Dataset Viewer
text
stringlengths 2.08k
666k
| id
stringlengths 47
47
| dump
stringclasses 8
values | url
stringlengths 15
932
| date
stringdate 2013-05-18 04:54:42
2022-05-29 13:30:03
| file_path
stringlengths 125
141
| language
stringclasses 1
value | language_score
float64 0.65
1
| token_count
int64 1.35k
147k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
- Year Published: 1866
- Language: English
- Country of Origin: Russia
- Source: Dostoyevsky, F. (1866). Crime and Punishment. Moscow, Russia: The Russian Messenger.
- Flesch–Kincaid Level: 7.2
- Word Count: 7,803
Dostoyevsky, F. (1866). Part 3, Chapter 5. Crime and Punishment (Lit2Go Edition). Retrieved May 18, 2013, from
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. "Part 3, Chapter 5." Crime and Punishment. Lit2Go Edition. 1866. Web. <>. May 18, 2013.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky, "Part 3, Chapter 5," Crime and Punishment, Lit2Go Edition, (1866), accessed May 18, 2013,.
Raskolnikov was already entering the room. He came in looking as though he had the utmost difficulty not to burst out laughing again. Behind him Razumihin strode in gawky and awkward, shamefaced and red as a peony, with an utterly crestfallen and ferocious expression. His face and whole figure really were ridiculous at that moment and amply justified Raskolnikov’s laughter. Raskolnikov, not waiting for an introduction, bowed to Porfiry Petrovitch, who stood in the middle of the room looking inquiringly at them. He held out his hand and shook hands, still apparently making desperate efforts to subdue his mirth and utter a few words to introduce himself. But he had no sooner succeeded in assuming a serious air and muttering something when he suddenly glanced again as though accidentally at Razumihin, and could no longer control himself: his stifled laughter broke out the more irresistibly the more he tried to restrain it. The extraordinary ferocity with which Razumihin received this “spontaneous” mirth gave the whole scene the appearance of most genuine fun and naturalness. Razumihin strengthened this impression as though on purpose.
“Fool! You fiend,” he roared, waving his arm which at once struck a little round table with an empty tea-glass on it. Everything was sent flying and crashing.
“But why break chairs, gentlemen? You know it’s a loss to the Crown,” Porfiry Petrovitch quoted gaily.
Raskolnikov was still laughing, with his hand in Porfiry Petrovitch’s, but anxious not to overdo it, awaited the right moment to put a natural end to it. Razumihin, completely put to confusion by upsetting the table and smashing the glass, gazed gloomily at the fragments, cursed and turned sharply to the window where he stood looking out with his back to the company with a fiercely scowling countenance, seeing nothing. Porfiry Petrovitch laughed and was ready to go on laughing, but obviously looked for explanations. Zametov had been sitting in the corner, but he rose at the visitors’ entrance and was standing in expectation with a smile on his lips, though he looked with surprise and even it seemed incredulity at the whole scene and at Raskolnikov with a certain embarrassment. Zametov’s unexpected presence struck Raskolnikov unpleasantly.
“I’ve got to think of that,” he thought. “Excuse me, please,” he began, affecting extreme embarrassment. “Raskolnikov.”
“Not at all, very pleasant to see you… and how pleasantly you’ve come in…. Why, won’t he even say good-morning?” Porfiry Petrovitch nodded at Razumihin.
“Upon my honour I don’t know why he is in such a rage with me. I only told him as we came along that he was like Romeo… and proved it. And that was all, I think!”
“Pig!” ejaculated Razumihin, without turning round.
“There must have been very grave grounds for it, if he is so furious at the word,” Porfiry laughed.
“Oh, you sharp lawyer!... Damn you all!” snapped Razumihin, and suddenly bursting out laughing himself, he went up to Porfiry with a more cheerful face as though nothing had happened. “That’ll do! We are all fools. To come to business. This is my friend Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov; in the first place he has heard of you and wants to make your acquaintance, and secondly, he has a little matter of business with you. Bah! Zametov, what brought you here? Have you met before? Have you known each other long?”
“What does this mean?” thought Raskolnikov uneasily.
Zametov seemed taken aback, but not very much so.
“Why, it was at your rooms we met yesterday,” he said easily.
“Then I have been spared the trouble. All last week he was begging me to introduce him to you. Porfiry and you have sniffed each other out without me. Where is your tobacco?”
Porfiry Petrovitch was wearing a dressing-gown, very clean linen, and trodden-down slippers. He was a man of about five and thirty, short, stout even to corpulence, and clean shaven. He wore his hair cut short and had a large round head, particularly prominent at the back. His soft, round, rather snub-nosed face was of a sickly yellowish colour, but had a vigorous and rather ironical expression. It would have been good-natured except for a look in the eyes, which shone with a watery, mawkish light under almost white, blinking eyelashes. The expression of those eyes was strangely out of keeping with his somewhat womanish figure, and gave it something far more serious than could be guessed at first sight.
As soon as Porfiry Petrovitch heard that his visitor had a little matter of business with him, he begged him to sit down on the sofa and sat down himself on the other end, waiting for him to explain his business, with that careful and over-serious attention which is at once oppressive and embarrassing, especially to a stranger, and especially if what you are discussing is in your opinion of far too little importance for such exceptional solemnity. But in brief and coherent phrases Raskolnikov explained his business clearly and exactly, and was so well satisfied with himself that he even succeeded in taking a good look at Porfiry. Porfiry Petrovitch did not once take his eyes off him. Razumihin, sitting opposite at the same table, listened warmly and impatiently, looking from one to the other every moment with rather excessive interest.
“Fool,” Raskolnikov swore to himself.
“You have to give information to the police,” Porfiry replied, with a most businesslike air, “that having learnt of this incident, that is of the murder, you beg to inform the lawyer in charge of the case that such and such things belong to you, and that you desire to redeem them… or… but they will write to you.”
“That’s just the point, that at the present moment,” Raskolnikov tried his utmost to feign embarrassment, “I am not quite in funds… and even this trifling sum is beyond me… I only wanted, you see, for the present to declare that the things are mine, and that when I have money….”
“That’s no matter,” answered Porfiry Petrovitch, receiving his explanation of his pecuniary position coldly, “but you can, if you prefer, write straight to me, to say, that having been informed of the matter, and claiming such and such as your property, you beg…”
“On an ordinary sheet of paper?” Raskolnikov interrupted eagerly, again interested in the financial side of the question.
“Oh, the most ordinary,” and suddenly Porfiry Petrovitch looked with obvious irony at him, screwing up his eyes and, as it were, winking at him. But perhaps it was Raskolnikov’s fancy, for it all lasted but a moment. There was certainly something of the sort, Raskolnikov could have sworn he winked at him, goodness knows why.
“He knows,” flashed through his mind like lightning.
“Forgive my troubling you about such trifles,” he went on, a little disconcerted, “the things are only worth five roubles, but I prize them particularly for the sake of those from whom they came to me, and I must confess that I was alarmed when I heard…”
“That’s why you were so much struck when I mentioned to Zossimov that Porfiry was inquiring for everyone who had pledges!” Razumihin put in with obvious intention.
This was really unbearable. Raskolnikov could not help glancing at him with a flash of vindictive anger in his black eyes, but immediately recollected himself.
“You seem to be jeering at me, brother?” he said to him, with a well-feigned irritability. “I dare say I do seem to you absurdly anxious about such trash; but you mustn’t think me selfish or grasping for that, and these two things may be anything but trash in my eyes. I told you just now that the silver watch, though it’s not worth a cent, is the only thing left us of my father’s. You may laugh at me, but my mother is here,” he turned suddenly to Porfiry, “and if she knew,” he turned again hurriedly to Razumihin, carefully making his voice tremble, “that the watch was lost, she would be in despair! You know what women are!”
“Not a bit of it! I didn’t mean that at all! Quite the contrary!” shouted Razumihin distressed.
“Was it right? Was it natural? Did I overdo it?” Raskolnikov asked himself in a tremor. “Why did I say that about women?”
“Oh, your mother is with you?” Porfiry Petrovitch inquired.
“When did she come?”
Porfiry paused as though reflecting.
“Your things would not in any case be lost,” he went on calmly and coldly. “I have been expecting you here for some time.”
And as though that was a matter of no importance, he carefully offered the ash-tray to Razumihin, who was ruthlessly scattering cigarette ash over the carpet. Raskolnikov shuddered, but Porfiry did not seem to be looking at him, and was still concerned with Razumihin’s cigarette.
“What? Expecting him? Why, did you know that he had pledges there?” cried Razumihin.
Porfiry Petrovitch addressed himself to Raskolnikov.
“Your things, the ring and the watch, were wrapped up together, and on the paper your name was legibly written in pencil, together with the date on which you left them with her…”
“How observant you are!” Raskolnikov smiled awkwardly, doing his very utmost to look him straight in the face, but he failed, and suddenly added:
“I say that because I suppose there were a great many pledges… that it must be difficult to remember them all…. But you remember them all so clearly, and… and…”
“Stupid! Feeble!” he thought. “Why did I add that?”
“But we know all who had pledges, and you are the only one who hasn’t come forward,” Porfiry answered with hardly perceptible irony.
“I haven’t been quite well.”
“I heard that too. I heard, indeed, that you were in great distress about something. You look pale still.”
“I am not pale at all…. No, I am quite well,” Raskolnikov snapped out rudely and angrily, completely changing his tone. His anger was mounting, he could not repress it. “And in my anger I shall betray myself,” flashed through his mind again. “Why are they torturing me?”
“Not quite well!” Razumihin caught him up. “What next! He was unconscious and delirious all yesterday. Would you believe, Porfiry, as soon as our backs were turned, he dressed, though he could hardly stand, and gave us the slip and went off on a spree somewhere till midnight, delirious all the time! Would you believe it! Extraordinary!”
“Really delirious? You don’t say so!” Porfiry shook his head in a womanish way.
“Nonsense! Don’t you believe it! But you don’t believe it anyway,” Raskolnikov let slip in his anger. But Porfiry Petrovitch did not seem to catch those strange words.
“But how could you have gone out if you hadn’t been delirious?” Razumihin got hot suddenly. “What did you go out for? What was the object of it? And why on the sly? Were you in your senses when you did it? Now that all danger is over I can speak plainly.”
“I was awfully sick of them yesterday.” Raskolnikov addressed Porfiry suddenly with a smile of insolent defiance, “I ran away from them to take lodgings where they wouldn’t find me, and took a lot of money with me. Mr. Zametov there saw it. I say, Mr. Zametov, was I sensible or delirious yesterday; settle our dispute.”
He could have strangled Zametov at that moment, so hateful were his expression and his silence to him.
“In my opinion you talked sensibly and even artfully, but you were extremely irritable,” Zametov pronounced dryly.
“And Nikodim Fomitch was telling me to-day,” put in Porfiry Petrovitch, “that he met you very late last night in the lodging of a man who had been run over.”
“And there,” said Razumihin, “weren’t you mad then? You gave your last penny to the widow for the funeral. If you wanted to help, give fifteen or twenty even, but keep three roubles for yourself at least, but he flung away all the twenty-five at once!”
“Maybe I found a treasure somewhere and you know nothing of it? So that’s why I was liberal yesterday…. Mr. Zametov knows I’ve found a treasure! Excuse us, please, for disturbing you for half an hour with such trivialities,” he said, turning to Porfiry Petrovitch, with trembling lips. “We are boring you, aren’t we?”
“Oh no, quite the contrary, quite the contrary! If only you knew how you interest me! It’s interesting to look on and listen… and I am really glad you have come forward at last.”
“But you might give us some tea! My throat’s dry,” cried Razumihin.
“Capital idea! Perhaps we will all keep you company. Wouldn’t you like… something more essential before tea?”
“Get along with you!”
Porfiry Petrovitch went out to order tea.
Raskolnikov’s thoughts were in a whirl. He was in terrible exasperation.
“The worst of it is they don’t disguise it; they don’t care to stand on ceremony! And how if you didn’t know me at all, did you come to talk to Nikodim Fomitch about me? So they don’t care to hide that they are tracking me like a pack of dogs. They simply spit in my face.” He was shaking with rage. “Come, strike me openly, don’t play with me like a cat with a mouse. It’s hardly civil, Porfiry Petrovitch, but perhaps I won’t allow it! I shall get up and throw the whole truth in your ugly faces, and you’ll see how I despise you.” He could hardly breathe. “And what if it’s only my fancy? What if I am mistaken, and through inexperience I get angry and don’t keep up my nasty part? Perhaps it’s all unintentional. All their phrases are the usual ones, but there is something about them…. It all might be said, but there is something. Why did he say bluntly, ‘With her’? Why did Zametov add that I spoke artfully? Why do they speak in that tone? Yes, the tone…. Razumihin is sitting here, why does he see nothing? That innocent blockhead never does see anything! Feverish again! Did Porfiry wink at me just now? Of course it’s nonsense! What could he wink for? Are they trying to upset my nerves or are they teasing me? Either it’s ill fancy or they know! Even Zametov is rude…. Is Zametov rude? Zametov has changed his mind. I foresaw he would change his mind! He is at home here, while it’s my first visit. Porfiry does not consider him a visitor; sits with his back to him. They’re as thick as thieves, no doubt, over me! Not a doubt they were talking about me before we came. Do they know about the flat? If only they’d make haste! When I said that I ran away to take a flat he let it pass…. I put that in cleverly about a flat, it may be of use afterwards…. Delirious, indeed… ha-ha-ha! He knows all about last night! He didn’t know of my mother’s arrival! The hag had written the date on in pencil! You are wrong, you won’t catch me! There are no facts… it’s all supposition! You produce facts! The flat even isn’t a fact but delirium. I know what to say to them…. Do they know about the flat? I won’t go without finding out. What did I come for? But my being angry now, maybe is a fact! Fool, how irritable I am! Perhaps that’s right; to play the invalid…. He is feeling me. He will try to catch me. Why did I come?”
All this flashed like lightning through his mind.
Porfiry Petrovitch returned quickly. He became suddenly more jovial.
“Your party yesterday, brother, has left my head rather…. And I am out of sorts altogether,” he began in quite a different tone, laughing to Razumihin.
“Was it interesting? I left you yesterday at the most interesting point. Who got the best of it?”
“Oh, no one, of course. They got on to everlasting questions, floated off into space.”
“Only fancy, Rodya, what we got on to yesterday. Whether there is such a thing as crime. I told you that we talked our heads off.”
“What is there strange? It’s an everyday social question,” Raskolnikov answered casually.
“The question wasn’t put quite like that,” observed Porfiry.
“Not quite, that’s true,” Razumihin agreed at once, getting warm and hurried as usual. “Listen, Rodion, and tell us your opinion, I want to hear it. I was fighting tooth and nail with them and wanted you to help me. I told them you were coming…. It began with the socialist doctrine. You know their doctrine; crime is a protest against the abnormality of the social organisation and nothing more, and nothing more; no other causes admitted!...”
“You are wrong there,” cried Porfiry Petrovitch; he was noticeably animated and kept laughing as he looked at Razumihin, which made him more excited than ever.
“Nothing is admitted,” Razumihin interrupted with heat.
“I am not wrong. I’ll show you their pamphlets. Everything with them is ‘the influence of environment,’ and nothing else. Their favourite phrase! From which it follows that, if society is normally organised, all crime will cease at once, since there will be nothing to protest against and all men will become righteous in one instant. Human nature is not taken into account, it is excluded, it’s not supposed to exist! They don’t recognise that humanity, developing by a historical living process, will become at last a normal society, but they believe that a social system that has come out of some mathematical brain is going to organise all humanity at once and make it just and sinless in an instant, quicker than any living process! That’s why they instinctively dislike history, ‘nothing but ugliness and stupidity in it,’ and they explain it all as stupidity! That’s why they so dislike the living process of life; they don’t want a living soul! The living soul demands life, the soul won’t obey the rules of mechanics, the soul is an object of suspicion, the soul is retrograde! But what they want though it smells of death and can be made of India-rubber, at least is not alive, has no will, is servile and won’t revolt! And it comes in the end to their reducing everything to the building of walls and the planning of rooms and passages in a phalanstery! The phalanstery is ready, indeed, but your human nature is not ready for the phalanstery—it wants life, it hasn’t completed its vital process, it’s too soon for the graveyard! You can’t skip over nature by logic. Logic presupposes three possibilities, but there are millions! Cut away a million, and reduce it all to the question of comfort! That’s the easiest solution of the problem! It’s seductively clear and you musn’t think about it. That’s the great thing, you mustn’t think! The whole secret of life in two pages of print!”
“Now he is off, beating the drum! Catch hold of him, do!” laughed Porfiry. “Can you imagine,” he turned to Raskolnikov, “six people holding forth like that last night, in one room, with punch as a preliminary! No, brother, you are wrong, environment accounts for a great deal in crime; I can assure you of that.”
“Oh, I know it does, but just tell me: a man of forty violates a child of ten; was it environment drove him to it?”
“Well, strictly speaking, it did,” Porfiry observed with noteworthy gravity; “a crime of that nature may be very well ascribed to the influence of environment.”
Razumihin was almost in a frenzy. “Oh, if you like,” he roared. “I’ll prove to you that your white eyelashes may very well be ascribed to the Church of Ivan the Great’s being two hundred and fifty feet high, and I will prove it clearly, exactly, progressively, and even with a Liberal tendency! I undertake to! Will you bet on it?”
“Done! Let’s hear, please, how he will prove it!”
“He is always humbugging, confound him,” cried Razumihin, jumping up and gesticulating. “What’s the use of talking to you? He does all that on purpose; you don’t know him, Rodion! He took their side yesterday, simply to make fools of them. And the things he said yesterday! And they were delighted! He can keep it up for a fortnight together. Last year he persuaded us that he was going into a monastery: he stuck to it for two months. Not long ago he took it into his head to declare he was going to get married, that he had everything ready for the wedding. He ordered new clothes indeed. We all began to congratulate him. There was no bride, nothing, all pure fantasy!”
“Ah, you are wrong! I got the clothes before. It was the new clothes in fact that made me think of taking you in.”
“Are you such a good dissembler?” Raskolnikov asked carelessly.
“You wouldn’t have supposed it, eh? Wait a bit, I shall take you in, too. Ha-ha-ha! No, I’ll tell you the truth. All these questions about crime, environment, children, recall to my mind an article of yours which interested me at the time. ‘On Crime’... or something of the sort, I forget the title, I read it with pleasure two months ago in the Periodical Review.”
“My article? In the Periodical Review?” Raskolnikov asked in astonishment. “I certainly did write an article upon a book six months ago when I left the university, but I sent it to the Weekly Review.”
“But it came out in the Periodical.”
“And the Weekly Review ceased to exist, so that’s why it wasn’t printed at the time.”
“That’s true; but when it ceased to exist, the Weekly Review was amalgamated with the Periodical, and so your article appeared two months ago in the latter. Didn’t you know?”
Raskolnikov had not known.
“Why, you might get some money out of them for the article! What a strange person you are! You lead such a solitary life that you know nothing of matters that concern you directly. It’s a fact, I assure you.”
“Bravo, Rodya! I knew nothing about it either!” cried Razumihin. “I’ll run to-day to the reading-room and ask for the number. Two months ago? What was the date? It doesn’t matter though, I will find it. Think of not telling us!”
“How did you find out that the article was mine? It’s only signed with an initial.”
“I only learnt it by chance, the other day. Through the editor; I know him…. I was very much interested.”
