increasing the certainty, swiftness, and severity of punishment will result in the utilitarian goal of reduced crime.

Incapacitation does not require any assumptions about the criminals rationalism, or root causes of the criminals behavior. Incarceration is beneficial because the physical restraint of incarceration prevents the commission of further crimes against society during the duration of the sentence.

Rehabilitation assumes that society is the root cause of criminality. Under this model, crime is predominately a product of social factors. Consequently, criminal behavior is determined by societal forces, such as poverty, racial discrimination and lack of employment opportunities, so the object of criminal justice is to mitigate or eliminate those harmful forces. Assuming that structural defects in society cause crime, then criminals deserve rehabilitation, not punishment. Supporters of the rehabilitation model hold the perspective that correctional treatment programs can successfully reduce crime.

The study found that while rehabilitation is an important societal goal, it cannot come at the expense of deterrence and incapacitation. The root causes (poverty, racial discrimination and lack of employment opportunities) are systemic issues, and discussions about the best approaches to mitigate those issues are under continuing debate. In the meanwhile, criminals will continue to commit crimes, which is detrimental to society, including those living within the root causes environment cited above. Rehabilitation is a much needed and important component of mitigating our crime problem, but it cannot be used in isolation. The immediacy of criminal activity and the safety of our citizens require a recognized use of deterrence (swift and sure punishment) and, when warranted, incarceration as well. Society cannot rely solely on altruistic thinking while criminals continue to threaten our safety and well being. This type of broad, holistic approach will better serve the needs of our city.

Jerry Cothran, Baltimore

Send letters to the editor to talkback@baltimoresun.com. Please include your name and contact information.

Read the rest here:

We can't rehabilitate our way out of Baltimore's crime problems - Baltimore Sun

Posted in Rationalism | Comments Off on We can’t rehabilitate our way out of Baltimore’s crime problems – Baltimore Sun

Thinking their way through new superstitions – Times of India

Posted: August 2, 2017 at 9:05 am

Bengaluru: Challenge accepted -- AS Nataraj has been waiting to hear these words for the past 16 years after framing a seemingly simple challenge of 10 questions. To make it easier, he insists on only eight correct answers for the challenger to be eligible for the Rs 1 crore reward. The catch? The answers would involve the challenger accurately predicting an individual's future using janam kundali or astrological chart. Now you didn't see that coming, did you?

"The reward was Rs 10 lakh when I first issued the challenge in 2001. I increased it to Rs 1 crore because no one came forward despite initial promises. I am now sure that even if I raise the prize to Rs 100 crore, nobody will volunteer," says Nataraj, the 77-year-old founder of Akhila Karnataka Vicharavadi Sangha. His aim is to debunk astrology's main claim to fame - the power to pinpoint the future. "I know it is not true because I was also an astrologer," laughs Nataraj, author of Jyothishyakke Savaalu (Challenge to Astrology) and a veteran TV talking head on the matter.

The other challenge doing the rounds is aimed at busting a scientifically untested brain training programme. Narendra Nayak, the rationalist crusader from Mangaluru, has been holding demonstrations and challenging proponents of mid-brain activation for the last two years. The groups behind this fad take money from parents to enhance brainpower of their children through the 'activation'. Those trained can apparently see after being blindfolded. "People fall for new tricks all the time. Mid-brain activation involves teaching children to lie (about peeking from behind the blindfold). The organisers use pseudo-science jargons and it becomes difficult for lay persons to understand," says Nayak, president of the Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations (FIRA).

LOGIC WINS

For every new trickster in town, there are a few rationalists like Nayak who demand that fantastic claims should be backed by evidence, scientific reasoning and stone-cold rationale. If not, people like him resort to dramatic one-upmanship and myth busting on public platforms to uphold what they see as truth and rationality.

"Earlier, we used to go after petty godmen who produced ash from thin air or put their hands in boiling water. Now, the picture has changed," says Nayak, a 67-year-old trained bio-chemist. The new age miracles involve coming up with sales pitches to sell anything from yoga, millets, salt room therapy and apple cider vinegar as cures for various ills, including cancer, he says. The marketers rely on scientific terms or the ancient Indian label to bamboozle people.

