text:
Birdsong-related DNA sequences tied to autism-linked genes
by Laura Dattaro / 6 December 2021
Language link: Zebra finches and other birds that learn songs carry mutations near genes that are often mutated in autism.
Courtesy of Lomax Boyd
Genes that appear to play a role in some birds' ability to learn songs are frequently mutated in autistic people, according to a new study.
The findings show the value of studying the evolution of specific traits in other species, says Sarah London, associate professor of psychology at the University of Chicago, who was not involved in the work. "It's a powerful use of comparative biology. This is work that could not be meaningful if done in the standard lab rodent models."
Babies learn to speak by listening to and mimicking sounds made by the people around them. This kind of 'vocal learning' is found in only a few other species, including dolphins, whales, bats, songbirds, hummingbirds and parrots.
To understand the origins of vocal learning, the researchers scanned the genomes of 33 bird species for 'accelerated regions' — sequences that are similar among song-learning birds and have more genetic changes than those of birds that lack vocal learning, suggesting those regions contributed to the skill's evolution.
Both people and avian vocal learners share patterns of differential gene expression in speech and language areas of the brain, the researchers showed in 2014 — patterns not seen in birds or mammals that don't imitate sounds. The new work reveals that accelerated regions linked to vocal learning in birds occur in noncoding areas that regulate those same genes — many of which are often mutated in autistic people.
The findings could help researchers better understand the functions of autism-linked genes that might contribute to language difficulties, says lead investigator Erich Jarvis, professor of neuroscience and genomics at Rockefeller University in New York City.
"We would learn a lot about not only them, but about our own selves, including health-related issues," Jarvis says.
Language genes:
The researchers identified 3,608 accelerated regions in songbirds, as well as 3,400 in parrots and 1,795 in hummingbirds.
The regions in songbirds and parrots differed from those in other birds, specifically in noncoding portions of the genome that control genes involved in speech in people, including FOXP2 and MEF2C, both of which are linked to autism.
Another 64 regions — many of which are located near FOXP2 and MEF2C or another autism-associated gene, NR2F1 — are accelerated in both vocal-learning birds and in people. And many genes implicated in syndromic forms of autism overlap with genes located near an accelerated region in songbirds, Jarvis and his colleagues found. The regions are linked specifically to genes that are mutated in autistic children who are minimally verbal, the researchers found in an unpublished analysis, Jarvis says.
The findings suggest that those particular genes evolved for spoken language, and that mutations in them lead to language difficulties in people, Jarvis says.
"We haven't proven that," he says. "But certainly the correlation is there and pretty striking."
The genes regulated by accelerated regions in the avian vocal learners also overlap with a set of genes that is accelerated in people compared with other vertebrate species, Jarvis says.
The findings were published in Genome Research in October.
Trait specificity:
It's possible the strategy could be used to identify genes that are associated with specific autism traits, Jarvis says, providing targets for genetic screens that could help clinicians identify the best therapies for a given person early in life.
But researchers should be cautious about assuming the genes contribute to language similarly in birds and people, says Emily Casanova, research assistant professor of biomedical sciences at the University of South Carolina in Greenville, who was not involved in the work. Some consider language an "emergent property" — similar to consciousness — that may develop in ways specific to brain structure, she says, and birds' cortical structure is different from our own.
"It may be relevant to autism, but at the same time it may be something unique to birds," Casanova says. "It has been such a long time since we have had a common ancestor."
The study lays a path for researchers to move beyond known autism-related genes and better understand how other parts of the genome contribute to complex behaviors such as language, London says.
"That's why this study is — it seems like maybe a strange word — but I would say hopeful," she says. "It points the way forward to new avenues of investigation that can be tapped by a community of people to start breaking down these different kinds of biological contributions to behavior."
The researchers next plan to use animal models to study the genes that seem to play a role in minimally verbal autism, Jarvis says.
Cite this article: https://doi.org/10.53053/AIWD8025
TAGS: autism, language, spoken version, vocalization


Moving jobs, changing your career direction or even starting your own business is one of the hardest things you will do. Ensuring you are protected is paramount, the worry of getting it right is enormous and what help will you be given?
These are the very reasons why Avocet Travel Management has developed its Partners Programme to help you make the right choices.
Our Partners Programme is aimed at existing travel agents, or agents who want to start up their own agencies – big or small we are here to help.
Peace of mind is an essential factor in your decision to move, so Avocet Travel Management has become a member of the Advantage Travel Partnership. This gives us autonomy within the industry, but the financial backing to protect you and your clients to the highest levels possible.
Add to this both ABTA and ATOL protection, and both you and your clients are financially protected giving them (and you) total confidence in what we do.
We will never tell you how to run your business, will never say don't use a particular supplier or tell you to do things in a certain way… but we will make suggestions and freely give advice. It's up to you how you use it.
It's all about you and what we can do to help you achieve your personal goals.
and then give us a call for an informal, confidential chat on how we can collectively progress.
I really am looking forward to your call.


Witness one of the Seven Wonders of the World and discover your inner philanthropist by joining Make-A-Wish® New Zealand on the Walking for Wishes: Great Wall of China 2019 challenge! Every step you take will help grant life-changing wishes for hundreds of New Zealand children battling critical illnesses.
As part of this life changing adventure, you'll experience by foot, the grandeur of China's ancient history.
Starting in Beijing, you will discover some of China's most beautiful historical landmarks, such as the Forbidden City and the Temple of Heaven. Nothing short of extraordinary, you will then swap the hustle and bustle of the city and follow the footsteps of the past along the Great Wall.
Challenge yourself like never before as you trek over cloud-kissed mountains and through majestic forests, rustic villages and rolling farmlands. With the support of our expert guides, you'll explore the many facets of the Great Wall, deciphering the ancient stories and poems etched into its watchtowers, every brick seeming to tell a story of war and adventure.
Make-A-Wish NZ grant around 200 wishes every year, but sadly this doesn't cover all of the several hundred children who are diagnosed with critical illnesses annually. We urgently need more funds to reach the additional 200 children who are still waiting to have their wish fulfilled.
With every step you take on the Walking for Wishes: Great Wall of China 2019, you will be raising vital funds to help us reach these 200 children with critical illnesses who are patiently waiting to experience the transformational effect of having their one true wish fulfilled.
Enter your details to receive the full itinerary and info pack with more about how Walking for Wishes will help Make-A-Wish NZ grant the wishes of children with critical illnesses.