“I analysed, if I remember, the psychology of a criminal before and after the crime.”
“Yes, and you maintained that the perpetration of a crime is always accompanied by illness. Very, very original, but… it was not that part of your article that interested me so much, but an idea at the end of the article which I regret to say you merely suggested without working it out clearly. There is, if you recollect, a suggestion that there are certain persons who can… that is, not precisely are able to, but have a perfect right to commit breaches of morality and crimes, and that the law is not for them.”
Raskolnikov smiled at the exaggerated and intentional distortion of his idea.
“What? What do you mean? A right to crime? But not because of the influence of environment?” Razumihin inquired with some alarm even.
“No, not exactly because of it,” answered Porfiry. “In his article all men are divided into ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary.’ Ordinary men have to live in submission, have no right to transgress the law, because, don’t you see, they are ordinary. But extraordinary men have a right to commit any crime and to transgress the law in any way, just because they are extraordinary. That was your idea, if I am not mistaken?”
“What do you mean? That can’t be right?” Razumihin muttered in bewilderment.
Raskolnikov smiled again. He saw the point at once, and knew where they wanted to drive him. He decided to take up the challenge.
“That wasn’t quite my contention,” he began simply and modestly. “Yet I admit that you have stated it almost correctly; perhaps, if you like, perfectly so.” (It almost gave him pleasure to admit this.) “The only difference is that I don’t contend that extraordinary people are always bound to commit breaches of morals, as you call it. In fact, I doubt whether such an argument could be published. I simply hinted that an ‘extraordinary’ man has the right… that is not an official right, but an inner right to decide in his own conscience to overstep… certain obstacles, and only in case it is essential for the practical fulfilment of his idea (sometimes, perhaps, of benefit to the whole of humanity). You say that my article isn’t definite; I am ready to make it as clear as I can. Perhaps I am right in thinking you want me to; very well. I maintain that if the discoveries of Kepler and Newton could not have been made known except by sacrificing the lives of one, a dozen, a hundred, or more men, Newton would have had the right, would indeed have been in duty bound… to eliminate the dozen or the hundred men for the sake of making his discoveries known to the whole of humanity. But it does not follow from that that Newton had a right to murder people right and left and to steal every day in the market. Then, I remember, I maintain in my article that all… well, legislators and leaders of men, such as Lycurgus, Solon, Mahomet, Napoleon, and so on, were all without exception criminals, from the very fact that, making a new law, they transgressed the ancient one, handed down from their ancestors and held sacred by the people, and they did not stop short at bloodshed either, if that bloodshed—often of innocent persons fighting bravely in defence of ancient law—were of use to their cause. It’s remarkable, in fact, that the majority, indeed, of these benefactors and leaders of humanity were guilty of terrible carnage. In short, I maintain that all great men or even men a little out of the common, that is to say capable of giving some new word, must from their very nature be criminals—more or less, of course. Otherwise it’s hard for them to get out of the common rut; and to remain in the common rut is what they can’t submit to, from their very nature again, and to my mind they ought not, indeed, to submit to it. You see that there is nothing particularly new in all that. The same thing has been printed and read a thousand times before. As for my division of people into ordinary and extraordinary, I acknowledge that it’s somewhat arbitrary, but I don’t insist upon exact numbers. I only believe in my leading idea that men are in general divided by a law of nature into two categories, inferior (ordinary), that is, so to say, material that serves only to reproduce its kind, and men who have the gift or the talent to utter a new word. There are, of course, innumerable sub-divisions, but the distinguishing features of both categories are fairly well marked. The first category, generally speaking, are men conservative in temperament and law-abiding; they live under control and love to be controlled. To my thinking it is their duty to be controlled, because that’s their vocation, and there is nothing humiliating in it for them. The second category all transgress the law; they are destroyers or disposed to destruction according to their capacities. The crimes of these men are of course relative and varied; for the most part they seek in very varied ways the destruction of the present for the sake of the better. But if such a one is forced for the sake of his idea to step over a corpse or wade through blood, he can, I maintain, find within himself, in his conscience, a sanction for wading through blood—that depends on the idea and its dimensions, note that. It’s only in that sense I speak of their right to crime in my article (you remember it began with the legal question). There’s no need for such anxiety, however; the masses will scarcely ever admit this right, they punish them or hang them (more or less), and in doing so fulfil quite justly their conservative vocation. But the same masses set these criminals on a pedestal in the next generation and worship them (more or less). The first category is always the man of the present, the second the man of the future. The first preserve the world and people it, the second move the world and lead it to its goal. Each class has an equal right to exist. In fact, all have equal rights with me—and _vive la guerre éternelle_—till the New Jerusalem, of course!”
“Then you believe in the New Jerusalem, do you?”
“I do,” Raskolnikov answered firmly; as he said these words and during the whole preceding tirade he kept his eyes on one spot on the carpet.
“And… and do you believe in God? Excuse my curiosity.”
“I do,” repeated Raskolnikov, raising his eyes to Porfiry.
“And… do you believe in Lazarus’ rising from the dead?”
“I… I do. Why do you ask all this?”
“You believe it literally?”
“You don’t say so…. I asked from curiosity. Excuse me. But let us go back to the question; they are not always executed. Some, on the contrary…”
“Triumph in their lifetime? Oh, yes, some attain their ends in this life, and then…”
“They begin executing other people?”
“If it’s necessary; indeed, for the most part they do. Your remark is very witty.”
“Thank you. But tell me this: how do you distinguish those extraordinary people from the ordinary ones? Are there signs at their birth? I feel there ought to be more exactitude, more external definition. Excuse the natural anxiety of a practical law-abiding citizen, but couldn’t they adopt a special uniform, for instance, couldn’t they wear something, be branded in some way? For you know if confusion arises and a member of one category imagines that he belongs to the other, begins to ‘eliminate obstacles’ as you so happily expressed it, then…”
“Oh, that very often happens! That remark is wittier than the other.”
“No reason to; but take note that the mistake can only arise in the first category, that is among the ordinary people (as I perhaps unfortunately called them). In spite of their predisposition to obedience very many of them, through a playfulness of nature, sometimes vouchsafed even to the cow, like to imagine themselves advanced people, ‘destroyers,’ and to push themselves into the ‘new movement,’ and this quite sincerely. Meanwhile the really new people are very often unobserved by them, or even despised as reactionaries of grovelling tendencies. But I don’t think there is any considerable danger here, and you really need not be uneasy for they never go very far. Of course, they might have a thrashing sometimes for letting their fancy run away with them and to teach them their place, but no more; in fact, even this isn’t necessary as they castigate themselves, for they are very conscientious: some perform this service for one another and others chastise themselves with their own hands…. They will impose various public acts of penitence upon themselves with a beautiful and edifying effect; in fact you’ve nothing to be uneasy about…. It’s a law of nature.”
“Well, you have certainly set my mind more at rest on that score; but there’s another thing worries me. Tell me, please, are there many people who have the right to kill others, these extraordinary people? I am ready to bow down to them, of course, but you must admit it’s alarming if there are a great many of them, eh?”
“Oh, you needn’t worry about that either,” Raskolnikov went on in the same tone. “People with new ideas, people with the faintest capacity for saying something new, are extremely few in number, extraordinarily so in fact. One thing only is clear, that the appearance of all these grades and sub-divisions of men must follow with unfailing regularity some law of nature. That law, of course, is unknown at present, but I am convinced that it exists, and one day may become known. The vast mass of mankind is mere material, and only exists in order by some great effort, by some mysterious process, by means of some crossing of races and stocks, to bring into the world at last perhaps one man out of a thousand with a spark of independence. One in ten thousand perhaps—I speak roughly, approximately—is born with some independence, and with still greater independence one in a hundred thousand. The man of genius is one of millions, and the great geniuses, the crown of humanity, appear on earth perhaps one in many thousand millions. In fact I have not peeped into the retort in which all this takes place. But there certainly is and must be a definite law, it cannot be a matter of chance.”
“Why, are you both joking?” Razumihin cried at last. “There you sit, making fun of one another. Are you serious, Rodya?”
Raskolnikov raised his pale and almost mournful face and made no reply. And the unconcealed, persistent, nervous, and discourteous sarcasm of Porfiry seemed strange to Razumihin beside that quiet and mournful face.
“Well, brother, if you are really serious… You are right, of course, in saying that it’s not new, that it’s like what we’ve read and heard a thousand times already; but what is really original in all this, and is exclusively your own, to my horror, is that you sanction bloodshed in the name of conscience, and, excuse my saying so, with such fanaticism…. That, I take it, is the point of your article. But that sanction of bloodshed by conscience is to my mind… more terrible than the official, legal sanction of bloodshed….”
“You are quite right, it is more terrible,” Porfiry agreed.
“Yes, you must have exaggerated! There is some mistake, I shall read it. You can’t think that! I shall read it.”
“All that is not in the article, there’s only a hint of it,” said Raskolnikov.
“Yes, yes.” Porfiry couldn’t sit still. “Your attitude to crime is pretty clear to me now, but… excuse me for my impertinence (I am really ashamed to be worrying you like this), you see, you’ve removed my anxiety as to the two grades getting mixed, but… there are various practical possibilities that make me uneasy! What if some man or youth imagines that he is a Lycurgus or Mahomet—a future one of course—and suppose he begins to remove all obstacles…. He has some great enterprise before him and needs money for it… and tries to get it… do you see?”
Zametov gave a sudden guffaw in his corner. Raskolnikov did not even raise his eyes to him.
“I must admit,” he went on calmly, “that such cases certainly must arise. The vain and foolish are particularly apt to fall into that snare; young people especially.”
“Yes, you see. Well then?”
“What then?” Raskolnikov smiled in reply; “that’s not my fault. So it is and so it always will be. He said just now (he nodded at Razumihin) that I sanction bloodshed. Society is too well protected by prisons, banishment, criminal investigators, penal servitude. There’s no need to be uneasy. You have but to catch the thief.”
“And what if we do catch him?”
“Then he gets what he deserves.”
“You are certainly logical. But what of his conscience?”
“Why do you care about that?”
“Simply from humanity.”
“If he has a conscience he will suffer for his mistake. That will be his punishment—as well as the prison.”
“But the real geniuses,” asked Razumihin frowning, “those who have the right to murder? Oughtn’t they to suffer at all even for the blood they’ve shed?”
“Why the word ought? It’s not a matter of permission or prohibition. He will suffer if he is sorry for his victim. Pain and suffering are always inevitable for a large intelligence and a deep heart. The really great men must, I think, have great sadness on earth,” he added dreamily, not in the tone of the conversation.
He raised his eyes, looked earnestly at them all, smiled, and took his cap. He was too quiet by comparison with his manner at his entrance, and he felt this. Everyone got up.
“Well, you may abuse me, be angry with me if you like,” Porfiry Petrovitch began again, “but I can’t resist. Allow me one little question (I know I am troubling you). There is just one little notion I want to express, simply that I may not forget it.”
“Very good, tell me your little notion,” Raskolnikov stood waiting, pale and grave before him.
“Well, you see… I really don’t know how to express it properly…. It’s a playful, psychological idea…. When you were writing your article, surely you couldn’t have helped, he-he! fancying yourself… just a little, an ‘extraordinary’ man, uttering a new word in your sense…. That’s so, isn’t it?”
“Quite possibly,” Raskolnikov answered contemptuously.
Razumihin made a movement.
“And, if so, could you bring yourself in case of worldly difficulties and hardship or for some service to humanity—to overstep obstacles?... For instance, to rob and murder?”
And again he winked with his left eye, and laughed noiselessly just as before.
“If I did I certainly should not tell you,” Raskolnikov answered with defiant and haughty contempt.
“No, I was only interested on account of your article, from a literary point of view…”
“Foo! how obvious and insolent that is!” Raskolnikov thought with repulsion.
“Allow me to observe,” he answered dryly, “that I don’t consider myself a Mahomet or a Napoleon, nor any personage of that kind, and not being one of them I cannot tell you how I should act.”
“Oh, come, don’t we all think ourselves Napoleons now in Russia?” Porfiry Petrovitch said with alarming familiarity.
Something peculiar betrayed itself in the very intonation of his voice.
“Perhaps it was one of these future Napoleons who did for Alyona Ivanovna last week?” Zametov blurted out from the corner.
Raskolnikov did not speak, but looked firmly and intently at Porfiry. Razumihin was scowling gloomily. He seemed before this to be noticing something. He looked angrily around. There was a minute of gloomy silence. Raskolnikov turned to go.
“Are you going already?” Porfiry said amiably, holding out his hand with excessive politeness. “Very, very glad of your acquaintance. As for your request, have no uneasiness, write just as I told you, or, better still, come to me there yourself in a day or two… to-morrow, indeed. I shall be there at eleven o’clock for certain. We’ll arrange it all; we’ll have a talk. As one of the last to be there, you might perhaps be able to tell us something,” he added with a most good-natured expression.
“You want to cross-examine me officially in due form?” Raskolnikov asked sharply.
“Oh, why? That’s not necessary for the present. You misunderstand me. I lose no opportunity, you see, and… I’ve talked with all who had pledges…. I obtained evidence from some of them, and you are the last…. Yes, by the way,” he cried, seemingly suddenly delighted, “I just remember, what was I thinking of?” he turned to Razumihin, “you were talking my ears off about that Nikolay… of course, I know, I know very well,” he turned to Raskolnikov, “that the fellow is innocent, but what is one to do? We had to trouble Dmitri too…. This is the point, this is all: when you went up the stairs it was past seven, wasn’t it?”
“Yes,” answered Raskolnikov, with an unpleasant sensation at the very moment he spoke that he need not have said it.
“Then when you went upstairs between seven and eight, didn’t you see in a flat that stood open on a second storey, do you remember? two workmen or at least one of them? They were painting there, didn’t you notice them? It’s very, very important for them.”
“Painters? No, I didn’t see them,” Raskolnikov answered slowly, as though ransacking his memory, while at the same instant he was racking every nerve, almost swooning with anxiety to conjecture as quickly as possible where the trap lay and not to overlook anything. “No, I didn’t see them, and I don’t think I noticed a flat like that open…. But on the fourth storey” (he had mastered the trap now and was triumphant) “I remember now that someone was moving out of the flat opposite Alyona Ivanovna’s…. I remember… I remember it clearly. Some porters were carrying out a sofa and they squeezed me against the wall. But painters… no, I don’t remember that there were any painters, and I don’t think that there was a flat open anywhere, no, there wasn’t.”
“What do you mean?” Razumihin shouted suddenly, as though he had reflected and realised. “Why, it was on the day of the murder the painters were at work, and he was there three days before? What are you asking?”
“Foo! I have muddled it!” Porfiry slapped himself on the forehead. “Deuce take it! This business is turning my brain!” he addressed Raskolnikov somewhat apologetically. “It would be such a great thing for us to find out whether anyone had seen them between seven and eight at the flat, so I fancied you could perhaps have told us something…. I quite muddled it.”
“Then you should be more careful,” Razumihin observed grimly.
The last words were uttered in the passage. Porfiry Petrovitch saw them to the door with excessive politeness.
They went out into the street gloomy and sullen, and for some steps they did not say a word. Raskolnikov drew a deep breath. | <urn:uuid:842792ff-9ed5-4959-9a6a-526b7eed61ac> | CC-MAIN-2013-20 | http://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/182/crime-and-punishment/3410/part-3-chapter-5/ | 2013-05-18T06:34:48Z | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2013-20/segments/1368696381249/warc/CC-MAIN-20130516092621-00000-ip-10-60-113-184.ec2.internal.warc.gz | en | 0.975755 | 10,724 |
Front Page Titles (by Subject) OF GIVING THE LIE - Essays of Montaigne, vol. 6
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
OF GIVING THE LIE - Michel de Montaigne, Essays of Montaigne, vol. 6
Essays of Montaigne, vol. 6, trans. Charles Cotton, revised by William Carew Hazlett (New York: Edwin C. Hill, 1910).
Part of: Essays of Montaigne, in 10 vols.
About Liberty Fund:
Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
The text is in the public domain.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
OF GIVING THE LIE
WELL, BUT some one will say to me, this design of making a man’s self the subject of his writing, were indeed excusable in rare and famous men, who by their reputation had given others a curiosity to be fully informed of them. It is most true, I confess and know very well, that a mechanic will scarce lift his eyes from his work to look at an ordinary man, whereas a man will forsake his business and his shop to stare at an eminent person when he comes into a town. It misbecomes any other to give his own character, but him who has qualities worthy of imitation, and whose life and opinions may serve for example: Caesar and Xenophon had a just and solid foundation whereon to found their narrations, in the greatness of their own performances; and it were to be wished that we had the journals of Alexander the Great, the commentaries that Augustus, Cato, Sylla, Brutus, and others left of their actions; of such persons men love and contemplate the very statues even in copper and marble.
This remonstrance is very true; but it very little concerns me:—
“I repeat my poems only to my friends, and when bound to do so; not before every one and everywhere; there are plenty of reciters in the open market-place and at the baths.”
I do not here form a statue to erect in the great square of a city, in a church, or any public place:—
“I study not to make my pages swell with empty trifles; you and I are talking in private:”
’tis for some corner of a library, or to entertain a neighbor, a kinsman, a friend, who has a mind to renew his acquaintance and familiarity with me in this image of myself. Others have been encouraged to speak of themselves, because they found the subject worthy and rich; I, on the contrary, am the bolder, by reason the subject is so poor and sterile that I cannot be suspected of ostentation. I judge freely of the actions of others; I give little of my own to judge of, because they are nothing: I do not find so much good in myself, that I cannot tell it without blushing.
What contentment would it not be to me to hear any one thus relate to me the manners, faces, countenances, the ordinary words and fortunes of my ancestors? how attentively should I listen to it! In earnest, it would be evil nature to despise so much as the pictures of our friends and predecessors, the fashion of their clothes and arms. I preserve their writing, seal, and a particular sword they wore, and have not thrown the long staves my father used to carry in his hand, out of my closet:—
“A father’s garment and ring is by so much dearer to his posterity, as there is the greater affection towards parents.”
If my posterity, nevertheless, shall be of another mind, I shall be avenged on them; for they cannot care less for me than I shall then do for them. All the traffic that I have in this with the public is, that I borrow their utensils of writing, which are more easy and most at hand; and in recompense shall, peradventure, keep a pound of butter in the market from melting in the sun:—
“Let not wrappers be wanting to tunnyfish, nor olives; . . . and I shall supply loose coverings to mackerel.”
And though nobody should read me, have I wasted time in entertaining myself so many idle hours in so pleasing and useful thoughts? In moulding this figure upon myself, I have been so often constrained to temper and compose myself in a right posture, that the copy is truly taken, and has in some sort formed itself; painting myself for others, I represent myself in a better coloring than my own natural complexion. I have no more made my book than my book has made me: ’tis a book consubstantial with the author, of a peculiar design, a parcel of my life, and whose business is not designed for others, as that of all other books is. In giving myself so continual and so exact an account of myself, have I lost my time? For they who sometimes cursorily survey themselves only, do not so strictly examine themselves, nor penetrate so deep, as he who makes it his business, his study, and his employment, who intends a lasting record, with all his fidelity, and with all his force. The most delicious pleasures digested within, avoid leaving any trace of themselves, and avoid the sight not only of the people, but of any other person. How often has this work diverted me from troublesome thoughts? and all that are frivolous should be reputed so. Nature has presented us with a large faculty of entertaining ourselves alone; and often calls us to it, to teach us that we owe ourselves in part to society, but chiefly and mostly to ourselves. That I may habituate my fancy even to meditate in some method and to some end, and to keep it from losing itself and roving at random, ’tis but to give to body and to record all the little thoughts that present themselves to it. I give ear to my whimsies, because I am to record them. It often falls out, that being displeased at some action that civility and reason will not permit me openly to reprove, I here disgorge myself, not without design of public instruction: and also these poetical lashes:—
“A slap on his eye, a slap on his snout, a slap on Sagoin’s back,”
imprint themselves better upon paper than upon the flesh. What if I listen to books a little more attentively than ordinary, since I watch if I can purloin anything that may adorn or support my own? I have not at all studied to make a book, but I have in some sort studied because I had made it; if it be studying to scratch and pinch now one author, and then another, either by the head or foot, not with any design to form opinions from them, but to assist, second, and fortify those I already have embraced.