As a trained scientist, the pseudo science gets Nayak going. Recently, he wrote a detailed complaint to the Advertising Standards Council of India about tall claims made by a coconut oil manufacturer in an ad. The regulatory body found that many of the claims such as the oil being a 'natural antiseptic' , 'restores thyroid function and reduces obesity' were not substantiated and hence, misleading. They asked the adverstiser to withdraw the ad or modify it.

ATHEISTIC START

For most such activists, rationalism starts with a healthy dose of atheism. Nayak says he became an atheist at the age of 11 after coming to a conclusion ("maybe hasty") about there being no god despite his prayers. A national science talent scholarship cemented his rationalist leanings and later, after a meeting with the legendary rationalist Abraham Kovoor, he joined the movement.

It isn't easy to break down strong beliefs. Nataraj, who became a rationalist after practicing astrology for several years, says he can hold his own in heated TV debates because he has studied several works about astrology. "There are times when TV astrologers have asked me in private why I oppose astrology as I know so much about it. I tell them we have to have proof," says Nataraj.

UPHILL BATTLE

Public confrontations have a tendency to deteriorate quickly. Sanal Edamaruku, a Delhi-based rationalist, had to relocate to Finland to avoid arrest in a blasphemy case filed by a Mumbai church. Edamaruku, who exposed 'Pilot' Baba and other assorted godmen across India, says in the Mumbai case, he was held up at a TV studio for hours after a violent mob thronged outside, opposing him for saying that miracle tears of a statue came from a leaky drainpipe. "I am not a hatemonger but I gave my opinion after observation (he was invited to see the statue). Listeners can choose to disbelieve. But the situation turned violent and I escaped through the studio's back gate after three-four hours," says Edamaruku, who is bringing out his memoir detailing 25 of the most memorable investigations he has done so far.

Read this article:

Thinking their way through new superstitions - Times of India

Posted in Rationalism | Comments Off on Thinking their way through new superstitions – Times of India

The Fundamentalist Christian Chokehold On America – HuffPost

Posted: at 9:05 am

Prior to the 1970s, a persons faith had little impact on the way they voted. Make no mistake, however, there have always been those who believed religion should play a larger role in American politics. Colonies were often ruled by strict religious observance prior to the Declaration of Independence. In fact, it could be said, the reason our country implemented the separation of church and state was because of the conflict and dissention caused by the rigorous and divisive theology within the colonies.

In New England for example, the civil government dealt harshly with religious dissenterswhipping Baptists or cropping the ears of Quakers for their determined efforts to proselytize. A religious revival came through the colonies between the 1730s and 1740s, called the Great Awakening. This movement challenged the clerical elite and colonial establishment by appealing to the poor and uneducated. It focused more on an emotional relationship with God than one based in reasoning. The Great Awakening was the basis for what would become the current fundamentalist, evangelical Christian faith.

Historian Patricia Bonomi noted that rationalism, nevertheless, remained the predominant religious underpinning and was often present in the religion of gentlemen leaders by the late colonial period. As American civilization progressed in scientific discoveries, modernists seamlessly wove their understanding of God and their holy texts together. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, found their beliefs contentiously out of step with rationalism and modernization.

Until the 1970s, religious fundamentalists primarily stayed away from politics, believing politics distracted them from their calling to bring people to Christ and deliver the message of salvation. But through the charismatic leadership of people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson, and savvy political strategists like Paul Weyrich, Christian fundamentalist extremism found a new platform in American politics, unlike any time in history.

Most of the popular Republican candidates in the 2016 presidential election claimed God told them to run for president. What they share in common is a brand of Christianity, which is historically racist, homophobic, xenophobic, dangerously nationalistic, and exclusive. It is a form of Christian Sharia law, which forces those who believe differently into strict adherence to their version of religious freedom.

Fundamentalist Christian religious freedom laws allow for sweeping discrimination and removal of federal protections for people who believe differently. For example, Mississippi passed the Protecting Freedom of Conscience From Government Discrimination Act in 2016, which said public businesses, social workers, and even public employees cannot be punished for denying services to people who believe that sex should only be reserved between married people in opposite sex relationships. Additionally, if someones religious belief is different than those of an adoption agency, the agency can refuse the adoption of a child to that person. In many ways, it is stepping hundreds of years backwards in Americas history. The government isnt doing the punishing, per se, but laws prohibit it from equally protecting citizens.