text:
Translating evidence-based guidelines to improve feedback practices: the interACT case study
Karen L. Barton*, Susie J. Schofield, Sean McAleer, Rola Ajjawi
Background: There has been a substantial body of research examining feedback practices, yet the assessment and feedback landscape in higher education is described as 'stubbornly resistant to change'. The aim of this paper is to present a case study demonstrating how an entire programme's assessment and feedback practices were re-engineered and evaluated in line with evidence from the literature in the interACT (Interaction and Collaboration via Technology) project. Methods: Informed by action research the project conducted two cycles of planning, action, evaluation and reflection. Four key pedagogical principles informed the re-design of the assessment and feedback practices. Evaluation activities included document analysis, interviews with staff (n = 10) and students (n = 7), and student questionnaires (n = 54). Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the questionnaire data. Framework thematic analysis was used to develop themes across the interview data. Results: InterACT was reported by students and staff to promote self-evaluation, engagement with feedback and feedback dialogue. Streamlining the process after the first cycle of action research was crucial for improving engagement of students and staff. The interACT process of promoting self-evaluation, reflection on feedback, feedback dialogue and longitudinal perspectives of feedback has clear benefits and should be transferable to other contexts. Conclusions: InterACT has involved comprehensive re-engineering of the assessment and feedback processes using educational principles to guide the design taking into account stakeholder perspectives. These principles and the strategies to enact them should be transferable to other contexts.
BMC Medical Education
Barton, K. L., Schofield, S. J., McAleer, S., & Ajjawi, R. (2016). Translating evidence-based guidelines to improve feedback practices: the interACT case study. BMC Medical Education, 16(53). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0562-z
Barton, Karen L. ; Schofield, Susie J. ; McAleer, Sean ; Ajjawi, Rola. / Translating evidence-based guidelines to improve feedback practices : the interACT case study. In: BMC Medical Education. 2016 ; Vol. 16, No. 53.
@article{654e9a55d9074d2e9ba1403bea3de6df,
title = "Translating evidence-based guidelines to improve feedback practices: the interACT case study",
abstract = "Background: There has been a substantial body of research examining feedback practices, yet the assessment and feedback landscape in higher education is described as 'stubbornly resistant to change'. The aim of this paper is to present a case study demonstrating how an entire programme's assessment and feedback practices were re-engineered and evaluated in line with evidence from the literature in the interACT (Interaction and Collaboration via Technology) project. Methods: Informed by action research the project conducted two cycles of planning, action, evaluation and reflection. Four key pedagogical principles informed the re-design of the assessment and feedback practices. Evaluation activities included document analysis, interviews with staff (n = 10) and students (n = 7), and student questionnaires (n = 54). Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the questionnaire data. Framework thematic analysis was used to develop themes across the interview data. Results: InterACT was reported by students and staff to promote self-evaluation, engagement with feedback and feedback dialogue. Streamlining the process after the first cycle of action research was crucial for improving engagement of students and staff. The interACT process of promoting self-evaluation, reflection on feedback, feedback dialogue and longitudinal perspectives of feedback has clear benefits and should be transferable to other contexts. Conclusions: InterACT has involved comprehensive re-engineering of the assessment and feedback processes using educational principles to guide the design taking into account stakeholder perspectives. These principles and the strategies to enact them should be transferable to other contexts.",
author = "Barton, {Karen L.} and Schofield, {Susie J.} and Sean McAleer and Rola Ajjawi",
journal = "BMC Medical Education",
Barton, KL, Schofield, SJ, McAleer, S & Ajjawi, R 2016, 'Translating evidence-based guidelines to improve feedback practices: the interACT case study', BMC Medical Education, vol. 16, no. 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0562-z
Translating evidence-based guidelines to improve feedback practices : the interACT case study. / Barton, Karen L.; Schofield, Susie J.; McAleer, Sean; Ajjawi, Rola.
In: BMC Medical Education, Vol. 16, No. 53, 09.12.2016.
T1 - Translating evidence-based guidelines to improve feedback practices
T2 - the interACT case study
AU - Barton, Karen L.
AU - Schofield, Susie J.
AU - McAleer, Sean
AU - Ajjawi, Rola
N2 - Background: There has been a substantial body of research examining feedback practices, yet the assessment and feedback landscape in higher education is described as 'stubbornly resistant to change'. The aim of this paper is to present a case study demonstrating how an entire programme's assessment and feedback practices were re-engineered and evaluated in line with evidence from the literature in the interACT (Interaction and Collaboration via Technology) project. Methods: Informed by action research the project conducted two cycles of planning, action, evaluation and reflection. Four key pedagogical principles informed the re-design of the assessment and feedback practices. Evaluation activities included document analysis, interviews with staff (n = 10) and students (n = 7), and student questionnaires (n = 54). Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the questionnaire data. Framework thematic analysis was used to develop themes across the interview data. Results: InterACT was reported by students and staff to promote self-evaluation, engagement with feedback and feedback dialogue. Streamlining the process after the first cycle of action research was crucial for improving engagement of students and staff. The interACT process of promoting self-evaluation, reflection on feedback, feedback dialogue and longitudinal perspectives of feedback has clear benefits and should be transferable to other contexts. Conclusions: InterACT has involved comprehensive re-engineering of the assessment and feedback processes using educational principles to guide the design taking into account stakeholder perspectives. These principles and the strategies to enact them should be transferable to other contexts.
AB - Background: There has been a substantial body of research examining feedback practices, yet the assessment and feedback landscape in higher education is described as 'stubbornly resistant to change'. The aim of this paper is to present a case study demonstrating how an entire programme's assessment and feedback practices were re-engineered and evaluated in line with evidence from the literature in the interACT (Interaction and Collaboration via Technology) project. Methods: Informed by action research the project conducted two cycles of planning, action, evaluation and reflection. Four key pedagogical principles informed the re-design of the assessment and feedback practices. Evaluation activities included document analysis, interviews with staff (n = 10) and students (n = 7), and student questionnaires (n = 54). Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the questionnaire data. Framework thematic analysis was used to develop themes across the interview data. Results: InterACT was reported by students and staff to promote self-evaluation, engagement with feedback and feedback dialogue. Streamlining the process after the first cycle of action research was crucial for improving engagement of students and staff. The interACT process of promoting self-evaluation, reflection on feedback, feedback dialogue and longitudinal perspectives of feedback has clear benefits and should be transferable to other contexts. Conclusions: InterACT has involved comprehensive re-engineering of the assessment and feedback processes using educational principles to guide the design taking into account stakeholder perspectives. These principles and the strategies to enact them should be transferable to other contexts.