But whom shall we believe in the report he makes of himself in so corrupt an age? considering there are so few, if any at all, whom we can believe when speaking of others, where there is less interest to lie. The first thing done in the corruption of manners is banishing truth; for, as Pindar says, to be true is the beginning of a great virtue, and the first article that Plato requires in the governor of his Republic. The truth of these days is not that which really is, but what every man persuades another man to believe; as we generally give the name of money not only to pieces of the just alloy, but even to the false also, if they will pass. Our nation has long been reproached with this vice; for Salvianus of Marseilles, who lived in the time of the Emperor Valentinian, says that lying and forswearing themselves is with the French not a vice, but a way of speaking. He who would enhance this testimony, might say that it is now a virtue in them; men form and fashion themselves to it as to an exercise of honor; for dissimulation is one of the most notable qualities of this age.
I have often considered whence this custom that we so religiously observe should spring, of being more highly offended with the reproach of a vice so familiar to us than with any other, and that it should be the highest insult that can in words be done us to reproach us with a lie. Upon examination, I find that it is natural most to defend the defects with which we are most tainted. It seems as if by resenting and being moved at the accusation, we in some sort acquit ourselves of the fault; though we have it in effect, we condemn it in outward appearance. May it not also be that this reproach seems to imply cowardice and feebleness of heart? of which can there be a more manifest sign than to eat a man’s own words—nay, to lie against a man’s own knowledge? Lying is a base vice; a vice that one of the ancients portrays in the most odious colors when he says, “that it is to manifest a contempt of God, and withal a fear of men.” It is not possible more fully to represent the horror, baseness, and irregularity of it; for what can a man imagine more hateful and contemptible than to be a coward towards men, and valiant against his Maker? Our intelligence being by no other way communicable to one another but by a particular word, he who falsifies that betrays public society. ’Tis the only way by which we communicate our thoughts and wills; ’tis the interpreter of the soul, and if it deceive us, we no longer know nor have further tie upon one another; if that deceive us, it breaks all our correspondence, and dissolves all the ties of government. Certain nations of the newly discovered Indies (I need not give them names, seeing they are no more; for, by wonderful and unheard-of example, the desolation of that conquest has extended to the utter abolition of names and the ancient knowledge of places) offered to their gods human blood, but only such as was drawn from the tongue and ears, to expiate for the sin of lying, as well heard as pronounced. That good fellow of Greece said that children are amused with toys and men with words.
As to our diverse usages of giving the lie, and the laws of honor in that case, and the alteration they have received, I defer saying what I know of them to another time, and shall learn, if I can, in the meanwhile, at what time the custom took beginning of so exactly weighing and measuring words, and of making our honor interested in them; for it is easy to judge that it was not anciently amongst the Romans and Greeks. And it has often seemed to me strange to see them rail at and give one another the lie without any quarrel. Their laws of duty steered some other course than ours. Caesar is sometimes called thief, and sometimes drunkard, to his teeth. We see the liberty of invective they practised upon one another, I mean the greatest chiefs of war of both nations, where words are only revenged with words, and do not proceed any farther. | <urn:uuid:c49a59d2-e707-47d7-9c0e-006cae733e6c> | CC-MAIN-2013-20 | http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1747&chapter=91264&layout=html&Itemid=27 | 2013-05-18T06:34:27Z | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2013-20/segments/1368696381249/warc/CC-MAIN-20130516092621-00000-ip-10-60-113-184.ec2.internal.warc.gz | en | 0.97343 | 2,423 |
Historic Sites in Journalism
Postmark deadline for nominations: March 20
Download nomination form
Click here to download the nomination form.
Complete List of Historic Sites
The Silverton Standard & the Miner
Read press release
White Hall, Eastern Kentucky University
University of Mississippi
Hubbard Broadcasting and KSTP-TV
Denver, Co., Denver Press Club
Milwaukee , WI., Milwaukee Press Club, oldest continuously operating press club in the Americas.
Los Angeles, Calif., KTLA, leading radio news in the Los Angels community since becoming the first commercially licensed station in LA.
Washington, D.C., American News Womens Club
Chicago, Chicago Bee Building
Tombstone, Ariz., The Tombstone Epitaph
Indianapolis, the Indianapolis Recorder.
Montpelier - Lancaster, Pennsylvania
Washington, D.C., The Senate Press Gallery in honor of Anne N. Royall(1769-1854), the first Capitol Hill news woman
New York City, the Algonquin Hotel, initial site of the Overseas Press Club, a meeting place for foreign correspondents.
San Francisco, awarded to the San Francisco Chronicle in honor of the founders Michel H. de Young and Charles de Young. The brothers founded the Daily Dramatic Chronicle which appeared as the Chronicle in 1868.
Memphis, Tenn., at the Beale Street Baptist Church, in honor of Ida B. Wells-Barnett, editor of the Memphis Free Speech, a Black newspaper.
New York City, to The Amsterdam News, the oldest Black newspaper in New York City. Edited by James L. Hicks, first Black journalist accredited to cover the Korean War and the United Nations.
Montpelier, VA., the Virginia estate of James Madison.
Baltimore, The Sun, in honor of one of the newspapers founders, A. S. Abell.
Greenville, Ohio, birthplace of Lowell Thomas, radio and television broadcaster
Mississippi State University, Starkville, Miss., marks the site of the personal and professional papers of William Turner Catledge, late editor of The New York Times.
New York City, accepted by the Magazine Publishers Association and the American Society of Magazine Editors in honor of Ida Tarbell, muckraking journalist of the turn of the century.
Washington, D.C., National Press Club, site of many world news events.
Red Wing, Minn., upon occasion of 100th anniversary of founding of National Newspaper Association.
Annapolis, Md., at site of Revolutionary War newspaper, Maryland Gazette, published by Jonas Green and his wife, Catherine Hoof Green.
New York City, Margaret Bourke-White (1904-1971), one of Americas best-known photojournalists.
Kansas City, Mo., the Roy Wilkins site at the Kansas City Call, marked by the Kansas City Professional Chapter in recognition of Roy Wilkins editorship there between 1923 and 1931. The Kansas City Association of Black Journalists was a co-sponsor of the dedication.
Washington, D.C., United Press International, upon its 75th.anniversary.
New York City, Freedoms Journal, the first Black newspaper published in America.
Akron, Ohio, Akron Beacon Journal, in honor of John S. Knight, builder of the Knight-Ridder Newspapers Company.
Philadelphia, Richard Harding Davis, one of the most adventurous war correspondents of his time who was known for his colorful reportage during six wars.
Boston, The Christian Science Monitor, founder Mary Baker Eddy and long-time editor Erwin D. Canham.
Newburyport, Mass., William Lloyd Garrison, founder of the Liberator, anti-slavery journal.
Atlanta, W. A. Scott II, founder of the Atlanta Daily World, oldest continuing Black owned and controlled daily newspaper in the United States.
Charleston, S.C., Elizabeth Timothy, first woman publisher of an American newspaper.
Milwaukee, Christopher Latham Sholes, chief inventor of the first practical typewriter.
Memphis, Tenn., the Christian Index, the second oldest Black religious newspaper in the nation.
Philadelphia, Cyrus H. K. Curtis, who played a major role in consolidating Philadelphia newspapers and founded the Ladies Home Journal.
Toledo, Ohio, David Ross Locke (Petroleum Vesuvius Nasby), who created the Nasby Letters and was a forerunner of the muckrakers.
Milwaukee, H. V. Kaltenborn, pioneer radio news analyst who was known for his analysis of World War II.
New York City, The Wall Street Journal.
Richmond, Va., John Mitchell, one of the Souths leading Black reform journalists and editor of the Richmond Planet.
Philadelphia, The Pennsylvania Packet or the General Advertiser, the first successful daily newspaper in the United States and first to publish the Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution.
Rochester, N.Y., Frederick Douglass, founder in 1847
of the North Star, which with its successor newspapers under Douglasss direction was the leading Black journal in the United States in the antebellum period.
Canton, Ohio, Donald Ring Mellett, publisher of the Canton Daily News, who was gunned down in front of his home after editorializing against Cantons lawless elements and city officials ineptness.
Worcester, Mass., Isaiah Thomas, American revolutionary editor, printer, pioneer press historian and co-founder and first president of American Antiquarian Society.
New York City, The Nation, oldest opinion magazine in the United States.
Pittsburgh, John Scull, first editor to transport type and a press across the Alleghenies to establish journalism west of the peaks; founder of Pittsburgh Gazette in 1786.
University of Alabama, Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black, eloquent and effective for the principle of a free and untrammeled press.
Chicago, the Chicago Defender, for pioneering and continuous leadership and strength in the Black press.
Gathland State Park, Md., Townsends War Correspondents Arch, a memorial to Civil War correspondents of the North and the South.
Augusta, Ga., the Augusta Chronicle, the Souths oldest newspaper presently publishing.
Chicago, the Chicago Tribune.
Oologah, Okla., the Will Rogers Home, birthplace of Will Rogers.
Philadelphia, Sarah Josepha Hale and Godeys Ladys Book, first major womans magazine of mass circulation published from 1830-1882.
Baraboo, Wis., Ansel N. Kellogg and the first newspaper syndicate developed in 1861.
Chillicothe, Ohio, the Chillicothe Gazette, oldest newspaper in continuous publication west of the Allegheny Mountains, published since 1800.
Chicago, the Chicago Daily News and the nations oldest foreign news service operated by a newspaper.
San Francisco, William Randolph Hearst and the San Francisco Examiner.
Calhoun, Ga., the Cherokee Phoenix, the Indian-language newspaper of the Cherokee Nation.
Sacramento, Calif., the Sacramento Union, oldest daily in the West, founded in 1851.
Madison, Wis., the Wisconsin Press Association, oldest continuing state press association in the nation, existing since the 1830s.
Des Moines, Iowa, J. N. (Ding) Darling and the Des Moines Register and Tribune. Darlings cartoons catapulted him into national prominence and were a factor in enhancing the great prestige of his newspaper in the first half of the 20th century.
Hannibal, Mo., 206 Hill Street, boyhood home of Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) and site of the Hannibal Journal, which started Twain on the way to fame as one of Americas great writers.
Lexington, Va., Reid Hall, the journalism building on the campus of Washington and Lee University. Here the first formal instruction in journalism in the history of education was initiated by General Robert E. Lee in 1869.
Atlanta, Henry Woodfin Grady (1850-1889), and the Atlanta Constitution, leaders in creating a more comprehensive, interpretative journalism in the South.
Gunston Hall, Va., home of George Mason, author of Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), which gave the first expression of a free press its binding, legal form.
Boston, James Franklins New England Courant, first newspaper published in the United States without license or authority. Washington, D.C., the Washington Globe (1831-1845), published by Francis Preston Blair and John C. Rives.
Cincinnati, The Centinel of the North-Western Territory, marking the 175th. anniversary of the first newspaper in the Northwest Territory, published in 1793.
Philadelphia, and Baltimore, Richard Hoe and Ottmar Mergenthaler, for invention of the rotary press in 1847 and the linotype machine in 1886, respectively.
New York City and Washington, D.C., the Associated Press. Establishment of the worlds first private, leased wire for news transmission (1875).
Carmel, Calif., Lincoln Steffans (1866-1936), foremost exponent of journalistic crusaders known as muckrakers, whose exposes of corruption and injustice aroused the public conscience.
Greencastle, Ind., DePauw University, where Sigma Delta Chi was founded, April 17, 1909.
Little Rock, Ark., John N. Heiskell and the Arkansas Gazette, oldest newspaper west of the Mississippi.
New York City, News department, Columbia Broadcasting System. Leadership in founding independent radio news system; distinguished reporting and interpretation exemplified by H. V. Kaltenborn and Edward R. Murrow.
Washington, D.C., National Intelligencer (1800-1865). Vital force in nations political force and set high standards of journalistic responsibility.
New York City, Adolph S. Ochs, largely responsible for the revival of The New York Times.
Louisville, Ky., Henry Watterson, outstanding editorialist.
Kansas City, Mo., William Rockhill Nelson, founder, Kansas City Star.
Hartford, Conn., the Hartford Courant, oldest newspaper of continuous publication in the United States.
New York City, James Gordon Bennett.
New York City, Horace Greeley, one of the most influential newspaper editors in American history.
Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin, statesman and newspaperman.
Charlottesville, Va., Thomas Jefferson.
Cleveland, Edward Wyllis Scripps and the Cleveland Press. Publisher, founder of the Cleveland Press and chain of newspapers, plus United Press and Newspaper Enterprise Association.
New York City, the trial of John Peter Zenger.
Baltimore, H. L. Mencken, author and newspaperman.
Columbia, Mo., Walter Williams and the University of Missouri School of Journalism. First school of journalism in the nation.
Pittsburgh, Radio Station KDKA. Reported Hardings election in 1920. First radio coverage of a national event.
New York City, Henry J. Raymond, co-founder and the first editor, The New York Times.
Bloomington, Ind., Ernie Pyle, editor, columnist, war correspondent for Scripps-Howard newspapers.
Alton, Ill., Elijah Parish Lovejoy, editor, The Observer, and a militant abolitionist assassinated by his enemies.
New Orleans, George Wilkins Kendall, co-founder of the New Orleans Picayune, first war correspondent to achieve fame as a regular reporter of military actions.
Boston, Mass., The Boston Gazette, second regularly-published paper in the nation.
Emporia, Kan., William Allen White, editor and publisher, the Emporia Gazette.
Montgomery, Ala., Grover Cleveland Hall, editor, the Montgomery Advertiser. He fought the Ku Klux Klan.
St. Louis, Mo., Joseph Pulitzer, founder, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
San Francisco, Calif., James King of William, founder, editor and publisher, the San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin. He fought corruption in municipal government and was assassinated by a politician after many threats on his life.
A contribution was made to Peter Zenger Memorial Fund.
Bennington, Vt., Anthony Haswell, editor and publisher, the Vermont Gazette. He was jailed for fighting the Sedition Act.
The Societys Historic Sites in Journalism program honors the people and places that have played important roles in American journalistic history. The program dates back to 1942.
The sites were originally marked with a bronze marker, and some honorees include: World War II correspondent Ernie Pyle; Benjamin Franklin; William Randolph Hearst; The Associated Press offices in Washington and New York City; Freedoms Journal, the first Black newspaper published in the United States; and Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black.
Nominations are open. Self-nominations are permitted.
Nomination form should be accompanied by a letter(s) of recommendation that reflects the nominees national historic significance in journalism and why the nominee is deserving of this national recognition.
Submit all nomination materials unbound on 8 1/2 x 11 paper. Additional supporting materials are welcomed and should be limited to 10 pages.
Nominations should also include an indication of the specific location (i.e. building, street address, inside or outside installation) where a bronze plaque would be placed and the name of a person to be contacted to supply additional information if necessary.
Nominators should contact the rightful authorities (such as owner of the building) to ensure that they are amenable to placement of a plaque.
Only one historic site may be chosen each year. However, if one of the nominated sites is not selected, it may be resubmitted for future consideration.
Winner Announcement and Presentation
Honorees will be announced and honored at a special celebration event. A bronze plaque is displayed at the location marking it as a Historic Site in Journalism.
Nominations must be postmarked on or before March 20. Nominations should be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to:
Historic Sites in Journalism
Society of Professional Journalists
3909 N. Meridian St.
Indianapolis, IN 46208
For More Information
Contact the Director of Awards at 317/927-8000 or [email protected] | <urn:uuid:88630209-54c2-41f0-b587-e9fc3af452c5> | CC-MAIN-2013-20 | http://spj.org/a-historicsites.asp | 2013-05-18T06:55:45Z | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2013-20/segments/1368696381249/warc/CC-MAIN-20130516092621-00000-ip-10-60-113-184.ec2.internal.warc.gz | en | 0.885783 | 2,963 |
THE JOCKEY CLUB’S TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF USE FOR REGISTRY.JOCKEYCLUB.COM
PLEASE READ THIS DOCUMENT CAREFULLY BEFORE ACCESSING OR USING REGISTRY.JOCKEYCLUB.COM.
BY ACCESSING OR USING REGISTRY.JOCKEYCLUB.COM OR THOROUGHBREDCONNECT.COM, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH BELOW. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, YOU MAY NOT
ACCESS OR USE REGISTRY.JOCKEYCLUB.COM. THE JOCKEY CLUB MAY MODIFY THIS AGREEMENT AT ANY TIME, AND SUCH
MODIFICATIONS SHALL BE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON POSTING OF THE MODIFIED AGREEMENT ON REGISTRY.JOCKEYCLUB.COM.
YOU AGREE TO REVIEW THE AGREEMENT PERIODICALLY TO BE AWARE OF SUCH MODIFICATIONS AND YOUR CONTINUED ACCESS OR
USE OF REGISTRY.JOCKEYCLUB.COM SHALL BE DEEMED YOUR CONCLUSIVE ACCEPTANCE OF THE MODIFIED AGREEMENT.
1 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE
1.1 The Jockey Club (“TJC”)
provides you with The Jockey Club Interactive Registration™, registry.jockeyclub.com,
subject to these Terms and Conditions of Use. There Terms and Conditions apply to
the website thoroughbredconnect.com and when used herein, all references to
“registry.jockeyclub.com” within these Terms and Conditions also include
thoroughbredconnect.com. As noted above, TJC may change these Terms and
Conditions of Use from time to time without providing you with notification
of any such changes. You can always obtain the most current version of these
Terms and Conditions of Use here. Additionally, when using any particular
service on registry.jockeyclub.com, you may be subject to special guidelines
or rules posted in connection with any such service; all such guidelines or
rules are hereby incorporated by reference into these Terms and Conditions
1.2 You understand that, except for
information, products or services clearly identified as being supplied
by TJC, TJC does not operate, control or endorse any information, products
or services on registry.jockeyclub.com in any way. Except for TJC-identified
information, products or services, all information, products and services
offered through registry.jockeyclub.com or on the Internet generally are
offered by third parties. You also understand that TJC cannot and does
not guarantee or warrant that files available for downloading through
registry.jockeyclub.com will be free of infection or viruses, worms,
Trojan horses, spyware or other code that manifest contaminating or
destructive properties. You are responsible for implementing sufficient
procedures and checkpoints to satisfy your particular requirements for
accuracy of data input and output, and for maintaining a means external
to registry.jockeyclub.com for the reconstruction of any lost data.
1.3 TJC provides the capability to search and
display horse names, along with other indicative information for horses, to
facilitate the running of registry.jockeyclub.com. Use of this service for
reasons other than as required by breeders and owners or their agents to conduct
registration-related business with The Jockey Club is strictly prohibited and
shall be considered a material breach of these Terms and Conditions of Use.