At the beginning of Trumps presidency, he initiated an executive ordered called Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom. Most agree the order was little more than a nod to the fundamentalist Christians that helped elect Trump into office, and it has no teeth. However, the order essentially allows discrimination from the highest offices in the country, letting individuals deny health care, education, employment, government grants and even government contracts to people who believe or behave differently. If someone simply claims a strongly held religious belief, they can discriminate for virtually any reason without retribution.

The question is, why are Americans allowing this to happen? Surveys show that much of what Christian fundamentalists represent is out of step with what Americans want. Most Americans oppose Trumps immigration ban. Most Americans support gay marriage. Most Americans support abortion rights. Americans are religiously diverse, with more and more people disassociating with their evangelical roots. Trumps election to the White House has splintered evangelicals even further, with many recognizing the blatant hypocrisy of Trumps Christian supporters.

The fundamentalist chokehold on American politics seeks to destroy the religious and cultural plurality on which the country, and the Declaration of Independence, was based. These theological divisions which pit believers against non-believers, and those who believe correctly against those who dont are a major contributor to Americas sharply divided politics. When someone believes he or she holds absolute truth, there can be no compromise, no middle ground, and no discussion.

Fundamentalism - Christian, Islam, or any other religious ideology - is the antithesis of progression. Fundamentalisms dangerous anti-science stance threatens the worlds environment, reduces the efficacy of American education, and leaves citizens unprepared for life in a global economy. Fundamentalism is shrouded in ignorance, backed by authoritarianism, and places an enormous amount of trust in individual leaders. To free us of the religious chokehold, citizens must recognize, and actively vote against the powerful political machine of the Fundamentalist Christian right.

See the article here:

The Fundamentalist Christian Chokehold On America - HuffPost

Posted in Rationalism | Comments Off on The Fundamentalist Christian Chokehold On America – HuffPost

With the Mooch gone, rationalism finally has a chance – The Globe and Mail

Posted: August 1, 2017 at 6:01 pm

The comedy industry should certainly be giving thanks to Anthony (The Mooch) Scaramucci, and so, too, should the Republican Party. So, too, should Donald Trump. The Mooch might turn out to be the best thing that never happened to him.

A great day at the White House, Mr. Trump tweeted following the latest upheavals, including the Moochs rapid execution. He could be right. It could turn out, in terms of management style, to be a turning point for the White House.

At the House of Trump, chaos had reached critical mass, Mr. Scaramuccis plutonium-enriched persona being the prime cause. His smut-laden rampage in a New Yorker interview, besting even the Presidents normal ribaldry, was wrenching enough to finally and critically make real change happen, it being the appointment of retired Marine Corps general John Kelly as chief of staff.

In the scattershot, morally bankrupt Trump world, there will now be, for the first time, a chain of command. Things should get better not only because the bar is so low they cant get much worse, but because adolescence has been derailed.

As a military man, Mr. Kelly will bring discipline. Frogmarching the Mooch out the door was the perfect opening gambit, establishing his authority. Reince Priebus, the former White House chief of staff, was a welterweight. Competing power centres blossomed all around him, chewed him up, spit him out. The grenade-hurling Mr. Scaramuccis first act was to blow up Mr. Priebus before thankfully detonating charges under himself.

Not insignificantly, he also humiliated Stephen Bannon, the alt-right impresario whose clout has been shrinking steadily. Mr. Kelly is no fan of Mr. Bannon and his crew of white nationalist America-firsters, which is another reason why things should get better. Conventional thinkers now hold more sway. Rationalism has a chance.

Theres another reason why this past week should be seen as a critical juncture. It was the week that Congress Republicans finally got the message through to Mr. Trump that they are not going to take it any more. They forced him to back down on his intention to fire Attorney-General Jeff Sessions for the senseless reason of his doing the right thing in recusing himself from the Russian-meddling investigation. They put him on notice that any intent to torpedo the inquiry of FBI director Robert Mueller on Russian collusion would be suicidal. As well, three Republicans came forward to defeat his bid to repeal and/or replace Obamacare.