JO - BMC Medical Education
JF - BMC Medical Education
Barton KL, Schofield SJ, McAleer S, Ajjawi R. Translating evidence-based guidelines to improve feedback practices: the interACT case study. BMC Medical Education. 2016 Dec 9;16(53). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0562-z
10.1186/s12909-016-0562-zLicence: CC BY
Barton_TranslatingEvidence-BasedGuidelinesToImproveFeedbackPractices_Published_2016Final published version, 786 KBLicence: CC BY
Abertay University contact form

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


DAVID M. BADERAUTHOR OF HAIKUS FOR JEWS, ZEN JUDAISM, THE BOOK OF MURRAY, ONE HUNDRED GREAT BOOKS IN HAIKU, AND HOW TO BE AN EXTREMELY REFORM JEW.
The Japanese haiku is one of the world's most dazzling poetic forms, capturing the sublime beauty of nature in just three short lines – the croak of the bullfrog, the buzzing of the dragonfly, the shriek of the cicada, the scream of the cormorant. Now, with Haikus for Jews, there is finally a collection that celebrates the many advantages of staying indoors. Find out why God has made these The Chosen Haikus.
The missing book of The Bible that explains everything! This remarkable text, excavated from a sand trap on a Boca Raton golf course, tells the story of Murray, son of Irving, of the Tribe of Levi (Relaxed Fit). An underachiever and unlikely prophet, Murray hears God's call and wanders the land, dispensing wisdom, diet tips, and other unsolicited advice. ("Love the stranger, though not on the first date.") Filled with divinely inspired yet practical wisdom ("Thou shalt not freelance"), The Book of Murray is an affectionate and mirthful romp for readers of all faiths.
What is the sound of one hand clapping? How could the Buddha weigh four hundred pounds and still do yoga? What exactly is "stuffed kishke"? These are just some of the deep mysteries explored in Zen Judaism: For You, a Little Enlightenment. Inspired by centuries-old Eastern meditation techniques and traditional Jewish lower back pain, its enlightened noodging is sure to bring you good karma.
Back in print! (In Australia, at least.) In the sixteenth century, Zen monks in Japan developed the haiku, an unrhymed poetic form consisting of 17 syllables arranged in three lines. Now, in One Hundred Great Books in Haiku, David Bader has applied this ancient poetic form to the classics. From Homer to Milton to Dostyevsky, the great books are finally within reach of even the shortest attention spans. Avoid eyestrain and show off your literary prowess at cocktail parties! It's the perfect gift for today's busy reader.
Extremely Reform Judaism has long been one of the most misunderstood religious denominations -- ever since the first Jews lifted their eyes to God to ask the eternal question, "Why can't we have a Christmas tree?" Comprehensive in scope yet tailored for short attention spans, How to Be an Extremely Reform Jew by David M. Bader includes "The Ten Suggestions," "The Yo-Yo Diet Guide to Jewish Feasts and Fasts," a David Mamet Purim play ("Glengarry Glen Purim"), and other help for the Jewishly impaired. Out-of-print for many years, this book is available again in new print and Kindle editions.


Man, what a difference four years makes. I think I can safely say it will be impossible for me to summon the kind of excitement I expressed in that giddy blog post just four short years ago.
Actually, if truth be told, it was just one year into his presidency when I concluded that Obama, from a foreign policy point of view at least, was essentially Bush 2.0. Now as his first term comes to a close, I'm daring to consider the possibility that he might actually be worse.
For some Americans the most salient lesson of 9/11 was that the world is a dangerous place and we must use military power to mitigate the danger. I include myself among those who learned a very different lesson: 9/11 taught us that when we intervene militarily abroad, we beget blowback here at home.
Many of us had hope that Obama truly believed this as well – that he would turn back the Bush doctrine and steer our nation's foreign policy toward a saner course. But as it has turned out, the very opposite has happened. He has embroiled us in even more Mideast wars and has deployed even larger numbers of special operations forces to that region. He has also transferred or brokered the sale of substantial quantities of weapons to these countries and has continued to build and expand US military bases at an ever-increasing rate.
Well, it's over two years later and Guantanamo is still open. This past March, the Obama administration announced it would be resuming military tribunals there. And just last week, we learned that our President did something truly unprecedented – our President actually approved the extra-judicial assassination of an American citizen in Yemen.
counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants … unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. (Emphasis mine).
(No) country's infrastructure is more dependent on computer systems, and thus more vulnerable to attack, than that of the United States. It is only a matter of time, most experts believe, before it becomes the target of the same kind of weapon that the Americans have used, secretly, against Iran.
I'm focusing these observations exclusively on our Commander-in-Chief, but of course I realize that this issue is much, much larger than just one man. I know it's natural to look to our primarily to our President, but in truth what we call "Washington" is really a massive bureaucracy that includes a myriad of interests. It's a far reaching power elite that includes not only the federal government but the national security state, as well as the intelligence and federal law enforcement communities. It also includes big banks and other financial institutions, defense contractors, major corporations and any number of lawyers, lobbyists former officials, and retired military officers, all of whom hold enormous influence over our foreign policy.
So as we swing into summer and we listen to Obama and Romney trade salvos over foreign policy, don't be fooled – at the end of the day there is less than an inch of daylight between the two. Mideast analyst Aaron David Miller, in a Foreign Policy post entitled "Barack O'Romney" only half jokingly suggested that if reelected, Obama ought to consider making Mitt Romney his new Secretary of State. Another respected analyst, MJ Rosenberg, has gone as far as to suggest that President Obama would actually be more likely to bomb Iran than a President Romney.
The events of these last four years have provided a painful education for me. I've learned more than ever that it is not politicians who create socio-political change – it is, rather, the people and the movements who make it impossible for them not to.
Yes, there are some important domestic issues at stake in this election (not least of which are potential Supreme Court appointments) but let's not be fooled into thinking that the future of US foreign policy fundamentally depends on who we choose to be our Commander in Chief.
The real difference will depend on our readiness to hold him accountable once the election is over.
This entry was posted in American Jewish Community, Elections, High Holidays, Iran, Israel, Palestine, Peace Process, Politics, War, World on June 11, 2012 by Rabbi Brant Rosen.
Actually, Brant, I think a Romney presidency would be a foreign policy disaster. I know you are disillusioned with BHO, but Romney would do things like invade Iran and increase our nuke stockpile. Remember, one of the first global speeches BHO made as POTUS was in Prague in April, 2009, when he called for an end to nuclear weapons stockpiles in our life time. Would Mitt ever do that? Sorry to ask such a silly question.
As for the Prague speech, Obama has made a lot of pretty speeches with a lot of pretty words in them. There was that Cairo speech "to the Muslim world", too, which sounded so great to so many people (but not to me – I saw right through it). And what have his actions been toward the Muslim world?