TJC also provides the capability to search and display horse tattoo and microchip
numbers to facilitate the identification of horses. Use of this service for
reasons other than identifying a horse based on its tattoo or microchip number
is strictly prohibited and shall be considered a material breach of these Terms
and Conditions of Use. Through Thoroughbred Connect, TJC also allows you to
attach your contact information to a Thoroughbred you are interested in providing
aftercare or other assistance for (“Aftercare”) in the event that Thoroughbred
is in need of such care, or to request contact information for persons interested
in providing Aftercare for a Thoroughbred in your possession or supervision. Use
of Thoroughbred Connect for reasons other than for facilitating Aftercare for
Thoroughbreds (including, but not limited to, attempts to harass, humiliate or
disparage a specific individual, individuals or entity), is strictly prohibited
and shall be considered a material breach of these Terms and Conditions of Use.
TJC explicitly disclaims any responsibility for the content or availability of
information contained in TJC’s search indexes or directories. TJC also disclaims
any responsibility for the completeness or accuracy of any directory or search
1.4 In connection with your use of registry.jockeyclub.com,
you agree you will not:
(a) Transmit any
message, information, data, text, software or images, or other content ("Material") that
is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar,
obscene, libelous, or otherwise objectionable or that may invade another's right of
privacy or publicity;
(b) Impersonate any person or entity,
including, but not limited to, a TJC official, or falsely state or otherwise
misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity;
(c) Post or transmit any
Material that you do not have a right to reproduce, display or transmit
under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships (such as,
but not limited to, nondisclosure agreements);
(d) Knowingly post or transmit
any Material that contains an infection or viruses, worms, Trojan horses
or other code that manifest contaminating or destructive properties;
(e) Delete any author attributions,
legal notices or proprietary designations or labels that you upload to any
(f) Take any action that
imposes, or may impose, in TJC’s sole discretion, an unreasonable or
disproportionately large load on TJC’s infrastructure and/or that
adversely affects the availability of its resources to other users;
(g) Post or transmit any
unsolicited advertising, promotional materials, "junk mail", "spam,"
"chain letters," "pyramid schemes" or any other form of solicitation
or any non-resume information such as opinions or notices, commercial
(h) Violate any applicable local,
state, national or international law;
(i) Upload or transmit any
Material that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other
proprietary rights of any party;
(j) Delete or revise any Material
posted or transmitted by any other person or entity without their expressed
(k) Manipulate or otherwise
display, database, modify, frame, create derivative works from or otherwise
distribute any content of registry.jockeyclub.com either electronically
(l) Register, subscribe,
attempt to register, attempt to subscribe, unsubscribe, or attempt to
unsubscribe, any party for any TJC product or service if you are not
expressly authorized by such party to do so;
(m) Use any robot, spider,
scraper, automated query program, web crawler, scripts, inquiries or
any other automated means, by whatever name known, to post, transmit
and/or access registry.jockeyclub.com for any purpose without TJC
expressly providing, in an authorized writing, such permission;
(n) Bypass measures we may use to
prevent or restrict access to registry.jockeyclub.com, or;
(o) Otherwise violate the limited
scope of permission hereby expressly granted
1.5 TJC may, from time to time,
audit the activities of users of registry.jockeyclub.com to detect patterns
of abuse and non-compliance with these Terms and Conditions of Use and TJC
has the right to suspend or terminate your use of registry.jockeyclub.com
and refuse to you any and all current or future use of registry.jockeyclub.com
if, in the sole judgment of TJC and without notice to you, such abuse or
non-compliance with these Terms and Conditions is detected.
2 DESCRIPTION OF REGISTRY.JOCKEYCLUB.COM
provides users with access to a rich collection of Thoroughbred registration
data and services. Some services we offer gratis and others are provided for
a fee. Registry.jockeyclub.com is intended for the exclusive use of conducting
registration-related business with The Jockey Club, confirmation of identity
of Thoroughbreds via the use of markings officially recorded by The Jockey Club
or via tattoo numbers or microchip numbers or the facilitation of Aftercare
arrangements for Thoroughbreds via Thoroughbred Connect. Any other use of
registry.jockeyclub.com is prohibited, including obtaining pedigree information
or other registration-related information from registry.jockeyclub.com.
Registry.jockeyclub.com includes advertisements; these advertisements are
necessary for TJC to provide you with registry.jockeyclub.com. Unless specifically
noted to the contrary, any new features or enhancements to registry.jockeyclub.com
shall be subject to these Terms and Conditions of Use. You understand and agree
that registry.jockeyclub.com is provided to you on an "as is" basis and TJC
assumes no responsibility for the timeliness, deletion, mis-delivery or
failure to store any information.
2.2 As a user of registry.jockeyclub.com
you understand that you are responsible for obtaining access thereto and that such
access may involve third party fees, such as Internet service provider fees. You
understand that you are responsible for these fees. Additionally, you understand
that it is your responsibility to provide for all of the necessary equipment and
software in order for your computer to be able to access registry.jockeyclub.com.
2.3 TJC reserves the right at any time
and from time to time to modify or discontinue, temporarily or permanently,
registry.jockeyclub.com (or any part thereof) with or without notice. You agree
that TJC shall not be liable to you or to any third party for any modification,
suspension or discontinuance of registry.jockeyclub.com.
2.4 The information returned by the Tattoo
Identification Service is based upon a comparison between the expected tattoo number
as indicated by our registration records and the tattoo information submitted by each
user of the service. In some cases, such as in instances of tattoer error, international
horses, and other less common circumstances, the information returned by the service may
not reflect the actual tattoo number on the upper lip of the horse in question.
2.5 Thoroughbred Connect is
provided as a service to owners and breeders to assist in facilitating the
provision of Aftercare to Thoroughbreds following the conclusion of their
racing and/or breeding careers. THE JOCKEY CLUB DOES NOT SCREEN POTENTIAL
OWNERS LISTED IN THOROUGHBRED CONNECT TO DETERMINE SUITABILITY OR APPROPRIATENESS
FOR THOROUGHBRED OWNERSHIP OR FOR PROVIDING AFTERCARE. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE CURRENT OWNER TO DECIDE WHICH, IF ANY, POTENTIAL OWNERS OR PROVIDERS OF
AFTERCARE TO CONTACT FROM THE THOROUGHBRED’S LISTING IN THOROUGHBRED CONNECT
AND TO INVESTIGATE SUCH PERSONS AND ANY POSSIBLE FUTURE HOMES FOR THE THOROUGHBRED.
The Jockey Club makes no warranties or guarantees related to or arising out of
Thoroughbred Connect or the use thereof, including, but not limited to, (i) that a
current owner will contact a name in a listing, (ii) that an individual or entity
attached to a horse in Thoroughbred Connect will be suitable, willing or able to
take the horse, or (iii) that the horse will be made available for free.
3.1 If you purchase products and/or
access information or services on registry.jockeyclub.com, you agree to:
a. Provide true, accurate,
current and complete information as required by registry.jockeyclub.com’s
registration form ("Registration Information"); and
b. Maintain and promptly update
the Registration Information to keep it true, accurate, current and complete.
3.2 If you provide any information
that is known to you to be untrue, inaccurate, incomplete, or outdated or if TJC
has reasonable grounds to suspect that such information is untrue, inaccurate,
incomplete, or outdated or if you are otherwise in material breach of these Terms
and Conditions of Use TJC has the right to suspend or terminate your use of
registry.jockeyclub.com and refuse to you any and all current or future use
3.3 Upon registration you will receive
a username and password, both of which will be chosen by you or assigned to you,
in accordance with parameters set by TJC. You are responsible for maintaining the
confidentiality of your username and password, and are fully responsible for all
activities that occur under your username and password. You agree to:
your username and password in strict confidence.
notify TJC of any unauthorized use of your username and/or password or any
other breach of security; and
(c) Ensure that you log off from
your account at the end of each session.
3.4 You agree that TJC, in its
sole and absolute discretion, may terminate your username and/or password
at any time and for any reason, including, without limitation, for lack of
use or if TJC believes that you have violated or acted inconsistently with
the letter or spirit of these Terms and Conditions of Use.
3.5 TJC cannot and will not be
liable for any loss or damage arising from your failure to comply with
3.6 Your username
and password may be stored in a cookie on you personal computer. Any functionality of
your browser that permits usernames and/or passwords to be auto-completed or
automatically retained should be rendered inactive when accessing registry.jockeyclub.com.
with respect to registry.jockeyclub.com see our full Privacy Notice.
5 SPECIAL ADMONITIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL USE
the global nature of the Internet, you agree to comply with all local rules, including,
without limitation, rules about the Internet, data, email, and privacy. And all other
rules regarding online conduct. Specifically, you agree to comply with all applicable
laws regarding the electronic transmission of data.
6 NO RE-DISTRIBUTION OF REGISTRY.JOCKEYCLUB.COM
Without having first obtained TJC's
written permission to do so, you agree not to reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell,
(a) any information obtained from registry.jockeyclub.com,
(b) use of registry.jockeyclub.com,
(c) access to registry.jockeyclub.com.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, you may print and download material from the
different areas of registry.jockeyclub.com as it relates to and is consistent
with the intended use of registry.jockeyclub.com as described in
7 YOUR DEALINGS WITH ADVERTISERS ON REGISTRY.JOCKEYCLUB.COM
Your participation, correspondence
or business dealings with third parties, including but not limited to advertisers,
or participation in promotions of third parties found on or through
registry.jockeyclub.com, including payment and delivery of related goods or
services, and any other terms, conditions, warranties or representations associated
with such dealings, are solely between you and such third parties. You agree
that TJC shall not be responsible or liable for any loss or damage of any sort
incurred as the result of any such dealings or as the result of the presence of
such third parties on registry.jockeyclub.com.
Registry.jockeyclub.com may provide, or
third parties may provide, links to other Internet sites or resources. Because
TJC has no control over such sites and resources, you acknowledge and agree that
TJC is not responsible for the availability of such external sites or resources,
and you acknowledge that TJC does not endorse and is not responsible or liable
for any content, advertising, products, or other materials on or available
from such sites or resources. You further acknowledge and agree that TJC
shall not be responsible or liable, directly or indirectly, for any damage
or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with use of or
reliance on any such content, goods or services available on or through any
such site or resource.
9 PROPRIETARY RIGHTS
9.1 You acknowledge and agree that registry.jockeyclub.com
and any necessary software used in connection therewith ("Software") contain
proprietary and confidential information that is protected by applicable intellectual
property and other laws. You further acknowledge and agree that information
contained in sponsor advertisements or information presented to you through
registry.jockeyclub.com or its advertisers is or may be protected by copyrights,
trademarks, service marks, patents or other proprietary rights and laws.
Except as expressly authorized by TJC or advertisers, you agree not to modify,
rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute or create derivative works based on
registry.jockeyclub.com or the Software, in whole or in part.
9.2 TJC grants to you a personal, non-transferable,
non-exclusive and terminable right and license to use the object code of its
Software on a single computer; provided that you do not (and do not allow any
third party to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer,
reverse assemble or otherwise attempt to discover any source code, sell, assign,
sublicense, grant a security interest in or otherwise transfer any right in the
Software. You agree not to modify the Software in any manner or form, or to
use modified versions of the Software, including (without limitation) for the
purpose of obtaining unauthorized access to registry.jockeyclub.com. You
agree not to access registry.jockeyclub.com by any means other than through
the interface that is provided by TJC for use in accessing registry.jockeyclub.com.
9.3 Domestic and international copyright and
trademark laws protect the entire contents of registry.jockeyclub.com.
The owners of the intellectual property, copyrights and trademarks are TJC,
its affiliates or other third party licensors. UNLESS SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED
ON DIFFERENT AREAS OF REGISTRY.JOCKEYCLUB.COM, YOU MAY NOT MODIFY, COPY,
REPRODUCE, REPUBLISH, UPLOAD, POST, TRANSMIT, OR DISTRIBUTE, IN ANY MANNER,
THE MATERIAL ON REGISTRY.JOCKEY.COM, INCLUDING TEXT, GRAPHICS, CODE AND/OR
SOFTWARE. You may print and download portions of material from the different
areas of registry.jockeyclub.com provided that you agree not to change or
delete any copyright or proprietary notices from the materials.
9.4 You agree to grant to TJC
a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, sub licensable, perpetual license,
with the right to sub-license, to reproduce, distribute, transmit, create
derivative works of, publicly display and publicly perform any materials and
other information (including, without limitation, ideas contained therein for
new or improved products and services) you submit to registry.jockeyclub.com
or by e-mail to TJC by all means and in any medium now known or hereafter
developed. You agree that you shall have no recourse against TJC for any
alleged or actual infringement or misappropriation of any proprietary right
in your communications to TJC.
10 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION
10.1 You understand that by using
registry.jockeyclub.com, you are agreeing that TJC will not, under any
circumstances, be liable in any way for any information contained therein,
including, but not limited to, for any errors or omissions in the information,
or for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any
information contained therein.
10.2 TJC and its licensors shall
not be responsible or liable for the accuracy, usefulness or availability
of any information transmitted or made available via registry.jockeyclub.com,
either directly or indirectly, and shall not be responsible or liable for
decisions made based on such information. For the avoidance of doubt, TJC
does not make any covenants, representations or warranties regarding the
individuals or entities which offer to take a Thoroughbred horse through
Thoroughbred Connect and TJC shall not have any liability arising out of
or related to a horse being placed with an individual or entity listed
in Thoroughbred Connect.
10.3 You acknowledge that TJC is
not responsible for notifying you of any upgrades, fixes or enhancements to
registry.jockeyclub.com or for any compromise or loss of data transmitted
across computer networks or telecommunications facilities, including, but not
limited to, the Internet.
10.4 YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND
AGREE THAT TJC SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR
LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA, OR OTHER LOSSES (EVEN IF TJC HAS BEEN
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR
THE INABILITY TO USE REGISTRY.JOCKEYCLUB.COM; (ii) THE COST OF PROCUREMENT
OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS AND SERVICES RESULTING FROM ANY GOODS, DATA, INFORMATION
OR SERVICES PURCHASED OR OBTAINED OR MESSAGES RECEIVED OR TRANSACTIONS ENTERED
INTO THROUGH OR FROM REGISTRY.JOCKEYCLUB.COM; (iii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iv) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON REGISTRY.JOCKEYCLUB.COM; (v) THE USE OF THOROUGHBRED CONNECT;
OR (vi) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO REGISTRY.JOCKEYCLUB.COM.
10.5 You agree to
indemnify and hold TJC, and its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents,
co-branders or other partners, and employees, harmless from any claim or demand,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, made by any third party due to or arising
out of (a) your use of registry.jockeyclub.com, (b) your connection to
registry.jockeyclub.com, (c) your violation of these Terms and Conditions of
Use, or (d) your violation of any rights of another.
10.6 TJC shall, at it sole option,
have the right to reprocess information to correct any errors of which it is or
11 DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES
YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT:
(a) YOUR USE OF REGISTRY.JOCKEYCLUB.COM
IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. REGISTRY.JOCKEYCLUB.COM IS PROVIDED TO YOU ON AN "AS IS" AND
"AS AVAILABLE" BASIS. TJC EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.
(b) TJC MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT
(i) REGISTRY.JOCKEYCLUB.COM WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS, (ii) REGISTRY.JOCKEYCLUB.COM
WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE, OR ERROR-FREE, (iii) THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE
OBTAINED FROM THE USE OF REGISTRY.JOCKEYCLUB.COM WILL BE ACCURATE OR RELIABLE, (iv)
THE QUALITY OF ANY PRODUCTS, SERVICES, INFORMATION, OR OTHER MATERIAL PURCHASED OR
OBTAINED BY YOU THROUGH REGISTRY.JOCKEYCLUB COM WILL MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS, AND
(V) ANY ERRORS IN THE SOFTWARE WILL BE CORRECTED.
(c) ANY MATERIAL DOWNLOADED
OR OTHERWISE OBTAINED THROUGH THE USE OF REGISTRY.JOCKEYCLUB.COM IS DONE
AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION AND RISK AND YOU WILL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR
ANY DAMAGE TO YOUR COMPUTER SYSTEM OR ANY LOSS OF DATA THAT RESULTS FROM
THE DOWNLOAD OF ANY SUCH MATERIAL.
(d) NO ADVICE OR INFORMATION,
WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN, OBTAINED BY YOU FROM TJC OR THROUGH OR FROM
REGISTRY.JOCKEYCLUB.COM SHALL CREATE ANY WARRANTY NOT EXPRESSLY STATED IN
THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE.
12 EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS
SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION
OF CERTAIN WARRANTIES OR THE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY FOR INCIDENTAL OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES. ACCORDINGLY, SOME OF THE ABOVE LIMITATIONS OF SECTIONS 10
AND 11 MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
Notices to you may be made via email.
Registry.jockeyclub.com may also provide notices of changes to these Terms
and Conditions of Use or other matters by displaying notices or links to
notices to you generally on registry.jockeyclub.com.
14 TRADEMARK INFORMATION
The Jockey Club®, Interactive RegistrationTM and Thoroughbred
ConnectTM and other trademarks and service marks, and other TJC logos and product
and service names are trademarks of The Jockey Club ("TJC Marks"). Without TJC’s
prior permission, you agree not to display or use in any manner, the TJC Marks.
15.1 These Terms and Conditions of
Use constitute the entire agreement between you and TJC with respect to the
subject matter covered herein and govern your use of registry.jockeyclub.com,
superceding any prior agreements between you and TJC with respect thereto.
You also may be subject to additional terms and conditions that may apply
when you use affiliate services, third-party content or third-party software.
These Terms and Conditions of Use and the relationship between you and TJC shall
be governed by the laws of the State of New York without regard to the conflicts
of laws rules thereof. You and TJC agree to submit to the personal and exclusive
jurisdiction of the courts located within the county of New York, in the State
of New York.
15.2 TJC reserves the right to
release current or past user information if TJC believes that a user’s account
is being used to commit unlawful acts, if the information is subpoenaed and/or
if TJC deems it necessary and/or appropriate.
15.3 The failure of TJC to exercise
or enforce any right or provision of these Terms and Conditions of Use shall
not constitute a waiver of such right or provision.
15.4 If any provision of these Terms
and Conditions of Use is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,
the parties nevertheless agree that the court should endeavor to give effect to
the parties' intentions as reflected in the provision, and the other provisions
of these terms and Conditions of Use remain in full force and effect.
15.5 You agree that regardless
of any statute or law to the contrary, any claim or cause of action arising
out of or related to use of registry.jockeyclub.com or these Terms and Conditions
of Use must be filed within one year after such claim or cause of action arose or
be forever barred.
15.6 The section titles in these Terms
and Conditions of Use are for convenience only and have no legal or contractual
15.7 You may terminate this Agreement at any time for
any reason by calling TJC at 800-444-8521 Monday through Friday between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time. The provisions of Sections 9
through 15 shall survive any termination of this Agreement.