Mr. Trump cant go on the way he has been. He is the oddest of leaders in that while others seek to avoid controversy, he seeks to create it. He revels in the havoc and the storm. Mr. Scaramucci was viewed, given his brashness, his vulgarity, his ego on stilts, as a mini-Trump. Had his appointment as director of communications taken hold, it would have buttressed and augmented all of the Presidents seething quixotic tendencies.

Its no sure bet that Mr. Kelly may be able to rein them in. In his work as head of Homeland Security, some were dismayed at how readily he sided with Mr. Trumps attitudes on immigration. He curried too much favour, they say. No small wonder the President likes him so much.

But Mr. Kelly, widely experienced in Washington, has a mandate to bring order, which is what military men do best. Two other generals, national security adviser H.R. McMaster and Defence Secretary James Mattis, both no-nonsense individuals, will likely see their clout enhanced.

For all his madcap proclivities, Mr. Trump is sometimes capable of listening to reason. He didnt rip up the Iran nuclear deal or the North American free-trade agreement, lift sanctions against Russia, or move the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem. As for the Mexican wall, Mr. Kelly has been pushing him to back off. He may get his wish.

On all these issues, rationalists have made headway. They were able to do so in getting Mr. Trump to fire the Mooch as well. That decision, which required seeing the scars in someone with a similar persona and modus operandi as himself, may be a sign that his presidency is not a hopeless cause.

Follow us on Twitter: @GlobeDebate

See more here:

With the Mooch gone, rationalism finally has a chance - The Globe and Mail

Posted in Rationalism | Comments Off on With the Mooch gone, rationalism finally has a chance – The Globe and Mail

A dangerous misunderstanding – Professional Planner

Posted: at 6:01 pm

When I entered the accounting profession three decades ago, it was the preserve of middle-aged white males, conservative politics and the old school tie. I remember being expected to disclose my religion and school in order to win a graduate position at one of the big eight accounting firms in Sydney. And the cleanliness of my black lace-up Oxford-style business shoes (not brogues) was also a matter of considerable significance to the interviewer.

Comedian John Cleese reinforced this unattractive image of accountants in his description of them as appallingly dull, unimaginative, timid, lacking initiative, spineless, easily dominated, no sense of humour, tedious company, irrepressibly awful and whereas in most professions these characteristics would be considerable drawbacks, in chartered accountancy, theyre a positive boon.

While unkind observers might suggest that the personality traits of chartered accountants havent changed all that much, there is no doubt that the professional and business environment has changed a great deal. I was reminded of this when I received (circa 1985) an unusual letter from my professional body, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, about the future of our profession. The letter informed me that the accounting profession had entered a new world of technology, marketing and economic policy, in which we would become chief executives, entrepreneurs and thought leaders.

As a result, the letter claimed, traditional professional partnerships were finished. These would be replaced by multi-disciplinary consulting businesses. They would be built on the modern concepts of profitability and return on equity, rather than the quaint notion previous generations adopted of engaging in a trusted professional vocation in the public interest, irrespective of commercial reward. We were told that if we didnt get with the program we would be left behind, reduced by the end of the 20th century to low-value bookkeepers and compliance officers.

Free-market origins

Its hardly surprising that the accounting profession jumped onto the 1980s bandwagon. Those were the days in which powerful and compelling forces of deregulation, securitisation, free markets and globalisation were transforming much of the world. Societies became economies and economics faculties became business schools. And it was into this securitised free-market environment that the aspiring profession we now know as financial planning was born.

One of the strongest political supporters of this ideology was UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher, who famously declared: I think weve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, its the governments job to cope with it. I have a problem, Ill get a grant. Im homeless, the government must house me. Theyre casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. Its our duty to look after ourselves and then also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. Theres no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.

Over the following decades, the dominance of these ideas, often referred to as economic rationalism or neo-liberalism was assured. Australian academic Michael Pusey describes economic rationalism as a dogma that argues markets and money can always do everything better than governments, bureaucracies and the law. Theres no point in political debate because all this just generates more insoluble conflicts. Forget about history and forget about national identity, culture and society. Dont even think about public policy, national goals or nation-building. Its all futile. Just get out of the way and let prices and market forces deliver their own economically rational solution.