Speeches are only important if they are accompanied by actions that fit with them. Obama\'s actions clearly do not fit his words. I'd rather have an honest President than one that makes lovely speeches and follows them up with hideous actions.
One of Obama's first acts as President, within a few hours of taking the oath was to sign off on bombings in Pakistan that resulted in the deaths of multiple children, women, and elderly. Did they also kill any "suspected bad guys"? Not that that would justify anything, but maybe, maybe not, What we do know is they killed a number of completely innocent human beings.
And who says Obama would not attack or invade Iran? Based on his actions so far, I would not be so confident. And other than making a nice speech, what has Obama DONE to end nuclear weapons stockpiles?
Words! Words! Words! I\'m so sick of words!
There isn\'t one I haven\'t heard.
Be careful what you wish for. A Democratic president seen as weak on national defense would keep the Democrats out of the Oval Office for many years (i.e. 1968 – 1992 with a four year post-Watergate aberration).
I read A D Miller's article which hits things pretty much on the nose, but he doesn't emphasize enough that the bi-partisan consensus also includes the fact that there simply is NO CHANCE of having the Israelis and Palestinians reach a compromise peace. Of course, Miller says that Obama feels "Netanyahu isn't doing enough to advance the peace process" but Obama knows, after hours and hours of discussion with Abbas that the Palestinians are simply incapable of making the concessions necessary in order to enable a compromise peace which would entail an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. Miller does not connect the fact that the failed "Arab Spring" is leading to the rise of radical, political Islamism to Abbas' unwillingness to conduct meaningful negotiations with Israel. It is not AIPAC or other bogeyman who are preventing the negotiations, it is the fact that Abbas will not get any backing for making concessions that would be viewed as "traitorous" by the Arab world, both inside the Palestinian territories and outside of them. The radical Islamism agenda does not call for accelerated peace talks with Israel, it is calling for increased confrontation. For example, both the Muslim Brotherhood and Nasserite candidates for President in Egypt have noted that the main confrontation (as least verbally) with Israel is coming from the non-Arab states of Turkey and Iran and this is a humiliation to Egypt and the rest of the Arab world. Thus, the Arab world is moving towards at least some sort of increased confrontation and tension with Israel, not reconciliation. It is this fact that both Obama and Romney and others who look at the Arab-Israeli conflict without the rose-colored glasses of the Left/Progressives that will be driving American policy regarding Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict, not mythical, malevolent pro-Zionist-AIPACish forces.
Rabbi, I was never impressed with Obama outside of the fact that he is a wonderfully impressive, articulate, intelligent, educated man with a great smile. My expectations of him as President were very low, particularly in the area of foreign and military policy. Nevertheless, he has managed to disappoint even me.
Worse than Bush? Yes, in many ways. Worse on foreign policy, worse on military policy, and, shockingly, worse on civil rights.
And yes indeed, worse on matters concerning Israel and the Palestinians.
Who knew all that hopey changey stuff really meant change for the worse?
Let's remember that Ralph Nader brought us GW Bush which started the terrible cycle we are in. I'll be working hard to re-elect Obama because he is far better than the alternative. Since I live in Virginia, which will be a significant swing state I can make a difference in this election.
Of course throughout the election and a hoped for second term I will continue to work hard for peace, social justice etc. Obama is far from perfect but he is much more open and flexible than Romney would ever be.
I am tired of hearing Ralph Nader blamed for George W. Bush. For the record, I did not vote for Nader, but he did not bring us George W. Bush. What brought us George W. Bush was a terrible political system in which two parties and only two parties have a lock on power, the ridiculous, severely outdated electoral system, and the American electorate.
Stop blaming Ralph Nader and others who are trying to break through the two-party system, and take a good look at the real problems.
"let's not be fooled into thinking that the future of US foreign policy fundamentally depends on who we choose to be our Commander in Chief.
In my view, one of the biggest problems with having a Democratic president is that far too many on the left, progressives, liberals, etc. refuse to condemn and take action against the very same crimes that would get them outraged, in the street, starting civil disobedience, etc. if done by a Republican president. I haven't been alive long enough and I'm not a good enough student of history to know for certain but it seems like the organizing and mobilizing momentum on the left suffers greatly once a Democrat takes office. Certainly seems beyond a doubt to be the case during the George W. Bush and Obama eras.
It is disappointing and disheartening, but not necessarily surprising, to see just how far back we have moved on so many issues of war, peace, justice and morality since Obama took office. Especially since so many people were truly excited four years ago and ready for a leader to inspire us to do the hard work necessary to get back on track, in brining the troops home and in those other areas you mentioned in your post, as well as with taking serious action on climate change and global warming, passing pro-immigrant reform, fighting against global hunger and so much more.
I too believe this has more to do with a wholly corrupt, out of control system than with whoever is president. But just because the system is rotten, most members of the media serve their political and corporate masters, the vast majority of congressional Republicans are completely crazy (and huge numbers of Democrats are indistinguishable) and a Republican president might be worse doesn't mean that Obama and the Democrats deserve anything less than extreme scorn and disgust for their drone wars, murdering of innocents throughout the world (and the blowback that is sure to follow), support for big business and the wealthy at the expense of most everyone else, lack of leadership on climate issues, explosion of poverty, etc. etc. etc.
Sorry for the long rant. And thanks, as always, for your words and actions, Rabbi Brant.
I think in the case of Obama you do have a point. I think it was also true, though perhaps to a lesser degree, of Clinton. However, looking back a bit farther in history – perhaps before your time – we all remember things like massive crowds marching and chanting things like "hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today".
I do find that a lot of the heavy koolaid drinkers, and a lot of those who are devoted to the Democratic party and the two-party system seem to have been rendered at least partially blind. They are able to criticize Obama "when warranted", but simply cannot face up to the magnitude of his policies and actions. "Better than Bush" is not only untrue of Obama, in the case of foreign policy, military policy, human rights, and civil rights "worse than Bush" actually applies.
I honestly don't see how there is enough difference between either party to care either way. One of the greatest problems, and what has and will continue to keep this country stuck where it is is the two-party system, and a system in general in which winning and being in power overwhelms the good of the country and its people, humanity, and the world at large.
I doubt that I will vote this year. I just don't see the point.
But Shirin, despite your frustrations about the lack of enough daylight in some areas between the Republicans and the Democrats, PLEASE remember that in 2010 when the Dems stayed home, we ended up with a Republican House of Representatives, which passes the most heinous legislation that only gets stopped because the Senate won't go along, and which is now barely in Democratic hands. I know the Dems have no courage and have also been co opted by the monied interests, but surely issues such as gay rights, women's rights, investments in infrastructure and renewable energy and the protection of the environment have a better chance with a government in the hands of the Democrats than the Republicans! And most of all, remember the Supreme Court! Please don't sit it out. It could be A LOT worse.