15.8 THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, USA, APPLICABLE TO AGREEMENTS
EXECUTED AND PERFORMED WHOLLY WITHIN SUCH STATE, SHALL GOVERN THE VALIDITY,
INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THIS AGREEMENT. IT IS EXPRESSLY AGREED TO
BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO AND ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS SEEKING TO
UTILIZE THE SERVICES PROVIDED FOR HEREUNDER, THAT ANY LAWSUIT BROUGHT AGAINST
TJC SHALL BE COMMENCED AND ADJUDICATED ONLY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK OR IN NEW YORK STATE COURTS LOCATED IN
NEW YORK COUNTY | <urn:uuid:b32dad8b-96a4-4020-a2b4-c23801f6c282> | CC-MAIN-2013-20 | http://www.registry.jockeyclub.com/registry.cfm?page=dotIRTermsOfUseAgreement&CFID=113486625&CFTOKEN=99193161 | 2013-05-18T06:49:43Z | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2013-20/segments/1368696381249/warc/CC-MAIN-20130516092621-00000-ip-10-60-113-184.ec2.internal.warc.gz | en | 0.818582 | 6,515 |
April 6th, 2011
Four thousand people attended the largest annual conference of left and progressive intellectuals in the world over the weekend of March 18-20, 2011. It was the 7th annual Left Forum, at Pace University in lower Manhattan. A thousand speakers, 300 workshops, panels and dialogues on international politics, class war, social justice issues, corporate abuse of power and the ravages of financial deregulation attracted academics, anti-capitalists, socialists, artists, journalists, activists and anarchists to forge bonds of solidarity for social change. They had their choice of up to 45 panel discussions per seven program periods, plus two stellar plenary presentations covering the conference theme “Towards a Politics of Solidarity”.
Internationally known presenters such as Richard Wolff, Stanley Aronowitz, Cornel West, Laura Flanders, Barbara Ehrenreich, Francis Fox Piven, Benjamin Barber, John Nichols and The Yes Men, keen-sighted and eloquent in their analyses and reportage of problems, activists working for change, graced the conference mainstage.
So why were only a few presentations really strong on inspiration and insight for how to foster growing unity among progressives, how to build consensus on outlook and method to bring unity of action to fruition?
For the most part, I heard the need for solidarity answered with a call for solidarity, a need for a new paradigm with a call for a new paradigm. In the face of mounting world catastrophes and collapses, this is just a little like singing, “100 bottles of beer on the wall” together.
I suspect even right-wing spies who no doubt sat among us were underwhelmed by such tautologies. What could they report back that the leftists were planning to do? Top secret: They say they’re going to get together and take down power systems, make demands for multiracial, multicultural harmonious living, end top-down ersatz democracy, rid societies of oppression and exploitation, create equal opportunity and abundance for all . . . .
But there we all were, “together” at the conference, and if there were any coherent plans for how this vast harmonious concert of united humanity is to subsume current power structures and create a better world, I didn’t catch wind of them. Maybe I just went to the wrong rooms.
Because, in fact, I witnessed several quite bristly moments of disharmony, one among panelists on stage and one among audience members, the latter threatened physical aggression, with me shouting “stop!”
And throughout the weekend, there was more accord on explicating societal ills and defining authoritarian power structures than on fresh orientations or practical strategies for building a just and fair society.
Also, to my chagrin, I did not hear discussed what is actually the most significant divide among progressives, the rift between secular atheists and spiritually-oriented progressives. The latter were tellingly under-represented in the Left Forum programming. It appears the two groups do not break bread together, nor smoke the peace pipe around the same campfires.
And, of course, there are those progressives who wouldn't be caught dead or alive at either the Left Forum or at a gathering of, say, the Institute of Noetic Scientists, whose conference attracts the “conscious evolutionary” progressives.
And so the palpable spiritual desertification of our culture, if we could even be said to have a culture at all here in the US, was not considered a key part of the discussion of political, economic or social problems at either of the two Left Forums I’ve attended (2010 and 2011).
But I wonder if spiritual poverty and spiritual heartbreak is of central and essential relevance to our movement and to the urgent global problems so eloquently elucidated and enumerated at the Left Forum.
There were only a couple of classroom panels focusing on spiritual topics. One featured three Christian ministers speaking to a relatively small audience about the radical nature of their congregational work. Another panel, which I did not attend, featured Gary Null, et. al., who may have approached some of the issues I am pointing to here.
The very fact that the spiritual left and the academic left do not, for the most part, speak to each other in public (and that this fact was not deliberately brought forth in the widely attended plenary talks at this year’s Left Forum) speaks volumes about just how intractable a problem achieving solidarity really is among progressives.
How can we speak about solidarity or lack thereof without coming to grips with this glaring dissonance? Not only was this, our biggest rift, left unaddressed as a central topic in any panels I attended, I heard no direct conversation about any of the perennial divisions among progressives—all the little fractures and slices of worldview from Marxists to progressive democrats, to Green Anarchists—and so, where could be the insightful analyses of what human needs give rise to strong ideological identifications and encampments or how such divisions might be transcended? And without such understanding, how are we to begin to approach a more global vision for connecting with those who are not the least bit progressive at this time?
Instead, the need for solidarity was addressed through kudos for Egyptian and Wisconsin demonstrators, through applauding these truly heroic examples and models of solidarity for social justice and regime change, but at a time when neither of these groups have lasting victory to show for their efforts, the kind of social progress that can deal with human greed, aggression, power, supremacy . . . .
There were accolades and strong applause for the solidarity represented by pizza orders called in to feed Madison, WI demonstrators, from unknown ideological comrades watching Madison protests via internet and TV around the US and the world.
Yes! hot pizza pies are significant and meaningful gestures of solidarity, and yet eerily disappointed was I that radicals at the Left Forum did not dig up and chew on the roots of what lasting solidarity really is, the metaphysical elements of brotherhood and sisterhood and what gives rise to them beyond the common enemy, those intangibles that provide persistent courage and energy to power through and prevail in the face of destructive forces that oppose the best in us.
In my experience of the conference only Cornel West went there and so it thrilled me when he said, in speaking of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan: “We actually love those brothers and sisters. And isn’t it something that to believe that is to be radical.” That’s it; that’s right! He actually used the L-word, the seemingly forbidden word that represents a force that knows no bounds or divisions and no obstacles, a force more powerful than all the evils in our way. Bravo, Cornel West! The audience exploded with applause for him.
Why not speak of this in depth and more often? Why the separation of intellect and soul? Can't we get over this?
Is it because this is what gets you good and killed if you start talking about it as an unmediated birthright (Lennon, MLK, Jesus . . .) and start speaking of its lack as the root cause of social injustice?
Other than West’s statements, the general disengagement from the L-word and its meaning as the clarifying, fundamental aspect of life that we must exercise, strengthen and engage in ourselves and each other to full capacity, is the daunting fact that left me bereft, because only by addressing the lack of love amongst progressives and others will we be set to balance and transform our stagnation and galvanize a metaphysics of solidarity. This is how to arrive at a resolute set of actions, with strong and flexible bonds of brotherhood, with loving care and tenderness as our foundation; this is what's necessary for us to overcome rampant toxicity at every level—all of this was crystalized for me by what was lacking at the conference, an understanding of just why progressives are in their perennial underdog position in the struggle for justice.
Are we embarrassed or afraid to love big, bold and colorful? Are we ashamed to speak of abiding love as the energy of our bonds? Are we all just too depressed, anxious and desiccated inside? Can we wholeheartedly live up to taking care of ourselves and each other? Are we too heartbroken by life experience to let love flow and overspill, to beam love in the direction of the future where we will pioneer into 21st Century and excite all those around us to do the same? Are we paralyzed by the evil we have witnessed and continue to witness every day around us? All I can say is that if love is flowing in our hearts and nervous systems, let it not be confined, disguised, or kept too private now; we need it now more than ever.
I am listening for it, looking for it (the L), and yet I hear rampant cynicism, depression and despair. Love is lively, confident and bright. I appreciated the moment when Joel Kovel said in his presentation that “you need faith if you’re going to transform the world.” This is correct. But what is faith?
Faith is not religion, emotion or belief. Faith is a basic trust in life and the forces of existence, a trust in one’s organic sense of what is real and correct, and a trust in the underlying forces and processes of a universe of implicate law and intelligence, exceeding our feeble comprehension. We have to reawaken our capacities to listen, intuit and trust in life's true essentials.
Investigative journalism, accurate assessments and indictments, as well as multiple forms of resistance are surely needed, but we also need more time to be quiet, to be outdoors in wild places, to welcome our own changes, to be creative and make mistakes, to refresh ourselves and to get over our pasts, so that we’re not projecting personal rage from offenses of long ago onto current outrageous situations. Because all that makes for is conflagration, not skillful, creative and radical means that can show the way to the unwise.
The super-communicators of this year’s Forum were Cornel West and John Nichols. The old adage that “it’s not what you say, it’s the way you say it,” reasserted itself fully in the delivery of these orators. They activated bonding forces of solidarity, speaking emphatically with grace, rousing emotion, tempered to below the boiling point.
And yetl, did we not still long for gifts of real imagination at this conference? The cutting-edge is dull, getting perennially stuck at a horizon all too familiar, with too many conflicting views and goals, too much in-fighting. What will cut through to a higher order, to overcome dysfunction in our world.
Lip service is often given to the role of artists and creatives, but were there any artists on the Left Forum plenary panels? No!
At the scale of global society, with nearly seven billion people on the planet now, and with enormous challenges and forces in play, why are all these brilliant thinkers not entirely engaged with just how human beings will function, seven billion strong, as the current imperialist and plutocratic structures are disabled and dismantled, as we would like them to be?
The most clearly desirable practical ideas mentioned were worker cooperatives and relocalization, breaking up of multinational conglomerate financial systems, such as the IMF and the World Bank, reregulating investment banks, decentralizing governments into smaller regional entities and a global redistribution of wealth and power.
These are all ideas in common currency on the left. For those of us not invited to the table at progressive think tanks, it would be galvanizing to us to get feasible pictures of how the society we ideologically want would actually work, how things would be different in our daily lives and how those differences would make dangers we now face shrink back and resolve, how the redistribution of wealth and power would actually be achieved.
And if the answer is that nobody really has such things worked out, even in in their own minds, then how smart is it, really, to convene at this time, to have all these people burning all this fossil fuel to come together just to criticize the yellow brick road and the men behind the curtain? Shouldn’t we all be working locally and personally to open up our visionary capacities so we can see the way forward and then get together to share views and arrive at plans?
The word revolution was certainly in the air at the Forum, but it takes a whole lot more than a word to convince significant numbers of people to revolt. Combat revolutions require sacrifices of lives and materials; and history has shown that even successful people's revolutions can be followed on by regression to old ways.
This is exactly why “the spiritual left” calls for inner revolution, for psychological change, for freedom from addiction, for personal authority and integrity, so that social progress springs from authentic habits of holistic thinking and living, from the resolution of inner conflicts, and freedom from the irritation, discontent and wanting of the immature human spirit.
Everywhere on the Left we are inundated with daunting facts rather than energizing tactics. Facts about the toxicity of what we breathe, drink and eat, stats on the alarming rate of wealth being sucked up the ladder, rallying calls for the redistribution of wealth – So where is the unified, coordinated redistribution-of-wealth strategy? "Tax the rich"? Is this it?
Did anyone at the Left Forum say international general strike? I didn’t hear it. How much personal and moral authority would it take for, say, 25% of people around the world to shut down the global economy and governments and take charge of every aspect of their own lives, as a group, in solidarity? We could do this, just as soon as we are actually ready to handle it.
But how do unemployed people living on government checks strike? Are they going to refuse to pick up their government checks? Are they really interested in bringing down the government that is the teat they’re attached to for food and drink?
And what about employed people or entrepreneurs, up to their eyeballs in debt, kids, cars . . . what would get them to step out of line to bring down the system and build a new world? What do you think? That going to happen if we have no solidarity or plan that encourages these people to drop out of this way of life and stand together?
In which rooms at the conference were they talking about all this?
There were many details given about corporate abuses of power and how Citizens United will effect elections and bring even more corporate power to lawmaking and military authority, more evidence that we are being strangled and poisoned notch by notch, that while we hem, haw, dilly and dally, Fascism is taking hold and tightening its grip.
We were also privy to many specifics and particulars of the escalating environmental devastation of our biosphere and the denial of corporate/governmental power to recognize the urgency and respond. To be environmentally responsible means abandoning a legacy of exploitation and greed with biblical underpinnings, as well as high-stakes investments in growth and expansion of businesses based on extraction, domination and exploitation of natural ecosystems. To be truly environmentally responsible would mean that predatory capitalist system would be finished and the elite standards of living that everyone in the Left Forum audience is used to would be cut way, way back. Ready to rally for that? Just how many people would be put out of work in that scenario? Even if workers were to take over those businesses as coops, how would they run such businesses if they weren’t going to exploit land or other people?
We want to end the wars, close nuclear power plants, stop hydrofracking and tar sands operations, stop offshore drilling. Are you ready to live without fossil fuels? Ever gone hiking and camping? Ever live like a monk or a nun? No? Do these things now and then let's have a radical conversation.
We were told that Fox News is the most watched television news program and that the Wall Street Journal is the most read newspaper; that the messengers on the Right are ever-so-disciplined, consistent and pervasive in their backward messaging.
But isn’t it also true that Republicans are divided on many issues? We were told that half of Republicans identify as Tea Party supporters and the other half poll more like Democrats on the subject of social programs. So, the truth is that they don’t know what to do either and they don’t agree with each other or stand together on a lot of issues. There are pro-choice, pro gay marriage, fiscal Republicans, for example.
So why were there not concentrated analyses of just what our central messages are and why we are so unclear, undisciplined, inconsistent and ineffectual? Why were we not looking judiciously at ways to create lasting solidarity across platforms, across aisles, across all the blurred and shifting lines of the masses of suffering humanity? Why can’t we think bigger and more holistically than we do?
Artists, spiritual elders, and futurists are the visionary systems thinkers with big-picture capacity, long-range vision, and inner resources of satisfaction, but there were no artists or futurists on the plenary stage. Why not?!
Ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, prodigious minds of erudition and passion, where was the much-needed attention to remedying ideological territorialism, which so afflicts the movement for justice and for sanity? Are we to remain defined primarily by what we are not, by what we oppose, by our anti-corporate and anti-capitalist rage, slogans and declarations?
Must it be our destiny to be in the role of yelping underdogs, fighting with our softie-hearted kid gloves in a class war that is totally rigged, where nothing can be done without capital and where we are perennially undercapitalized and forced to fight a losing battle, when in fact we are lovers not fighters? Why was there not more talk along these lines?
I say we've got to change the game in our own lives and who wants to hear that?! Let us no longer recognize the value of paper currency! Let us be defined by our creative vision and leadership, making obsolete, in both word and deed, the shackles of unwholesome societal projects! Disengage! Pull out! Disobey! Divest yourself of everything you've got sunk into the toxic, unreal world. Occupy the land. Leave the cities and get with the land to learn from and work with those who know how to live in harmony with the land.
Laura Flanders said something very important at the conference. She said, “Reality is what we need to grapple with.” This is truly of the essence. And it’s the same reality for progressives, as it is for those on the right. Dissociation from reality is the most pervasive human problem we are called to overcome now, in every social class, at every age, and in every culture and country on Earth.
Our true unity is actually found in our ignorance and weaknesses, in the pain of our confusion, ineptitude, psychological immaturity and disengagement from the Earth, in our not knowing what to do. The energetic network for mass solidarity is actually the shared experience of modernity and industrial civilization and its discontents, its craziness, its falsities, and our shared struggles of being neither here nor there.
Meanwhile everyone is pretending to know more than they do know and to be stubbornly right in that! We are together in our hidden existential pain. We will be strong when we can present a viable structuring of society that gives everyone the time and resources to address their dissociation from reality, to deal with hurt and the possibility of deep healing for future generations, to approach reality afresh, as ones who have learned a great deal since the start of the industrial era, with only perhaps a few elements of it worth keeping. Let us be eclectic about what we have learned; let's keep gems of wisdom and abolish all our many errors of ways and means.
No one can do this while they are on a rat-wheel “workin’ for the man,” when they are caught up in competition, envy and fear. And “the man” can’t do it either, not when he’s in domination mode, waging war, exploiting underlings, setting policies that don’t serve the universal needs of people, scarring the land and pillaging seas for profit. These are people sadly out of touch.
All too few of us can approach and stay engaged with reality if we are living within today’s world structures, which are so very damaging to the spirit. This is why monks and nuns are given protection to be reclusive; they are doing the work of inner alignment with reality. More and more of us could disengage from academia and all forms of institutional and establish work and turn inward to contact reality, living very simply and without fanfare. As we do, we need less and less of what the techno-monopoly world has to offer, seeing it as a sorrowful waste of the gift of life. All people might be touched by reality and therein find rest, peace.
Are we willing to lay down our careers, positions and possessions if that’s what needs to be done to reach our most cherished goals?
Imagine if 85% of the world’s population were highly educated and psychospiritually mature. Anarchy might work. It would not be such a chaotic situation. But if 85% of the world’s population is ignorant, dependent and immature, anarchy is completely untenable, because people cannot self-manage and they will not be trustworthy to look after each other and other forms of life.
A favorite slogan of the Situationists during the European social upheavals in 1968 was "Be Realistic. Demand the impossible.”
Reality itself is demanding that we transcend, create, surpass former limits and that is the natural way of the universe anyway, with or without us. What seems “impossible,” out of reach, is so because our psychospiritual development and its conditions are too undeveloped to live up the moral sense or the creative potential that is ours, but which is very intimate. This demand for alignment with intimate reality is knocking inside all of us but the most severely crippled souls, those very people who so often find their way into positions of power. When are we going to answer to the intimate truth instead of to the magnetic psychopaths who dominate and manipulate through ignorance and lies?
The growth humanity needs now has nothing to do with the growth of an economy or the provision of “creature comforts,” nor with rallies and the fall of governments. It is about deepening and strengthening of our capacity to meet reality and be wholeheartedly aligned with it, to be realized people, working with natural law as our law.
Can we imagine that the basis of our entire global culture is to achieve what is generally considered “the state of enlightenment,” but which is simply alignment with reality?
Will the academic left get with this? If so, you might just be out of a job, professors. How would you like to build a cob house with a bunch of us and put in some gardens and greenhouses?
And, will “the spiritual left” please leave off with the UFOs and aliens, crystals and runes, drug trips, crop circles, reptilian humans, astrology, mystery cults, power of attraction workbooks, drum circles, fortune tellers, pagan rites . . . and meet with intellectuals and just folks around the campfire for some practical architecture?
Now, will the evangelists and the rednecks, addicts, doctors, pharmacists, lawyers, gangsters, secret agents and casino owners turn away from false doctrines, false flags, guns and poisons? What? No? Will you be ransacking our brand new mud and straw villages? Really?
Don’t you want to admit that the native peoples were the advanced minds, the wisdom figures, and that the Europeans were the neurotic, puerile savages?
Can we get a wee bit smarter and more radical now?
Making our demand Life’s demand, taking this upon ourselves as a species, across all borders, boundaries and divisions, is deeply political in nature and also deeply spiritual: these go together. Once you’re fully involved in reality, you won’t have time anymore for consumer business or celebrities, nor will you harbor a shred of interest in the circus of electoral politics.
Bio-psycho-social-spiritual integration and development, dynamic growth, holistic health and clear mind-sight into and through the old and the present has the potential to bring not only the fractured left together, but humanity as a whole.
The imperative for reality changes the human project entirely. We simply cannot go back to sing Jack and Jill, play musical chairs and Ring around the Rosy now. We simply cannot sing anthems, run marathon rat races or have the fruits of our love and work go to war and waste.