This view of the world was channelled by corporate cowboy Gordon Gekko, played by Michael Douglas, in the 1987 film Wall Street: Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

An improper role

So pervasive has been the influence of this ideology, especially in the Anglosphere, that many professional designations have taken on the characteristics of product brands. This has coincided with the employment in professional associations of marketing managers and customer service specialists, many of whom apply their considerable expertise in the promotion of consumer products to the selling and protection of professional designations as though they are brands of soap powder.

As a result, the focus of many professional associations has turned to image, membership retention and growth at the cost of their traditional emphasis on the articulation and enforcement of professional and ethical standards. The problem with this approach is that it leads to the conclusion that the reputation and commercial value of a professional designation must be protected and upheld, right or wrong, rather than to the conclusion that the public interest must be protected and upheld, even to the detriment of the commercial interests of association members whose behaviour has been found wanting.

This misunderstanding of the proper role of professions in society has also led to the expectation amongst members that their associations exist principally to protect and enhance their commercial interests in a free market (as would a lobby group), rather than to protect the public interest in society as a whole. I was surprised to observe this confusion in the documents supporting the creation of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (formerly the Institute of Chartered Accountants), in which the following statement appeared: Our aspiration is for the new Institute to be recognised as the leading trans-Tasman voice for business. The danger here is that by taking on the attributes of a vested-interests lobby group, the public will conclude that chartered accountants are hypocritical and untrustworthy. I suspect many financial planners already think that.

At the heart of any true profession must be its members duty to society. This is often called our duty to protect the public interest. It is a higher duty than our duty to act in our clients (or our employers) best interests and it must always receive priority in the ordering of our duties as professionals.

Simon Longstaff, executive director of the Ethics Centre, explained it this way: The point should be made that to act in the spirit of public service at least implies that one will seek to promote or preserve the public interest. A person who claimed to move in a spirit of public service while harming the public interest could be open to the charge of insincerity or of failing to comprehend what his or her professional commitments really amounted to in practice If the idea of a profession is to have any significance, then it must hinge on this notion that professionals make a bargain with society in which they promise conscientiously to serve the public interest, even if to do so may, at times, be at their own expense. In return, society allocates certain privileges. These might include the right to engage in self-regulation, the exclusive right to perform particular functions and special status.

We risk being devalued

Given this unique and privileged role in society, it follows that when aspiring professions such as financial planning choose to become involved in thought leadership and the development of public policy, our commentary must not be primarily motivated by a desire to engage in a public relations exercise or a brand management campaign. Furthermore, we should never allow commercially motivated pressure from vested interests to dictate our conclusions.

Sadly, we have seen the latter occur in recent years in our industrys compromised and misguided attitude toward the development of ethical and professional standards. In that regard, professional associations often refer to the importance of balancing stakeholders interests when, in truth, all they are seeking to do is maintain the commercial status quo of powerful members (or a section of powerful members). I accept that avoiding commercial pressures is not always easy, especially when they are sourced from our own profession. However, unless we do so, our members, government, the media and, most importantly, the public whose interests we are privileged to serve, will devalue or ignore our contributions to important debates in which our professions voice should be heard and respected and they will ultimately mistrust and devalue our advice.

Therefore, as we grow and evolve the profession of financial planning we must defend without fear or favour the fundamental ethical principles on which any true profession is built: namely trust, integrity, objectivity, conflict avoidance (not mere disclosure), technical competence, due care, confidentiality, professional behaviour and uncompromising support of the public interest. Of course, as individual financial planners, we are obliged to make important contributions to our clients wealth and financial independence, but that must never be at the expense of our overarching responsibility as a profession to create a fairer and more equitable society for all citizens.

TOPICS:Ethics and financial planning,Market forces,Professional associations,professional standards,professionalism

Go here to read the rest:

A dangerous misunderstanding - Professional Planner

Posted in Rationalism | Comments Off on A dangerous misunderstanding – Professional Planner

Page 40«..1020..39404142..5060..»