Nancy, I understand your point, but I just don't want to participate in a system in which I have a choice between bad, worse, and worser. And in any case, I live in a state in which my vote will not make the slightest difference either way. It always goes solidly Democrat, so no matter what I do it will be that group of liars, thieves, and scoundrels will be elected, and not the other.
Brant, I have tremendous respect for you and I admire pretty much every position you have taken on most issues. I, too, have been crushingly disappointed with Obama's approach to human rights and the Middle East and his having backed away from so much that he spoke so eloquently about as a candidate.
Another issue that galls me, as a progressive, is that we seem to be the folks for whom he has the most disdain…more even than for the Republicans, with whom he has tried so hard to work and has made compromises he never should have made, only to receive nothing in return.
Nevertheless, I agree with the other commenter who mentioned that supporting Ralph Nader as a protest against the Dems' weak stances on issues we hold dear resulted in eight years of George Bush. I hate to work my heart out for the lesser of two evils, but I can't see any other option. I'm all for grassroots organizing and building pressure for change from the bottom up. Actually, Obama said during the campaign in '08 that change doesn't come from the top down, it comes from the bottom up. We all have a responsibility to work harder and be more outspoken about the change we want and need and haven't received.
At the same time, we still must work hard to re elect our president, because the dangers to our democracy if we end up with a Republican House, Senate and presidency are even greater than those Obama has perhaps contributed to. So I will be out there on the trail again, more chastened and wiser, perhaps, sadder, too…but I will be working hard to get him re elected because I know the alternative would be much worse. It's a sad state of affairs, but very true.
I guess no one here read his Harvard Law Review articles. When Barak Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review he stood with the conservative constitutionalists in his opinions.
Also, you can say what you want when you campaign for President on foreign policy and defense. Once in office and you see intelligence reports and consult our allies and then you find out what the world is really like and what needs to be done to protect the United States and it's allies from threats of terror and mass destruction. I believe that is what Barak Obama has done or attempts to do. His best move was to appoint Leon Panetta as CIA director and then as Secretary of Defence. Also, Hilary Clinton remembers the behavior of the Palestinian negotiators when her husband was president. I am sure she is not impressed.
While I understand and respect Shirin's point of view, It wasn't my intention to encourage anyone not to vote for Obama – or to not vote at all – in the coming election. I am only advocating a more realistic POV about the role of government in foreign policy in our day. I genuinely have no illusions that one man/woman in the White House will make a fundamental difference when there are so many powerful interests colluding to exert American power around the world.
To those who claim Romney would be much worse than Obama in this regard: I do encourage you to read the links in my post. I personally find them compelling and convincing. At any rate, I don't think it makes much difference to a civilian in a Mideast war zone if her loved ones are killed under a Bush, Obama or Romney administration.
I find it very notable that under the most recent poll, the US is viewed less favorably in much of the Arab world than it was during the final year of the Bush administration – and President Obama is less popular in the region than Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While Presidents should never expect to win international popularity contests, I find these kinds of findings to be deeply troubling. At the very least, they should make us consider whether ramping up the drone war is the best way to combat extremism in that part of the world.
I am not advocating that we give up on electoral politics as a force for social change. I deeply admire Nancy's willingness to volunteer in coming election cycle despite her deep disappointment. But I do think we should bear in mind (as she rightly points out) that there are many different ways to work for change beyond working in campaigns. Progressives in particular should understand this better than anyone, particularly when you consider the sense of betrayal by Obama after our intoxication with his campaign in 2008.
To use an example from domestic politics, I think we have much to learn from the recent recall election in Wisconsin. Progressives are rightly licking their wounds after Walker's victory – but I fervently hope and pray it doesn't put an end to the inspiring grass roots movement for social justice that rose in Wisconsin last year. For my part, I agree with those who say that the real reason the Wisconsin uprising did not bring down Scott Walker was that they left the streets and put all their faith in the ballot box.
The energy of the Wisconsin uprising was never electoral. The movement's mistake: letting itself be channeled solely into traditional politics, into the usual box of uninspired candidates and the usual lineup of debates, primaries, and general elections. The uprising was too broad and diverse to fit electoral politics comfortably. You can't play a symphony with a single instrument. Nor can you funnel the energy and outrage of a popular movement into a single race, behind a single well-worn candidate, at a time when all the money in the world from corporate "individuals" and right-wing billionaires is pouring into races like the Walker recall.
In other words, regardless of what happens in this (or any) election, the real work always starts the day after.
Thanks again, everyone, for your heartfelt comments.
Connections between what was happening in Madison on February, 2011 and the Arab Spring go deeper than Egyptians phoning in pizza orders to a local pizza place in Madison for hungry protestors. Both movements represent popular uprisings. I was lucky enough to visit Madison twice during the first few weeks of the popular movement against Walker, and the energy, even on snowy days with temps hovering around 19 degrees, was palpable. I was back in WI on election day, this time knocking on doors in Racine, and this time, the feeling was much more subdued. Perhaps the recall election was never going to achieve the goal of ousting Walker, but what else could the citizens of WI do? By stripping state workers of their collective bargaining rights, thousands of real people doing important work, like nurses and teachers, have seen their real wages fall significantly. Short of a new governor, no amount of marching in the streets and eating pizzas paid for by sympathetic Egyptians can change that.
Kroll's point was that by opting to put energies into a recall campaign, the uprising movement lost it's organizing momentum because it opted to play by the traditional electoral/political rules, which gives the advantage to the those who can raise the most corporate dollars. That was a losing gambit from the beginning.
In the wake of the recall losses, the people of Wisconsin's uprising must ask themselves: Where can they make an impact outside of politics? The power of nonviolent action to create social and economic change is well documented, most notably by Jonathan Schell in his classic book The Unconquerable World. The men and women in Schell's invaluable history—Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and his civil rights fighters, the Czech dissident Vaclav Havel, and so many others—can serve as guides to a path to change that doesn't require recall elections. Already mainstays of the Madison protests have suggested campaigns to refuse to spend money with businesses that support Walker. "Hit 'em where it hurts. Pocketbooks," C.J. Terrell, one of the Capitol occupiers, recently wrote on Facebook.
I spend quite a bit of time in the Arab world in 2008, and people there had high hopes for Obama – like many Americans they, too, bought into all that hopey changey stuff. They knew that he had some connections with prominent Palestinian-Americans, and they believed his familial connections with Islam would make him less unsympathetic with Muslims than previous administrations had been. I was far more skeptical than they were.