The whole stage-set will be dismantled when we are over the silly stories of this theater! All of us, together, over it, over it now! Dull, ditzy, dusty old stories!
Victor Hugo famously said "Greater than the tread of mighty armies is an idea whose time has come." And the time as come, fellow human beings, to acknowledge that when enough of the human race grows up and perceives reality, the seemingly endless cycles of invasion, exploitation and domination of peoples and planet will be obsolete.
There are not enough jails, money or uniformed men to contain, hold back and push down an idea whose time has come.
It is the whole construct of reality that is crumbling and dying around us. Goodbye. Good night. Good luck. Awaken.
©2011 Jari Chevalier
March 11th, 2008
The question, where is your money invested? is experienced by many as a violation, a pointed finger jabbing at them. Well, this gets our backs up precisely because this is where we have compromised our hearts, where we really don’t want to look and listen, where the worm of hypocrisy squirms. It’s what we really don’t want to feel, talk about, and possibly be moved to address. Why?
Because it is still, generally speaking, more financially profitable (higher returns, less risk) in the short term to put money into the coffers of established companies and profiteers, engaged as they may be in disregard of land, people, health and wisdom, and every creature of the Earth.
And so we think we have our money working for us?! We give over our money, which, along with our work, is our most powerful instrument, voice and vote, to this portfolio of doom and Armageddon. And, the game is set up so that the players rationalize and justify detrimental business practices on the basis of having to satisfy their stockholders with high returns. This is a game where profit is the highest value in consideration. So, there you have it.
I was at the Whitney Biennial contemporary art show on preview day and it was a spiritual wasteland, very disappointing. The show mirrors a society that is imbalanced, disgusting, disordered, epically ugly, mad, stupid, broken, mean-spirited and sick. On the audio tour, Ellen Harvey, one of the artists whose work stood out to me, said: “You can’t win, so let’s just start off by failing as extravagantly as possible,” in speaking of her art process. A fitting line for our times. There was hardly a hint of transcendence or visionary attitude in that entire show; instead, despair and hurt and self-indulgence. Is this the best we can do? One wonders about the selection of this uninspired psychic display and what the mindset is there, the agenda.
The proverb “money is the root of all evil” in these materialistically driven times might just as well be “money is the root of all good”. Our money is what we get for the life energy we have expended and both our energy and our money can be put to good, evil or neutral work in the world.
Our money actually does invest us in that which we have invested, even though we are not always willing to look at it that way or to do the real math from a holistic perspective. So then, are we living behind our own backs? Are we content to be strangers to ourselves and each other? Are we actually saying: yes, here, do more of this with our world, kill it, destroy and decimate it, kill it all, just give me another cushion, don’t take away my addictions, and throw in the health insurance.
We have the power, if we have the will, to reform our civilization very quickly, and we can do it with our energy and our money, much more effectively than with our political votes.
If you haven't seen the movie Zeitgeist yet, you can get to it through these links. It's screening at non-mainstream theaters across the country this Saturday. The second link displays those theaters. Part three of this movie gives a historical view of the financial world that you might want to have a look at. I invite your comments on this.
Streaming Zeitgeist movie
Big Screenings on March 15th
Article by Javier Sierra, Sierra Club, "How to Tell Greenwashing from Real Corporate Responsibility"
©Jari Chevalier, 2008 | <urn:uuid:44647ad1-9013-423c-927a-b63150aa908d> | CC-MAIN-2013-20 | http://jari.podbean.com/category/economy/ | 2013-05-21T10:13:56Z | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2013-20/segments/1368699881956/warc/CC-MAIN-20130516102441-00000-ip-10-60-113-184.ec2.internal.warc.gz | en | 0.956277 | 6,154 |
Seanad Éireann - Volume 21 - 21 July, 1938
Extension of Vocational Organisation.
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That, in the opinion of the Seanad, a small commission should be appointed by the Government to examine and report on the possibility of extending vocational organisation by legislative or administrative action.—Senators MacDermot and Tierney.
The Taoiseach Eamon de Valera
The Taoiseach: I was very sorry I was not able to be here to listen to the speeches delivered by the proposer and seconder of the motion, and if other Senators wish to speak on the motion I should prefer to wait and hear what they have to say.
Mr. Douglas Mr. Douglas
Mr. Douglas: The difficulty is that we understood that the Taoiseach would have an opportunity now, so as not to take up his time, and those of us who intended to take part in the debate were reckoning on its taking place after the Bills on the Order Paper had been disposed of.
The Taoiseach Eamon de Valera
The Taoiseach: So far as I am concerned, it is simply a question of saying that I am in favour of the motion, because, whatever view may be taken of it, I cannot see that any harm can be done in having a commission set up to examine the question. It does not commit anyone in advance to any particular viewpoint or to any of the findings, because we have no idea what they may be. The resolution, as it stands here, is “That, in the opinion of the Seanad, a small commission should be appointed by the Government to examine and report on the possibility of extending vocational organisation by legislative or administrative action.” The only question is whether it should not be somewhat wider in its terms of reference than it is—whether there might not be some other methods of encouragement. I am sure, however, that whatever methods of encouragement might be adopted by the Government could be included in the two terms “legislative” or “administrative.” Personally, I have no objection, and no member of the Government, so far as I am aware, has any objection to such a commission being set up. It would be of great importance that this matter should be examined home to see how far the fundamental ideas are capable of being applied in our country and in what direction they might be best applied. If it is simply a question of our view, we have no reason at all to object to this motion being passed, and, if it is passed, we will implement it.
Mr. Hayes Mr. Hayes
Mr. Hayes: Could the Taoiseach give us any idea as to what type of commission he thinks would be suitable? I think that only one of the speakers on the motion made any suggestion on the matter. In the absence of any statement to the contrary, it seems to me that what is contemplated is that the Government should appoint a commission. I take it that is what the Taoiseach understands from it and I wonder what kind of a commission either the movers or the Taoiseach have in mind.
Sir John Keane Sir John Keane
Sir John Keane: My difficulty about the motion is that the mover, and probably to some degree the seconder, hung this on to the question of a better Seanad. I do not think that is implicit in the motion itself. It was suggested— I may be wrong—that it is due to the defects of our vocational organisation that the Seanad is not of the character some people would like to see it. I do not agree with that. I think, so far as vocational organisation is concerned, that there is no serious fault to be found in its approach to a Seanad. It is the method of election that has been at fault. The vocational organisations put on the panel quite a lot of what I personally considered satisfactory candidates, but in many cases they could not survive the process of election.
On the general question of vocational organisation, that is another matter and it opens up a very big question indeed which will require a lot of thought and, I suggest, a very big change in public opinion before it can take practical form. If I might suggest it, the best example we have of the full operation of vocational organisation is that in the Church of Ireland. There is no doubt that the peculiar conditions there lend themselves to cohesion. But, in that body, you have certain powers of legislation very much in the sense of a self-governing vocational body. I see great difficulties in extending that to the agricultural industry, but so far as the approach can be made, it is along those lines I think that you should try to work, to build up a vocational organisation of such a form that a large number of questions within the sphere of agriculture could be referred to what you might call an agricultural Parliament, no doubt with overriding powers and veto by the Dáil. The same with industry. Of course, as we all know, that is very remote. We can only work to that in a very slow and tentative manner, but that would be the ideal at which we should aim. So far as a commission could help in thinking out all that, it would be all to the good.
Mr. Douglas Mr. Douglas
Mr. Douglas: One reason I did not wish to speak until we had some indication of the view of the Government was that, if they were not prepared to accept the general idea of a commission, alternative suggestions might be made. I am glad that the Taoiseach indicated that, at any rate, the idea would be favourably considered. It seems to me that Senator Tierney was quite right when he said that the two questions, the question of extending vocational organisation in the country, and the question of a Seanad which might be elected more or less on vocational lines were two distinct questions. I would not like to see them mixed up in the reference to any commission. I read very carefully the two speeches made and was particularly impressed by the line taken by Senator Tierney. I, at any rate, did not get his ideas as clearly from listening to him as from reading carefully his speech, which I think is worthy of study whether you agree with it or not.
There are considerable practical difficulties, almost insurmountable difficulties, but if a suitable commission was prepared to give time to study the problem, apart from the question of a vocational Seanad, I think it might be of considerable value. At any rate, having regard to the general ideals which were accepted fairly well by all sides in this country some 15, 16, 17, 18 years ago, it seems to me that there is a duty upon us to consider the problems put forward in this resolution, and more particularly in the speeches on the resolution. I would hope that, so far as possible, persons like most of us here who have taken an active part in politics, if not excluded from the commission, would be very definitely in a minority, because I think it is a matter on which we would have to get entirely away from politics as we have known them in the last 15 years. We have a number of divisions which seem to be largely unnatural.
I should like to see those of us who may happen to be here after the next election appointing a committee of our own to consider amendments or improvements in the method of election, which was referred to by Senator Sir John Keane. I think that that would be a thing apart, and that it would not be necessary to wait in respect of it until you had a detailed report from a commission of this kind. That is one of the reasons why I should like to see the two things kept distinct. An expansion of vocationalism would have to be brought about by a policy carried over a considerable number of years. There would be a lot of difficulties to be surmounted, and I do not think you should necessarily wait until that is achieved before making an attempt to rectify the things which have not worked very well in connection with the election of the Seanad. I am glad that the Government is prepared to accept the principle of this resolution, and I think that the Seanad should approve of it without a division.
Mr. O'Callaghan Mr. O'Callaghan
Mr. O'Callaghan: The extension of vocational organisation is very desirable. It may, or may not, give us a better Seanad. It may, or may not, give us a better Dáil. If carried to its logical conclusion, it may deprive this House of the services of the proposer and seconder of this motion. That, of course, would be a step in the wrong direction. What I propose to say, I want to direct to two vocational organisations in connection with agriculture —the Dairy Shorthorn Breeders' Society and the Beetgrowers' Association. I shall first deal with a small portion of the work carried on by the Dairy Shorthorn Breeders' Society. Anybody going through the City of Dublin will see the tramcars and buses decorated with “drink more milk” slogans.
That was brought about by representations made to the Minister for Agriculture by the Dairy Shorthorn Breeders' Society. The drink-more-milk campaign will have a very great effect on the health of the nation. It will do away with patent medicines and doctors' bills. People will have more money to spend and they will be more cheerful. It may even bring about the setting up of a milk bar in Leinster House where, under the influence of milk cocktails, Party bitterness will entirely disappear and a new spirit will supplant the old. I am just relating this small section of the work of the Dairy Shorthorn Breeders' Society to illustrate the good that an association of that kind might do for the State and for the people.
There is, then, the Beet Growers' Association, which some people seem to overlook. It has a membership of 30,000 beet growers and speaks for some thousands of grain growers. Most of the beet growers in the West of Ireland are small farmers. The average acreage is about one and a half per grower. It is a little more in other areas. I tell you that to illustrate the fact that the labour used is family labour; not paid labour. In the other areas, the acreage is a little bit greater but not much. Seventy-five per cent of the beet grown in this country is grown by family help. The difficulty with the beet growers is the question of price and not the setting up to guilds or organisations of any kind. The Beet Growers' Association have had considerable difficulty in getting a price to which they would be agreeable. Some experts seem to have advised the Government that sufficient acreage would be got at the price which is being offered. That advice was wrong and it has done considerable harm to the industry. There is a shrinkage of 12,000 acres in this year's beet crop and, unless the crop is a very bountiful one this season, it will be very difficult to get beet for 1939.
I am glad that the Taoiseach is here because we have not had an opportunity of telling him what the position is. The powers that be say that the man who lends his money is entitled to his due reward. They say that the factory worker is entitled to get what he gets. They say that the cost of sugar must not be increased to the public and that the State cannot give any further help. They say that, after full provision is made for depreciation and reserves, the beet grower can get the rest. The position is an anxious one for the beet grower who is anxious to get the industry going. He finds himself at the wrong end of the stick. We have been discussing the formation of guilds and several ways and means of getting a price that will induce the farmer to grow beet. We have in the current issue of the Beet Growers' Journal an article from a very distinguished churchman on the formation of guilds in connection with the Beet Growers' Association. That journal was sent to 30,000 or 35,000 growers and was read by them and their families. In that way, we have done a lot to educate public opinion about the formation of vocational bodies. A motion will be discussed at the annual meeting in connection with this matter and any member of this House who cares to go and listen to it will be provided with a seat in the distinguished strangers' gallery. Three factors, in my view, govern the sugar industry. One is the man who lends his money—in other words, the capitalist. I do not call him a capitalist because plenty of small men lent small sums for the setting up of the industry. Then, there is the factory worker and, then, the beet grower. A vocational body composed of these three factors would seem to be a desirable way of controlling the industry but the difficulty the beet grower has is that he will be coming in as the underdog. He regards the other people as being well away and he does not regard himself as being on the same plane. The only difficulty we have in connection with the setting up of that guild to control the sugar industry is the question of price. I hold that the beet grower is the backbone of the industry and that he should not play second fiddle to any of the other component parts.
The setting up of a commission may not be the right means of developing vocational organisation. I know the way the Dairy Shorthorn Breeders' Society was set up. It was got going by half a dozen people who put their backs into the work. If we had sufficient civic spirit, and if we had a little more national pride, there might not be any need of a commission to deal with vocational organisation. Vocational organisation is very desirable, but whether or not the setting up of a commission is the proper means of approaching it, I leave the House to judge.
Mr. Quirke Mr. Quirke
Mr. Quirke: I find myself largely in agreement with Senator Sir John Keane, so far as this motion is concerned, in so far as he says that too much stress was laid on the system of electing the Seanad. This question of a system of election for this House was under discussion for several months. During that time, very little in the way of suggestion that was of any use came from any quarter. As always happens, the best hurlers are on the ditch. If anybody can suggest a better method than the method which has been in operation up to now, I am sure the Government will be quite pleased. The present system is far from perfect, but I believe that it is the best system that could be found under existing conditions. I am not against the setting up of a commission, for the reason that I believe that the discussion of this motion will create a better atmosphere so far as the development of vocational organisation is concerned. With all due respect to the proposer and seconder, I think that the motion is not properly worded. I do not believe that vocational organisation can be developed by legislative means. I believe that it will have to be a natural growth. The atmosphere at present is more favourable to this purpose than it has ever been for the simple reason that vocational organisation should be the natural outcome of the activities of a native Government. As a result of this commission and as a result of the activities of some of the Senators who have been sent here by vocational bodies, that atmosphere will spread and, even within the next year or two years, even if we did nothing further about the matter, we should have considerable development in that direction.
I think that there was very little of value in the speeches made by the proposer and seconder of the motion. They rambled from the subject. I believe that a commission can do very little of itself to achieve our purpose, but that the setting up of a commission, combined with the discussion we have had, will induce people to talk about the matter. They will find that useful work has been done by some of the Senators sent here by various bodies and they will realise that it is up to them to organise themselves into groups and send men here who will look after their interests. At the same time, some of the men sent here would be well advised to keep away from politics. Political speeches in this House by men sent here by vocational bodies will have a tendency to prevent development of opinion in the direction which we seek.
Mr. Condon Mr. Condon
Mr. Condon: I consider this a most fascinating subject, particularly as we can all talk with extraordinary wisdom about it, seeing that few people know very much concerning it. So far, the speeches have been good. There was, certainly, a shock for all of us in the proposing of the motion. We are used to shocks in this House after the major shock of the dissolution of the Dáil, which meant that we, as a body, were about to be dissolved before we were familiar with the upholstery of the place. After that, we can get over any shocks. The seconder of the motion ought to have got a shock when he heard all that was said by the proposer as to what he considered the gravamen of the resolution. It seemed to me as if Senator MacDermot wanted the mountain to go into labour to produce a mouse—a new mouse. He was much distressed about the character of this House. Evidently, sensitive people, with high vocational qualifications, could not bring themselves to do the ordinary, vulgar things that have to be done to become members of this House. They could not be expected to go out in public and canvass or do anything like that.
If I am a member of the electoral college, I can see, and so can Senator MacDermot, circulars on my table every morning from some of these vocational experts, these people who were so busy and so remote from the people, so removed from the ordinary vulgarities of life. Anyone who receives these circulars will note how these very remote people can speak of their own exceptional qualifications and hold forth on the benefit it would be to the nation to have them elected to this Seanad. If Senator MacDermot had read some of these circulars he might, perhaps, change his mind. I tell the Senator that these people are not at all so remote from the ordinary vulgarities of life as has been suggested. I know they are very valuable people, but there is no doubt that if there is any possibility of their getting here by any means then they will get here. But these are the men that the Senator had in mind when he was speaking of a vocational Seanad. That is really what it means, the mountain in labour and it produced a very trifling thing.
Senator MacDermot's speech was very discursive. I think in that speech he dealt with all subjects. Indeed he omitted very few things. He did not touch on bimetallism nor on the breeds of poultry but he dealt with nearly every other subject one could think of. He touched on the Pope, and I was afraid for a time that he was going to take serious action with regard to His Holiness. However, in the end he was very nice to the Pope, and I am sure His Holiness will be very glad when he hears about it. We have been told that the Pope's Encyclicals have been very widely read, but that they had been misunderstood. Anyone who had not read these circulars and was not acquainted with what was in them would begin to think that they were such mysterious things that the ordinary man could not possibly understand them. Now the fact is that the Pope's Encyclicals were entirely inspired by concern for the people. They were written in such a way that even the common people could understand them —they were so immensely clear. In these Encyclicals the Pope said really necessary things, and he said them in a plain way. I have read them and I am familiar with them. There is nothing in them that an ordinary person could not understand.
When the first Encyclical was published over 40 years ago it received as much attention that time as if it had been written by me. Then the world had not broken the skin of the Dead Sea fruit. The world had not known the Great War. The world had not understood how wretched the organisation of society was and what terrible possibilities for evil lay in society as it then existed. As I say at that time the world had not broken the skin of the Dead Sea fruit, and this great Encyclical was almost wholly ignored. It required a further Encyclical from the present Pope, Pius XI, to draw further attention to it. He suggested that the vocational organisation of society might be remedied. He drew attention to some of the dreadful things that were about us. If one turns from the fashion parades in Grafton Street or George's Street, examines the position in the slums and inquires into the life that obtains there, he will understand something about the Pope's Encyclicals. The conditions are bad in our slums but they are a thousand times worse and more infamous in countries that are very much richer than ours. In some of those very rich countries people are born into conditions that are certain to ensure that they will be maimed in mind, body and morals for the rest of their lives. Hundreds and thousands and even millions are born into such conditions as these all the time while we have been preaching Christianity.
Senator MacDermot's concern seemed to be with getting ideal electors. I do not know where these ideal electors are to be got except down in the Kildare Street Club. But when we get these ideal electors the Labour Party will not exist any longer. That appears to me the big thing that he sees in this motion. The Labour Party and the Farmers' Party will disappear. I think that in itself would be a disaster. No matter what vocational conditions obtain human nature will not change. There will always be greed and avarice in the world. Once we had the Guild system. The Guilds became vicious, so that greed and avarice and other abuses grew up in them, and they needed correction. It may be just the same with this vocational organism that we hope to see established in the future.