In my opinion Obama struck a fatal blow against himself with Arabs and Muslims by making that speech in Cairo, and proving by his actions that it had all been political posturing and he hadn't meant a word of it. I can't imagine anything he could do now to regain the confidence of Arabs and Muslims.
Of course, everyone thought this meant we the people who voted for Obama along with the man himself, will bring the change in the way things are done that we have been waiting for.
But it soon became clear what he really meant – he was using the royal "we" in the same way a king would when referring to himself. By change, he meant the change from not being president to being president.
So the translation of his statement is: I am the president that I have been waiting for. Yes, I'm being facetious, but how far off am I!
My one and only reason to vote for Obama is that he will, if elected, be in his final term and freer to do things regardless of political popularity or financial support from the 1%. The chance that this will mean something other than same old same old for Israel/Palestine is very small but it isn't nil.
Romney is a businessman who speaks in the platitudes of the right, is clueless about the political world beyond the United States and clueless about the 99% of the citizenry that is not in his league of wealthy movers and shakers. He could just as well be Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfein for what he could bring to the presidency.
That we've come to such a pass – having such a lack of choice – only shows how far right the country has moved.
Here is another perspective on some of the points you made in your comment.
Here is a fact that would discourage most readers of this blog from voting for Romney but I think is positive. Mitt Romney and PM Netanyahu worked together at Boston Consultant Group as graduates. They became friends there and that friendship remains.
This is because George W. Bush never apologized for the U.S. as President Obama does. I believe this is a weakness of the President.
(1)The voters were upset that the recall even took place. The recall was against policy rather abuse of office.
(2) This is about spending on retirement payments for public workers paid by the State of Wisconsin. And, reducing the payroll to balance the budget. The funding for this doesn't exist. By the way this problem is much worse in Illinois. So, Walker did something about it and he is popular as a result. The result is less unemployment in Wisconsin and they have a balanced budget and Illinois will wind up like Greece.
I predict that this will have a major impact in the presidential race and cause the Senate to be controlled by the republicans.
As someone who has actual contact and actually knows something about the Arab world and the region in question, I can comfortably state categorically that this is utter rubbish. The US is viewed less favorably and Obama is less popular for the reasons I stated earlier, not some silliness about apologizing or not apologizing.
Arabs are not stupid people, Steve, and what they are looking for is reasonableness, intelligence, and fairness in U.S policy not some nonsense concept of "strength" versus "weakness" based on apologizing or not apologizing.
Umrayya , I worked in Syria while Hafez Al-Assad was President. It was a terrifying experience. Most of my foreign co-workers didn't feel very comfortable there. In fact we had a discussion that we felt relief that Israel was across the border. We despised the anti Israel and anti Jewish and anti West sentiments that were voiced on the streets of Damascus as well in the press and media. As a Jew I could only think of Eli Cohen. I liked the food and the culture but I would never go back.
I went to Cairo for a week and then went scuba diving in the Red Sea. In Cairo I found out several times that the Jews control the money in the world. I went diving their once before when the Sinai was controlled by Israel. It felt much safer then. This trip to Sinai we were always on the look out for thrives or kidnaping attempts or assaults.
I maintain when Israel and the United States is considered strong and acting in their interests then they are both more respected. It is better to be respected there than liked.
Interesting story, Steve, and curiously very different from my experiences and those of western visitors I know and have known. I've met plenty of westerners, including Americans, and including Jews who work or study and have worked or studied in Syria, and not a single one of them has ever seemed at all terrified. On the contrary, they enjoy Syria and Syrians immensely, and quite a few of them choose to stay in Syria far longer than they need to. I have also met quite a few Americans and Europeans, including a few Jews, who have visited Syria, loved it, and were very happily surprised at what one of them described as the "gentle vibe" there. I have yet to meet anyone who found it a fearful or unfriendly place in any way.
As for me, I am a female, I wear the same clothes there that I wear everywhere else, and I travel alone. I do have the advantage of speaking Arabic, of being bicultural, and of blending in, which is a product both of who I am and the choices I make. Every time I leave Syria I have more friends there than I had when I arrived. Some of them are friends and neighbors of other friends or associates, and some of them are people I meet by chance, and who become friends I can depend on. I spend a great deal of time in Syria completely on my own going about my business, traveling throughout the country by train, by bus, or by car. I walk a great deal. Alone. At all hours of the day and night, in the cities, in villages, in the countryside. I have found the police and soldiers I have encountered to be normal, kind, and often funny – I remember one policeman in Aleppo that always said or did something that cracked me up.
I can honestly say that I have never, ever felt "terrified" or anything close to it. On the contrary, I feel safer there than I do in many parts of the United States. I love being there, and when I am away I miss it terribly.
The reality is that the rate of personal crime there is very, very low, including, surprisingly for a third-world country, the rate of theft. I have also found that by and large you can depend on complete strangers for help when needed.The only time I can remember being slightly worried was once when I was going through passport control on my way to Jordan, and the guy kept asking me for my "pink card" saying all Iraqis had to have a pink card (he had picked up on the way I pronounce certain words – I can't help it, it's how I learned to talk). I kept insisting very politely that my passport is USA, and I don't need a pink card, and In the end he gave up, and I went through. Polite persistence is very effective.
Oh, and you know, the stereotype that people in the Arab world are obsessed with hatred of Jews and Israel is pure fantasy. In fact, the subject of Israel, including criticism of Israel, comes up far less there than it does in the United States. As for the subject of Jews, that almost never comes up, and even less often in a negative way.
I remember some American guy telling me of the horrors of his visit to Egypt (I had to agree about how dirty, crowded, and noisy Cairo is), among which was flipping channels on the TV in his hotel room, and getting nothing but channel after channel after channel of "fanatical Moslem (sic) clerics" ranting about the evil Jews, Israel, and of course America. So, I asked him how he knew what these "fanatical clerics" were ranting about since he doesn't know a word of Arabic. Was he telling me that there were English subtitles on his Egyptian TV? And how did he miss all the soap operas (for which Syria is famous), and clever educational children's programs, and movies, and Al Jazeera English (which you can watch while in the Arab world, but not in the USA), Al Arabia, etc. He changed the subject really, really fast.
Sorry you did not feel comfortable in Syria, and I won't speculate as to why your experience was so different from that of virtually every other westerner I have met there, or why you didn't leave if you felt so threatened there. I fail to see how that supports your notion that the United States is more respected (by which I suspect you mean feared) when it is "strong" and "acting it its own interests" (by which I suspect you mean bullying and lording it over other countries). That fantasy is rather rife with a very blind, deaf, senseless form of America-centric, self-congratulatory orientalist thinking that is completely outmoded, and simply does not fit with the reality on the ground.
Shirin's positing telling us how wonderful Assad's Syria is reminds me of the visitis of similarly "well-meaning people" like George Bernard Shaw to the USSR at the time of Stalin's terror. Assad's regime is a totalitarian police state just as Stalin's was. Shaw and others also marvelled at the "low crime rate' and the "equality" and how nice and pleasant the police were and how good everyone felt. Stalin also had consumer goods production increased at the same time he was maximizing the terror so those lucky enough not to be arrested and shot would feel good about the regime.
I am sure many NKVD men of the Stalin's secret police had as good a sense of humor as the cop Shirin encountered in Aleppo who "cracked her up". I have just one question…did Shriin try to talk politics with all her Syrian friends? Did she try to hold up a sign saying "Down with Assad" anywhere? Did she aski the policeman who "cracked her up" what he thought of the regime.
In fact, I would ask, if things there are so good, why have thousands of people been killed there in the last year? How can all these pleasant, funny soldiers and policemen do such things?
LOL! Oh, Ike, really you are too funny sometimes. Of course, I was not talking about "Assad's" (sic) Syria, I was talking about just Syria. Do you understand the difference?
As for soldiers in Syria, they are conscripts. All young men in Syria are required to serve in the military. During one of my recent stints in Syria the brother of one of my close friends was about to begin his military service. They are from a beautiful village in the coastal mountains. It is called Harf Al Mseitra, is one of my favorite places on earth, and we went up to spend a week there. The new conscript took us on a really challenging and wonderful hike through a very rough and amazingly beautiful part of the mountains, then we went back to the house, drank tea, and and watched the sun set behind the mountains from the balcony as the call to prayer wafted through the air from the nearby mosque. We sat outside together, all of us, talking and drinking tea until the wee hours. He was terribly depressed that the next two years of his life would be wasted in military service with no possibility of escape, and I tried to give him the perspective of my greater number of years on this earth, telling him that two years will pass and he will have many more decades in front of him after that. We went to our rooms to sleep, and the next day we delivered him to the train station. That young man is typical of what the Syrian army consists of.
The police in Syria are mainly men from less than well-to-do families with high school educations only who are lucky to have a decent government job. Some of them are very nice people, some of them are not. Some of them are intelligent, some of them are not. Some of them are funny, some of them are not. Some of them are friendly and helpful, and some probably are not, thought I have been lucky enough to avoid the latter. Syrians, like most humans, tend to be polite, helpful, and kind if you are polite and kind with them. Funny how that works.
PS Ike, given that I am in the room, why do you show me discourtesy by talking about me in the third person instead of addressing me directly?
Yes, Ike, I frequently tried, and still do try, and succeeded and still do succeed in talking politics with my Syrian friends. That is how I know about the variety of views they hold. In fact, I have found it easier to communicate with friends in Syria ever since the regime stopped blocking FaceBook and other social networking sites. Oh – I have also had some great political discussions with taxi drivers.
No, I have never carried a sign saying "down with Assad" (sic). But then, I have never carried a sign saying "down with" anyone – just not my style. And of course I am also an intelligent, sensible person who has the common sense not to carry signs saying "down with [fillintheblank]" when I am a citizen living in, a resident, or a visitor in a non-democratic country.
No, I did not ask the funny policeman, or any policeman, what he thought of the regime. I am not in the habit of distracting people while they are performing the duties of their job, and in any case, he was not my friend, just someone I saw frequently, and joked with, as I walked around Aleppo.
Actually, life is not so good there now, Ike, because there is a brutal, violent revolt going on, and yes, it is being repressed violently by the government, so neither side is looking good or winning many friends. And now there are seemingly random acts of terrorism going on, such as car bombings, and no one, even the most adamant regime-hater, believes the regime is involved in those. The violent opposition groups (as opposed to those who are still trying to act non-violently) are being used by various groups and countries outside of the country to further their own interests. The Saudis, as well as other Gulf countries are known to be sponsoring and supporting the FSA. Are you going to suggest that the Saudis' goal in supporting the "opposition" is to free the Syrian people from their "Stalin-like" regime and instituting democracy there?
Rabbi, with all due respect, the recall election in WI did bring some successes for the Democratic Party: the recall of a GOP state senator. The WI Senate is now–just barely–back in the control of the Democrats in WI, a blow to the Koch brothers' puppet, Scott Walker. That electoral victory could really stem the bleeding of workers' rights in the state to our north, and make a difference in the next gubernatorial election there in 2014. While I admire the energy of the Occupy movements across our country, electoral successes carry far more power. That's why I will be heading to Toledo to knock on doors for BHO this fall. Four more years of Obama in the White House offers our country–and the world–a much better hope for the future.
Taking into account the enormous power that corporations have over their workers and others since the industrial revolution, I wonder if it would be better to translate for "government" a term that includes corporations and other means by which the 1% dominate the 99%.
While so many of us shared the optimism for Obama's presidency the writing was on the wall given his speech to AIPAC in 2008 about an undivided Jerusalem.
I am not optimistic for 2013 and beyond – whoever gets in. It seems human beings really have to learn the hard way. Sadly, it will only through the deaths of many more Palestinians that eventually the US (and client states like my own) will turn around and say. How did that happen? When that question is asked we will remember those like Brant and others who courageously spoke up and said 'Never again' – for anyone.


text:
Cato Journal, nationalism, Yoram Hazony
Malamet discusses Hazony
By Alberto Mingardi
I am glad that some libertarians are dealing with Yoram Hazony's The Virtue of Nationalism. It is a book that is shaping conservative thinking and ought to be addressed thouroughly. I've reviewed it for the Cato Journal and dealt with it on this blog too (here, here and here). Alex Nowrasteh has written a powerful post here. More recently Akiva Malamet has published an interesting critique, on Libertarianism.org.
Malamet doesn't wear velvet gloves, as he states:
Hazony's work does not perform this task and instead adds further confusion. Ultimately, he defends propositions that, if taken to their conclusion, imply denying that individuals have any kind of meaningful autonomy, excusing state violence, and legitimizing gross violations of human rights. Hazony encourages us to lean more heavily into our tribal and authoritarian instincts—instincts which have served to fuel centuries of violent conflict and sustain oppressive social orders. Finally, he radically oversimplifies Jewish tradition, misrepresenting a complex faith with competing values of both universalism and particularism.