I think it is absolutely necessary that society should organise itself on absolutely different lines from the present. Most of the people to-day are simply living under serf conditions or in slave conditions. The people who are depending on casual labour are in a slave condition. Let us consider the position of these people, and if we do we will find their position is really worse than that which existed under the old slave conditions. I remember it was a shock to us all when we read long ago that John Mitchel had taken the part of the Confederates in the American Civil War. In that Civil War John Mitchel was on the side of the South. He wanted to maintain the slavery system. Now, Mitchel was an enlightened man and a great lover of freedom, but he gave his reasons for the stand he took up on the American Civil War. He said:—
“Here you have a mass of black labour which at present represents so much chattels to the men who own it. These new people in the North who discovered that slavery is such a dreadful thing want the slave owner to free his slaves in order that they are to be thrown into an already over-crowded labour market where the slave will have no value except that when he is worn out he will be replaced by another man.”
John Mitchel's reasoning on that occasion was borne out subsequently by John Ruskin. In that matter John Mitchel showed himself a man of extraordinary vision.
To-day you have in the world much worse conditions than the slave conditions of the American negroes. Now, in this State of ours we have a wholly undeveloped country. In anything that we have to decide to do in the future it would be well that we should remember that the normal development of Ireland had been obstructed for centuries. As G.K. Chesterton described it, the whole trouble was that we had no government here. It was not a case of having a bad Government or a good Government. What we suffered from was really the determination of another people to annihilate and wipe out our people. That was their policy for centuries and that policy had had its reactions. In a hundred years our population had been reduced by something like 50 per cent. We have counties like Meath that I represent with a population of half what it was 50 years ago. Now that country is wholly undeveloped.
Every month one can read in one of the most useful publications published here in Ireland a series of articles showing the difference between the use we make of our land and the use that Belgium is making of its land. Belgium has something like 7,000,000 acres of land. It has over 1,000,000 holdings. We have 17,000,000 acres of land, that is 10,000,000 acres more than Belgium, and we have 230,000 holdings. We have one-quarter of the number of holdings and 10,000,000 acres more land. What is really happening in the country is that extremely little use is being made of our natural wealth. But we need not turn in an emergency way to vocationalism or anything else to remedy that. We have, I know, big leeway to make up. As I say we have prime land practically undeveloped. We are producing only one-quarter of the wheat which we require for our people. Yet we have something like 100,000 people unemployed and the people from the rural parts are crowding into the towns. We were told yesterday that the country workers are crowding into the towns. There is for that a very good reason and that is that the people who hold the land have no intention of employing labour on it. Their whole purpose seems to be something on the principle that obtained in the consolidation of farms, 80 or 100 years ago when village after village was wiped out and the land laid out in such a way that cattle could be turned on to it and need not be seen more than three times in the course of a year. That is the use that is being made of our land.
The first thing I would ask the National Government to deal with is to see that the whole land of Ireland be put to the service of the people; that the people should be put back on it and should be given a chance of living a normal life in the country places. We have no normal life in the country places. Take the education of our young people. Most of the young people go to the elementary schools until they are 14 years of age. Just then when they are in a position to learn something, when they are just trained in the technique of learning they are taken away from the schools. From that until the very end of their careers there is not a soul to bother about them. That is true of 99 per cent. of them. There is a shameful wastage of the best of material. This sort of thing is, in a large measure, the cause of the wrongness of mind of so many of these people. These unfortunate people develop on entirely wrong and wretched lines. They have wretched sources for their development. There are so many injurious papers and then there is the wireless business that is utterly unhelpful to these people. They are abandoned at the age of 14 to become ignorant slaves and certainly not getting much of an opportunity to live virtuous lives. That is a problem on which this nation should concentrate.
We have heard a lot about vocational education or technical education, Senator Tierney was alarmed for fear we should take his resolution as meaning technical education. Technical education was one of the things that were introduced into this country many years ago. Ninety per cent. of the people associated with it were shams. Such things as lace-making and sprigging were taught and things that were utterly wasteful. That was really of no service to the country and it touched only a very slight fraction of our people. It did not touch at all the people who leave our elementary schools at the age when they should be taken up by a Government and made into useful citizens. These young people were really abandoned; there is no doubt about that. I am interested in this proposal in one respect. We are said to be in need of a different Seanad from the one we have got. Now the one we have is an admirable one but I am sure it will be changed in a few weeks' time.
What we really want are correctives to the present organisation of society under which a big number of our people are simply committed or condemned to lives of shame, misery and suffering. There is no doubt about that. That is the horror the Pope foresaw when he suggested that correctives be applied 40 years ago. If the world had listened to him then things might have been different. Instead he was treated with contempt. Then the full horror came along; the masses of the people revolted and we have these terrible scenes which we hear of nowadays, these terrible conditions that obtain in Spain and Russia, which were brought about by popular revolt but which the originators of the revolt never foresaw. They started out with the idea of securing freedom for the people who had been ground to the dust. These horrors may possibly be in store for us in Ireland if we ignore our trust and our duty.
I certainly think that this subject should be examined in the fullest possible way, examined in every possible detail, to see if it is at all possible to spare our country from the horrors which other countries have suffered. We must remember that the masses of the people were ignored as dirt. There was absolutely no concern for them. In recent years some little concern has been shown. We have got down to the matter of the minimum wage for agricultural labourers but still we have people quarrelling about it. We have got down to the question of looking after widows and orphans and there are people quarrelling about that, describing it as an unspeakable burden. We have shown a little bit of humanity in our government but we have heaps of protests. Well, we have an example of the unspeakable horrors which have been brought about in other countries by the fact that the sufferings of the people were ignored. The fact that this reorganisation of society has been recommended by His Holiness should give us a lead, for His Holiness has centuries of wisdom, a tradition of wisdom, behind him in these matters, and his lightest word is worthy of consideration. I do not want to enter into the various considerations so singularly ably put forward by Professor Tierney but I think it will be generally agreed that we should have an exhaustive enquiry into the possibilities of the reorganisation of society along some other than the present system, under which the masses of the people are simply being exploited to the advantage of a few.
Professor Johnston Professor Johnston
Professor Johnston: I agree with the proposer of this resolution that the question of promoting vocational organisation in this country is quite separate from the question of the best method of constituting this Seanad. At the same time, I cannot help feeling that if the existing vocational bodies were given the right to elect, as well as the right to nominate to this House, nothing would contribute more effectively to the growth of vocational organisation in the country. I remember as an example of that, in connection with the recent elections to the Seanad, I heard for the first time of the existence of a body known as the Limerick Cottiers' Association. It was brought into existence not because it was given the right to elect, but because it was given the right to nominate to this body. I think on that analogy that when a smaller right than the right to elect, the right to nominate, produced such an effective result, the right to elect would produce even more effective results in inducing professional and other bodies to attempt vocational organisation. I think that a vocational body, if it had the right to elect, would be likely to use that right in a somewhat less partisan manner than is inevitable when the right to elect is given to an electoral college in which the elements of Party organisation are necessarily present. Mind you, I am not deprecating in any way the existence of Party organisation because I think Party action is a necessary adjunct to the machinery of democratic government. When you have a democratically-elected machine functioning you are bound to have Party organisation and a Party spirit and it is so necessary to the working of democratic government that I would not regard it as an evil. But everything reacts in accordance with its nature. There is an Irish proverb which says: “What can you expect from a pig but a grunt?” What can you expect from a democratic popular assembly, given the right to form an important part of the electoral college, but that when they come to elect Senators, they are bound to be influenced by Party considerations, and that they are not likely to choose precisely the same people as the vocational body itself would choose?
I think most people outside of this House would agree that it is desirable that the element of Party spirit, which is necessarily strong in the other House, should be kept as far as possible out of this House. In a democratic assembly the various sections of the community there represented engage in a struggle in which the interests commanding a majority, generally speaking, get their own way. If it so be that the interests which triumph are also the interest of the nation as a whole, it is well, but it is quite conceivable that the interests which triumph in that democratic assembly may not be exactly coincident with the interests of the nation as a whole. It is, therefore, desirable that there should be a corrective to that spirit, and I think no better idea for correcting that partisan spirit has been arrived at than the idea of developing the vocational spirit which, as I say, is quite separate and distinct from the partisan spirit.
The object of vocational representation is not that the people represented should further their special interests or should attempt to get away with anything which is in their sectional interest and is not in the interests of the nation as a whole. The object is that they should contribute their specialised knowledge to the deliberations of the Seanad; that they should seek, as far as possible, to enlighten public opinion and the Oireachtas as a whole, as regards the lines along which national interests must be pursued as against interests which are clearly partisan. I have nothing but admiration for the personal relationships which exist between us in this part of the House and you on the other sides of the House, but, at the same time, I cannot help wishing that the Party spirit was rather less evident. Occasionally it breaks out, although we may strive to restrain it. If the Party spirit were rather less evident, and the vocational spirit rather more evident, then the general tone of this assembly would be improved. Sir, I do not want to appear to be reading a lecture, but I do want to urge that we should consider the question of attempting vocational organisation, and, at the same time, not lose sight of the possibility of improving the general lines along which this House is at present constituted.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
Mr. Hughes: I am not inclined to oppose the setting up of this commission, but I must say that I am not of opinion that there is any practical solution for this great problem of vocational organisation. Senator Douglas, to my mind, got very near to the kernel of the situation when he said that it was not possible to get away from political questions in public life. References have been made to trade unions and to their place in vocational organisation. Trade unionism was founded for a certain purpose, and it did achieve a large amount of good. It has, as some people are inclined to put it, taken the workers up off their knees, but is it not strange to find that, as it developed and as time went on, quite a small number of people could use the organisation, formed for the purpose for which it was, for purely political purposes? I am saying that because I believe that it is absolutely true. Other organisations formed for other purposes will undoubtedly be used in the same way under present circumstances in this country, because we cannot at this stage get away from political matters. Perhaps, in some years to come, in ten or 20 years' time, we shall have reached a stage when a practical solution can be found. As I say, I am not opposing the setting up of a commission, but I believe that such a commission would find itself up against difficulties and snags, and that it will have to realise the difficulty of developing vocational organisations here to any great purpose.
If, in this country, the people as a whole, had a similar attitude to national questions as the people in other countries, England, for example, if we had the whole people here giving unswerving loyalty to their own country, that loyalty which supersedes every other consideration, then I would say that it would be quite an easy matter to find a solution of this problem and to have vocational organisation in a real, practical way but I say that you have not the whole of our people giving that unswerving loyalty and devotion to their country which is necessary for that purpose. Senator Johnston mentioned that there was a possibility that vocational bodies might be less partisan. I should like to think that that were possible but I am afraid for the reason that I have stated that it is not possible. When we reach the stage where loyalty to the country will be the first consideration, then we will be nearer to the period when the people who are interested in this subject will realise their ambitions. I do not wish to oppose the motion. I should be glad to see this commission working although I have not very great hopes for success in that direction at the present time.
Mrs. MacWhinney Mrs. MacWhinney
Mrs. MacWhinney: This motion I feel is not happily worded. I think it would be more acceptable if it suggested that the Act as it now exists might be examined with the object of including amongst the nominating bodies vocational bodies which have not the right to nominate now. I am thinking of one or two vocational bodies that have been in existence for a very long time. For example, there is the nursing council which was established in 1919. It is a statutory body, and I think that it is, without exception, the best organised vocational body in Ireland to-day. Yet, for some reason it has not the right to nominate. It has a membership of 16,000. From the moment that a nurse starts her training to the day she leaves it, she is under the supervision of that vocational body. Her examinations, her registration and everything is looked after. We have a body like that with no right to nominate. Against that you have a veterinary vocational body with the right to nominate. It seems strange to me, at any rate, that the people who look after the animals of the country are regarded as being more important than the people who look after human beings.
You have other bodies, in which I am interested that have not the right to nominate. You have the Amalgamated Society of Social Services. This society of women is representative of quite a big number of social service bodies. They have not the right to nominate. Against that you have the Mount Street Club which has the right to nominate.
Listening to all the speeches that were made on this motion my only regret is that some of them were not broadcast so that we could have them discussed afterwards. If the speakers had written out their speeches and issued them in advance, I think I would have enjoyed them more than I did listening to them. If the commission which it is suggested should be appointed were given power to include in the scope of its inquiries the vocational bodies that should have the right to nominate, then I think we might get a Seanad more representative of the vocational bodies of the country than the one we have at the moment.
Cathaoirleach: Senator MacDermot to conclude.
Mr. MacDermot Mr. MacDermot
Mr. MacDermot: I should like first to express my gratification that the Taoiseach is prepared to accept this motion and to consider the appointment of a commission. Senator Hayes inquired what kind of a commission was contemplated. As far as I am concerned, I have already said that I would like to see the commission a small one, and to see it very largely composed of enthusiasts for the vocational idea. As the Taoiseach said, nothing that such a commission suggests commits us in any way, but the people who have gone most deeply into the subject are the people, I think, on whom the burden should be in the main laid to suggest a practical application of their ideas. I think there are several distinguished men in this country, several of them clerics, such as Father Coyne, the well-known Jesuit, who have written on the matter with great ability and thought on it very deeply. I would put such men on the commission. I would appoint with them a good lawyer and a good practical business man, and a man or woman familiar with labour conditions and perhaps someone else who is more of a general politician. Thus you would have four men who are not experts on this particular subject who would address their minds to it from a practical point of view, and with them you would have perhaps six or seven men who have thought on it very deeply, who are enthusiasts about it and wish to see their ideas applied. This is going to give them the opportunity of putting their ideas into practice.
Senator Condon has accused me of having rambled over too wide a field in the speech in which I introduced the motion. Looking back over it, I find that it is not a very long speech though it may have seemed so to the unhappy Senators listening to me. I occupied less than half an hour in speaking, and I personally cannot find one single irrelevant word in the speech. Of course, it may be considered that I devoted too large a proportion of it to the effect of this vocational idea on the Seanad. That is a matter on which we can afford to differ, but, as I have said, I cannot find anything irrelevant in it. I had to listen to Senator Condon discuss negro slavery in America, the blighting effect of British rule in this country, our present land system and the need for a drastic reform of it, and finally, the necessity for completely changing our educational system. Listening to him, I began to wonder what exactly is the standard of relevance that Senator Condon is in the habit of applying.
The same Senator took me to task for having suggested that Papal Encyclicals receive a good deal more praise in this country than they do serious consideration, and for having ventured the opinion that rather more might have been done than has been done to give them practical effect. I am unable to see how anybody can seriously contest a word advanced on that subject. There has been immense praise for the ideas in these encyclicals, and abuse of other countries—France, England and Europe in general—for not having taken sufficient notice of them. I ask what notice have we taken of them here in Ireland except to praise them, and even to-day I find Senators, a good many of them, lukewarm about the mere proposition to set up a commission to examine the possibility of giving them any practical effect. Surely that is the very least we ought to do if we mean a word of our praise of Papal Encyclicals or of our condemnation of the world as a whole for not paying sufficient notice to them. Perhaps some Senators take the view that there is nothing in these matters that can be done by Government action; that these vocational bodies must grow up spontaneously from the soil or not come into being at all. I can see no reason for taking that view. I certainly do not think that the Government can force them on the country like a straight jacket, but I do think that the Government can do something perhaps by legislation, perhaps by administrative action, or perhaps by encouragement and propaganda.
As I pointed out, in our original Constitution 16 years ago, we went to the trouble of putting in a provision saying that the Oireachtas may set up vocational councils representing branches of the social and economic life of the nation, and that possibly some powers of the Parliament might be delegated to such councils. Again, we went to the trouble in our present Constitution of repeating that almost verbatim. If there is any sense at all in putting such things into our Constitution surely it is time that we gave them some sort of sequel such as is now suggested by Senator Tierney and myself by setting up this commission to examine the subject. Surely there is nothing extravagent or visionary in such a proposal. It is not a proposal that should have been listened to with the scepticism, if not hostility, with which it apparently has been listened to by some Senators.
As regards the bearing of this Motion on the question of the Seanad, I quite agree that the composition of the Seanad is, in a sense, a separate subject, and that the composition of the Seanad, if it needs to be dealt with by legislation, could be dealt with without any such Commission as this being set up; and possibly it may be so dealt with even during the course of this Commission's sitting. I venture to draw attention once again to Article 19 of our new Constitution, that Article that many Senators seem to overlook. It says:—
Provision may be made by law for the direct election by any functional or vocational group or association or council of so many members of Seanad Eireann as may be fixed by such law in substitution for an equal number of the members to be elected from the corresponding panels of candidates constituted under Article 18 of this Constitution.
Now, that is in our Constitution, and what is the sense of suggesting that it is some sort of a plot emanating from the Kildare Street Club, as I think Senator Condon indicated, to propose that something should be done about that? Some of the Fianna Fáil Senator do not seem to be familiar at all with the policy of their own Party. They do not seem to realise that the Minority Report of the Second Chamber Commission, which recommended the adoption of this idea, was accepted in principle by the Fianna Fail Government. I have no desire to do more than to contribute what I can to the making of the Fianna Fail policy a reality, and to bring it more perfectly into effect in these matters than it has yet been brought into effect. Obviously, if a Commission is set up to consider the question of extending the Vocational Organisations, that will have a bearing on the Article in the Constitution which says that in the future such Vocational Organisations may be given the right or direct representation.
I said frankly enough that perhaps may principal interest in this motion was to lay a firm foundation for a vocational Seanad. I also agreed that it had wider aspects, and apparently I said more about those wider aspects than some Senators seem to like; but to those who are enthusiastic about those wider aspects, and who rather deprecate any talk of the bearing of this motion on the constitution of the Seanad, I would say that surely they ought to think it a great help for one to go even a little way on the right road with them and to show a desire to tread that road. There is room for difference of opinion as to how far it will turn out practicable here in democratic Ireland for Parliament to delegate powers of more or less legisative character to Vocational bodies. There is room for great difference of opinion about that, and I personally have an open mind about it. I do not know whether we can succeed in making this complete re-organisation of society that Senator Tierney, for instance, has in mind.
But, whatever view we take about that, whether we are optimistic or pessimistic about it, at any rate it ought to be regarded as helpful to go a little way along the road and it will not take any very extraordinary or enormous development of the vocational idea to provide a firm foundation for a vocational Seanad. If we get as far as that, then we can consider going still further and giving larger powers to vocational bodies. As Senator Johnson said, the mere fact of giving direct representation to such bodies would certainly have a tendency to encourage them to come into being and would also, I think, have a tendency to get rid of some of the undesirable duplication that exists in certain departments of our life, because, as I said the other day, while there are branches of the national life where no vocational bodies exist, there are some others where too many exist and where the difficulty would be to reconcile their conflicting claims to send representatives here to the Seanad.
I do not want to go into the question of how far the present system of electing the Seanad is satisfactory or not. I said a certain amount on it the other day but I would like to stress the point that I did not use the word “vulgarity” in connection with that as I think Senator Conway rather implied that I had. I did say that some men of the vocational type were not suited to electoral campaigns, and I do not think anybody can deny that that stands not only for electoral campaigns on public platforms but for electoral campaigns in the corridors of Leinster House. I do not think that the present Seanad Electoral Act is a good Act; I had not an opportunity of taking part in the discussions on it because I did not happen to be a member of the Legislature when it was under consideration; but I do not think it is a good Act and I think that there are dangers inherent in it which might become in the future very formidable.
I think that anyone who reflects for a little bit on what could take place will say that it opens the door to corruption. It would be quite possible for unscrupulous men to get themselves elected by bribery when it is only a question, say, of needing to purchase half-a-dozen votes to enter the House. I am, however, far from saying that such a thing would be conceivable at the present moment, but I do think that we ought not to rest content with a system that makes corruption easy and that is one of the objections to the present system. I will say no more about the Seanad.
I submit that the ideas which are referred to in this motion are of such fundamental and world-wide importance that we have been guilty of neglect of duty in not having done more about them. The excuse can be offered that we have been occupied with other matters very vital to this country, and that one has not got time to think of everything and do everything; but now that some of the burning topics have been put out of the way, and that, pacé Senator Hughes, we are, throughout the country united in our loyalty to the State, I feel that the time has come when we ought to turn our hands to seeing what can be done to carry out these ideas or put them, at any rate, to the test.
Question put and agreed to.
Seanad Éireann 21 Extension of Vocational Organisation. | <urn:uuid:0d958ea8-52ae-47fb-b240-f42ff19da80b> | CC-MAIN-2013-20 | http://www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie/S/0021/S.0021.193807210003.html | 2013-05-21T10:29:12Z | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2013-20/segments/1368699881956/warc/CC-MAIN-20130516102441-00000-ip-10-60-113-184.ec2.internal.warc.gz | en | 0.983451 | 10,539 |
|About Us||Holy Land Sites||Holy Land Tours||Photos||Christian||Community||Travel Tips||Easter 2013|
Tags - sukkoth
‘Lets walk the Mikvah in the city of the King' - City of David and Hezekiah's tunnel
Walking in tunnels are exhilarating story reads and with a flashlight in hand, it feels like a Discovery or National Geographic. City of David and the Hezekiah's tunnel became a physical as well as a non-physical reality, for reasons, I learnt eventually.
Then again, the reason had a season. And this was during my fourth visit to Israel. Past three visits, I have walked past the City of David admiring its entrance and even taking photographs with the golden harp, but never ventured within. This time with the group I was with had Ir David in the itinerary. Being the last day of the Sukkoth holiday and there was also a planned prophetic Wedding Feast to attend on return to the hotel.
King David has been one of my heroes and his war strategies have never ceased to amaze me, beginning with knocking down Goliath. And now, here we were in the King's city considered to have been the original Jerusalem. According to our guide the story is as old as 3,000 years ago, when King David left the city of Hebron for a small hilltop city known as Jerusalem, establishing it as the unified capital of the tribes of Israel.
Our visit began at the observation point overlooking Jerusalem. As I stood there overlooking the excavated site, I felt transported in the timeline, way back to the days of Abraham when the foundations of the city were first laid to present days excavations that made me relive King David's conquest of the Jebusite city. The tour-walk moved down the hillside stone stairs heading underground to some of the newer archeological excavations.
As we walked down the steps to an area marked ‘G' - The Royal Acropolis Water System (Warren's Shaft), we were reminded of Charles Warren's discovery of the ancient underground water tunnel outside the walls of the old city from the Western Wall. Apparently, this was recognized to be similar to the underground water tunnel or ‘gutter' as described in 2nd book of Samuel 5. The stepped wall on this hill in the area is believed to be the retaining wall that many archeologists believe to be the ‘Citadel of Zion' mentioned as King David's conquest of the city (2 Samuel 5:9)
The walking down tour ended at the Gihon Spring. This was the major water source of Jerusalem for over 1,000 years and where, according to the Bible, King David's son, Solomon was anointed king.
Somewhere in between the walk down Pat tugged me impatiently, ‘I have to go to the mikvah. Please come?' I looked at her and shook my head. How did she know that I too was curious about the ‘bath'? I had seen the baths in nearly every excavation site I visited, but a real one? How would one experience that? Still baffled, she tugged me along to the ticket counter for the Hezekiah's tunnel walk. That was the mikvah she wanted to walk and I complied, immediately. As with every ‘planned' visit, we were the last ones, after which the ticket counter shut!
There is an interesting fact about this tunnel, mentioned in the 2nd Book of Chronicles 32:30 of how the city was defended from the Assyrian army. King Hezekiah protected the water system by diverting its flow deeper into the city with a tunnel system. This tunnel was built by digging a 1,750 foot tunnel into the mountain. An ancient stone describes this incredible operation.
This stone reminded me of David Van Koevering's key to Quantum Leap ‘All matter has memory - your words are recorded', in which he narrates Joshua 24:27, ‘And Joshua said unto all the people, ‘Behold this stone shall be a witness unto us; for it hath heard all the words often LORD which He spake unto us. It shall therefore be a witness unto you, lest you deny your God.'' And then there was Habakuk (2:11) and Yeshua (Luke 19:40) who said the same thing of stones witnessing. So, were the stones listening at the time? Every word, action and deed done in flesh has been recorded, according to the quantum theory.
Trekking this tunnel has today become a highlight for visitors and for Pat, Shalin, Gabriele and me a sense of duty - the Mikvah. How timely was this? After this we had the Wedding Feast of the Lamb to attend.... I enjoy half-planned last minute head-on programs! ADONAI perfectly plans HIS surprises...
The entrance was more like a cave that was well lit and gave the place a golden glow. We bought our little key-chain torches. I was a little disappointed, thought they would be flashlights, like the days of yore. But the excitement didn't wane. We arrived at to our destination - the 2,700 year old water tunnel one of the wonders of early engineering.
The water was cool and rose knee-high as we walked in, barefoot. The air within was cool; it was very dark; the space between shoulders narrowed as we walked forward, bending in some places. How so natural!.. And so well preserved! There was something about these walls -white lime portion of the wall - that seemed to reflect a golden color and it seemed to say something. It was instant - I allowed Quantum physics to let me hear and the Holy Spirit to pave the way of my thoughts. I allowed my left hand to run through the wall and impulsively pressed my ears, as if to hear something.
The walk was a silent one, with only sound of our feet splashing the water, everyone ‘soaked' in their own thoughts. I wonder if anyone thought as loud as I did... In time, we reached the end that opened into the Pool of Shiloach. Fragments of pillars are seen in the pool, which are remains of the Shiloach Church that was built here. We waited for a while watching children play in this pool and decided to do the same, wondering when would this happen again.
As we were leaving, we were self-introduced to a man who took us around to an ongoing excavation from here that showed us a huge wall painting - an artist's impression of the temple steps; shared Baron Edmond de Rothschild leading philanthropic role in acquiring property in the Land of Israel for rebuilding the Jewish Yishuv (Community); and took us to a nearby area where excavation of steps is yet underway, which he said, may probably have been the way that the Holy Priest would have taken during Sukkoth from the Pool to the Holy Temple for the water libation.
We were curious. Who was this man? He says that he was part of the excavation team.. and he too, wasn't sure why he was there. Looks like he owned a shop there, but there was no forceful sales made.
This was more than I had ever imagined or expected from being obedient to my call from my Abba for this Sukkot trip! History, experience and learning for real are a package deal that only Israel could give me till date in my life! Today when I go through challenges and feel blocked in a dark tunnel, I know now that there is a healing Pool of Shiloach at the other end.
‘Let's walk the Old City Ramparts..
Walk about Zion, go round about her,
number her towers, consider well her ramparts,
go through her citadels;that you may tell the next generation that this is God,
our God for ever and ever.
He will be our guide for ever.(Psalm 48:12-14)
.. and see where King David's soldiers stood and what they saw from their vantage points', is what we - Pat, Gabriele, Shalin and I - wanted to do following the ‘water-walking' experience at the Hezekiah's tunnel, all immersed, even in our own memories.
We walked up and down the road from the City of David to the Jaffa Gates and got our tickets. It was a tiny Entrance fee. There seemed to be just a handful of visitors at the time with our little group of four. Adventurous and prepared, were we, all with walking shoes and some water - there was this guide tip - Be prepared for a lot of stone-stairs in varying levels.
One part of the Ramparts Walk begins just outside Jaffa Gate. The entrance is a bit hard to find. Before going through the gate into the Old City, head to the enclosure to the right of Jaffa Gate, as you face the Old City. You'll be walking between two stone walls on a stone path. Follow the signs or ask someone - the entrance is a bit of way down, around a corner to the left. This section takes you from Jaffa Gate to Zion Gate and lets you off near Dung Gate, not far from the Western Wall Plaza and the Jewish Quarter. It offers a stunning view of Old City rooftops, Sultan's Pool, Yemin Moshe, Mt. Zion and the Mt. of Olives. You can also access the ramparts from Damascus Gate follow them to Lion's Gate.
Near the Entrance, there is a stone sit-out. While sitting there, waiting for Shalin to finish her sandwich, I looked around and a thought crossed my mind ‘we are about to walk another piece of Bible history!' What a fun way to get the overview of Jerusalem in the 21st Century, by climbing the olden ramparts (the watch-points, I say) of the Old City and circle the city above. There were moments I wondered what must have passed by the minds of the soldiers standing guard in the varying time periods. Walking on top of the Old City is exhilarating and gives you wonderful view over the new city of Jerusalem through the arrow slits on the turret walls and/or over them.
There are places that I had never seen in my earlier visits, like the cloistered Armenian compound, an old hospital... from each vantage point; we could see the day-to-day Old city life and the exuberance of Sukkoth. The hubbub of city life in this holiday season was worth capturing on film and just drinking in the sight from where each of us stood - bustling markets, sheets hanging on washing lines, a vendor frying falafels, festive dancing on temporary platforms....
The walls of Jerusalem that we see today were built by Suleiman the Magnificent in the 16th century when he restored the ancient city walls that served as military fortifications. During 1948-1967, the Jordanian snipers used the ramparts as a vantage point. Multiple bullet holes stand witness to this shooting position on old buildings facing the Old City. Today, the ramparts serve a more peaceful purpose as a choice destination for school field trips, tourists and Jerusalem enthusiasts, I understand.
The walk is about 4 kilometres. You can't circumnavigate the entire Old City in one shot, since access to the ramparts of the Temple Mount is closed off, and the road bisects the walls at Jaffa Gate. We had to descend at the Lion's or Dung Gate and resumed from the Damascus Gate.
It is not advised to walk alone or after dark. Should you wish to experience the Rampart Walk, go for it! And again, the tip to heed: the walk requires a lot of stair climbing and descending. Make sure you're wearing comfortable walking shoes, and that you have enough water with you - once you're on the ramparts, there's no getting off until the end and no refreshment kiosk or bathroom along the way. While this is fun for adults and older kids, avoid taking little children, those fearful of heights and people who have trouble walking.
I have visited and traveled the Holy Land, no better description, for pilgrimage, a tour and even for a Bible feast and have yet not had enough. It is so true when people say, 'The Bible comes alive' - every stone talks here! | <urn:uuid:974a355c-1605-48a6-83d3-68a019d193d4> | CC-MAIN-2013-20 | http://www.travelujah.com/blogs/posts/Irene/tag/sukkoth | 2013-05-21T10:07:52Z | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2013-20/segments/1368699881956/warc/CC-MAIN-20130516102441-00000-ip-10-60-113-184.ec2.internal.warc.gz | en | 0.971733 | 2,564 |
“Like the rest of Washington, the CIA had fallen in love with technology. The theory was that satellites, the internet, electronic intercepts, even academic publications would tell us all we needed to know about what went on beyond our borders” (Robert Baer). I first read this quote in Robert Baer’s memoir, See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA’s War on Terrorism. The book chronicles the former case officer’s career in the Middle East when the area was not yet a priority in US politics. Ultimately, Baer goes on to critique the changes he noticed in the CIA’s infrastructure. He noticed increased federal and military involvement in the civilian organization’s infrastructure, and thus an increase in bureaucracy and a shift from HUMINT (human intelligence) to SIGINT (signal intelligence).
Baer’s critiques are ones that I have taken to heart when I think about how the US organizes its wars. We have developed a love for bureaucratic systems and technological intelligence. The reality is that wars no longer resemble Clausewitz’s “Trinitarian” model and battles are no longer a matter of who holds the superior technology. These are lessons learned broadly from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War to more detailed outlines provided by Roger Trinquier. In order to adapt to the post-Trinitarian model, there must be a return to HUMINT and strategic flexibility that is not provided in bureaucratic systems. Essentially, the United States is stuck in a bureaucratic system that promotes the use of technology, which is what prevents the military from developing creative solutions and thoroughly understanding the enemy.
First, to explain the problem with the modern military, I’d like to explain how the military and the subsequent branches working for it are bureaucratic. Sociologist Wolf Heydebrand defines bureaucracy as “a formally rational system of administrative control based on technical knowledge [with] a fixed hierarchical structure with long-term career paths and closely guarded borders.” Considering that a top-down hierarchy is the basic structure of militaries with decisions made by a “chain of command,” I would think it’s fair to say that are elements of a bureaucratic system. Rank and promotion dictates everything within the military, top positions given to those with the most experience.
During the 1970s, the United States underwent a renaissance of liberal thought dubbed neoliberalism. This represented a shift in public desires from organized bureaucracy and stability to dynamic expressionism and individualism. While businesses were taking advantage of this dynamic shift in thought, the government proved slow to change. Michel Foucault noticed that the shift did not completely dismantle bureaucratic systems but brought in a new illusionary liberalism: “Neoliberal governmentality.” As Heydebrand notes: “Neoliberal supply-side policies and practices either transformed the remnants of formal-legal bureaucracy or gave rise to new, imaginative and experimental ways of organizational governance, including subcontracting, outsourcing, project teams, the use of casual, contingent, freelance and temporary labor, and the incipient decline of organized labor.”
The problem here is that the illusion of absolute freedom and innovation is given, but there still exists bureaucratic systems in place that control many aspects of how work is produced. In the case of the military, innovative thinkers tend to have some say in how warfare is organized, but there still exists remnants of bureaucracy and social rules in place in this hierarchical system that cannot give full freedom of expression. As we enter a “post-Trinitarian” model of warfare, our military thinkers and strategists must be flexible, as Sun Tzu wrote, we must be able to shift through unknown terrain like “water.”
Tradition and bureaucracy stifles development of thought. Humans have a history of relying upon technology and technological developments to act for us, and to an extent, I think it has been a great motivator for innovation and social progress. However, “Over the past 300 years, people have long since become accustomed to blindly falling in love with the new and discarding the old in the realm of technology, and the endless pursuit of new technology has become a panacea to resolve all the difficult questions of existence” (Unrestricted Warfare).
Although originating in China, where the communist social structure and different history has created a very different system of thought that my Western-centric thought has difficulty grasping, the question of the limits of technology has stirred my mind. When I look at each new predator drone being built, a new missile system, or a new plane developed for military use, I often think to myself “what’s the point?” If I think about these tools of war being developed from a pragmatic standpoint, I can’t think of any good reason. After entering the “post-Trinitarian” model, the use of planes and tanks are hardly practical. They are extremely inefficient in fighting guerilla adversaries, which as Trinquier proposes, are the future enemies of warfare. An ostentatious presence prevents the homogenized military from winning over the population that terrorist cells embed themselves within.
However, the development of these technologies makes sense when I think about them in terms of the bureaucracy that the US military is stuck in. There was a time when Keynesian investment in military technology stimulated the economy, providing jobs and endorsing companies. The United States fights asymmetrically because it is still beneficial to these companies. Aside from this economic standpoint, the reliance on technology reinforces the idea of a hierarchical military, legitimizing the bureaucracy of warfare.
Planes and tanks that will never be put to practical use are very expensive and require a complex system to ensure that they are protected. These are complex technologies that need to be monitored by a chain of command in order to ensure their safety. Training exercises require that they be taken care of by a variety of people, properly shipped to different base locations around the world, and put into training exercises under strict supervision. The maintenance of these tools requires a complex bureaucracy, and thus the military is put into a cycle. Tradition and bureaucracy ensures the manufacturing of these weapons, and the complex nature of the weapons enforces the bureaucratic nature of the system that created them in the first place.
So now that I’ve explained the traditional hierarchy of bureaucracy in the military, how this bureaucracy develops useless technology, and how this developmental process legitimizes itself, I would like to conclude this essay with how this all prevents what I think is the key to evolving into van Creveld’s “post-Trinitarian” warfare: the acquisition of HUMINT. I began this essay with a quote from Robert Baer, who explains that the primary intelligence gathering arm of the US, the CIA, has been stifled in developing due to a reliance on technology and limitations in innovative thought. In short, what Baer is trying to explain is that the US has rendered itself incapable of truly knowing its enemies. Baer’s critique comes from the fact that it’s easy to justify full-scale military action when a satellite image is placed into the hands of a policy-maker. Either data gathered from the depths of the internet or from a satellite image can provoke aggression. Depending on the scale of the threat, either the military is deployed, as it had been in Afghanistan and Iraq, or we rely further on technology and send drones to “surgically remove” key targets in the war against an idea.
These tactics are ineffective because we are not opening our ears, we are not listening to others, we are not learning what others want, and we do not attempt to understand a different society. The US seems to operate under the assumption that human beings can easily adapt from a dictatorial social structure to a democratic model with ease. However, when we attempt to make that shift, we forget to listen to the needs and desires of others. For instance, the main source of income for Afghani farmers would be heroin produced from poppy fields, a direct conflict of interest with the US. How would the US ensure the relative economic stability provided by the Taliban without forfeiting American societal mores?
As professor Corradi explains in The Dream of Sun Tzu or How to Lose a War, “it did not cross their minds to consult sociologists and anthropologists, who could have explained to them that in Iraq, the primary loyalty is to the clan rather than to the nation.” There is no preemptive attempt to understand whom we plan to fight; policy-makers did not listen to sociologists or anthropologists and continue to make this mistake. Eventually, the situation in Iraq became so dire that the US military employed something that I believe to be conceptually brilliant, but too little too late: Human Terrain Teams. Groups of anthropologists go to the battlefield and interact with local populations, attempting to understand their wants and needs. Why did we wait so long to try this? If we are engaged in a nation-building policy, why not attempt to build a nation based on the social structures of the people and not our own standards? If the United States wishes to move forward in the way we think about war, we have to start trying to understand the people. This will require diplomacy, HUMINT gathering by actually deploying personnel on the fields, and academic understanding of who we plan to help or fight, and why.
I fear that war with Pakistan or Iran could be looming around the corner, always hinted at, and yet again, we have not asked ourselves why Iran pursues a nuclear program or why Pakistan has been supporting the Taliban. In order to fight properly, the US needs to abandon asymmetrical warfare, its reliance on technology, and traditional methods. | <urn:uuid:74b51272-7608-4e73-b2d5-0b0813e036c9> | CC-MAIN-2013-20 | http://lalapaloser.tumblr.com/tagged/war | 2013-05-23T18:38:24Z | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2013-20/segments/1368703682988/warc/CC-MAIN-20130516112802-00000-ip-10-60-113-184.ec2.internal.warc.gz | en | 0.950815 | 2,005 |
"\"Kissine offers a new theory of speech acts which is philosophically sophisticated and builds on w(...TRUNCATED) | <urn:uuid:eb43ea76-2540-45c2-ae23-dc27a6a5300d> | CC-MAIN-2013-20 | http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?SubID=20284 | 2013-05-23T18:31:54Z | "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2013-20/segments/1368703682988/warc/CC-MAIN-20130516112802-0000(...TRUNCATED) | en | 0.930054 | 2,754 |
"|Navigation » Global Information Technology (UK) Ltd. » download EarthMediaCenter online music ra(...TRUNCATED) | <urn:uuid:212fcd76-3138-490e-92ec-e20168786eda> | CC-MAIN-2013-20 | http://www.downloadatlas.com/freeware-c642ac4c.html | 2013-05-26T02:56:44Z | "s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2013-20/segments/1368706499548/warc/CC-MAIN-20130516121459-0000(...TRUNCATED) | en | 0.768746 | 2,600 |
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 229