I think Malamet performs a particularly useful service by focusing on this latter element. Can "nationalism" – which is a modern ideology, that serves the interests and purpose of the modern nation-state – be seen as consistent with a political interpretation of the Old Testament? Malamet answers in the negative:
Hazony omits those aspects of the Hebrew Bible (and, I would say, the Jewish tradition broadly) that complicate his story. The idea that human beings are created in God's image, what Jews call "tzelem elohim" (for Christians the "imago dei") and that therefore our moral obligations extend to everyone, is the missing half of a core religious dialectic: It is important that the Hebrew Bible talks not only about Jews as God's chosen people, but also of the Jewish obligation to welcome strangers and outsiders. While Judaism does not proselytize, Jews are also obligated to be an "or l'goyim"—a "light unto the nations." Later texts—including the Talmud and the works of philosophers such as Maimonides—spend extensive time debating the appropriate range and degree of universalism vs. particularism. No accurate account of the Bible or of Judaism can be had without including both elements.
Hazony also fails to show why moral obligations must depend on their establishment in and by groups. He argues that "rationalist" moral theory is too dependent on abstract ideas without real world grounding—for Hazony, morality only exists in contexts. However, Hazony does not account for what is a significant is-ought problem. The fact that we first learn morality in specific places does not show we ought to see moral duties as only grounded by those environments. … I can apply my reason to my moral sense and extend the range of my ethical concern. In this way, I can abstract from my context and ground my understanding of what I owe to others. Indeed, the Bible itself makes this point, when God tells the Israelites in Exodus 23:9 (my emphasis): "You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the soul of the stranger, as you were strangers in the land of Egypt."
I recommend you read the whole thing.
Categories: Books: Reviews and Suggested Readings Uncategorized
Roger McKinney
Aug 2 2019 at 10:13am
I have written on this, too, here:
https://finance.townhall.com/columnists/rogermckinney/2019/07/29/new-national-conservatism-is-old-mercantilism-n2550770
Hazony gets the constitution of ancient Israel wrong. To begin with, the phrase "image of God" has little to do with what rabbis and theologians have claimed over the centuries. According to archeologists, in Moses' day it was a sign of authority. Kings would send representatives "in his image," in other words, with his authority, to conduct business. Kings and pharaohs were called the "image of god" meaning they represented that god with all of his authority. So when Moses uses the phrase he means that God has given mankind his authority over the planet, or to have dominion over it. It also suggests that no man has the authority to rule over another because we all share God's authority equally.
The constitution of ancient Israel in the Torah was designed by God. It was the complete opposite of the Egyptian state that Moses had learned in the school of the Pharaohs. It had no human executive or legislature. No one could invent laws. God had given Israel just 613 laws, most of which applied to religious ceremony or moral issues that the courts did not adjudicate. The only governmental institution Israel had were courts. It had not taxes to support a state, but a 10% voluntary tithe that went to support the Tabernacle, priests and some poor. The courts did not enforce the moral or poor laws but left that to God. Choosing a king after 400 years was a regression in every way and 1 Sam 8 tells us it made God very angry. It also led to civil war because Solomon had levied very heavy taxes.
I provide the details and my sources in my book God is a Capitalist: Markets from Moses to Marx available on Amazon.
Aug 2 2019 at 10:45pm
The linked article is excellent. Hazony's bifurcation of nationalism and imperialism is ahistorical—empires grow out of the nationalist desire to acquire more resources for one's nation; the stuff about universal morality is usually grafted on later to justify the conquest.
Moreover, the difference between an ethnically homogenous "nation" and an ethnically diverse "empire" is often that the nation was more successful at eradicating the original people living on the conquered land. For example, Hazony celebrates the ancient Israelites as a paragon of nationalism, but according to their own tradition, they conquered Canaan and slaughtered all the Canaanites. I wonder—if the Nazis had slaughtered all the natives of Poland, and then resettled Poland with an ethnically pure German population, would Hazony consider that new Greater Germany a shining example of nationalism?
Aug 4 2019 at 4:33am
Malamet: "Conceiving of the nation as a family is a fallacy discussed extensively by F.A Hayek in The Fatal Conceit. For Hayek, seeing nations and states as familial is a product of our minds' insufficient adaptation to the size, complexity, and diversity of the modern world. We are still using instincts which evolved during humanity's struggle to survive in prehistory. In that setting, group co-dependence was essential, and we knew only fellow members of our tribe or band. This is no longer the case. Continuing to rely on such instincts dangerously misapplies the logic of the 'intimate order'–the family and the tribe–to the 'extended order'–modern states and global market systems. It threatens the social cooperation and prosperity we have gained in the transition to modernity."
We're only human, which is why it's so surprising that we have gained prosperity and social cooperation in the transition to modernity. "We are still using instincts which evolved during humanity's struggle to survive in prehistory." Humans used those instincts to gain social cooperation and prosperity.
All that prosperity and social cooperation wasn't gained by something more rational than a human being. Humans see nations and states as familial, and humans used those instincts to gain social cooperation and prosperity.
Continuing to rely on such instincts is dangerous, but is it more dangerous than the alternative? To think that humans are now more rational than humans?
We are what we are, so maybe what threatens the social cooperation and prosperity we have gained is a conceited and hubristic idea of having become more than human? The conceit of having ascended to purely logical and rationalistic U maximizers? Perfectly adapted to the size, complexity, and diversity of the modern world?
Modern states are nation states. But start from zero, today, with the slate wiped clean, and try gaining prosperity and social cooperation when you've replaced them with "tribal states" or "identity politics states" or "Twitter mob states" instead.
Humans, tainted by old and outdated instincts, saw nations and states as familial. Henceforth the state will be a giant campus instead. And would that state be rational? Do people become more rational on Twitter?
Malamet: "Nationalism relies on a sense of pride in being a member of a certain group, as opposed to that of any other. Not because of the contributions that my group may make to humanity, but simply because I happen to be a member. Thus, nationalism encourages enmity between societies, almost by definition."
Swap in the word "tribalism" where it says "nationalism" and swap in "within societies" for "between societies" and you've described a less prosperous and less modern state. In other words, the future.
Yoram Hazony on the Virtue of Nationalism
Yoram Hazony discusses his book, The Virtue of Nationalism, with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Hazony argues that nationalism, for all its flaws, is a better system than a global system of governance. He argues that while the competition between nationalist states can lead to violence, the opportunity for each nation to pursue its own policies creates the benefits that trial-and-error innovation create in the marketplace. He also points out the dangers of global government systems and argues that ...
COLLECTION: BOOKS: REVIEWS AND SUGGESTED READINGS
The article you're reading is part of Econlib's Books: Reviews and Suggested Readings collection. Explore other Books: Reviews and Suggested Readings articles:
Robinson Crusoe: Not Exactly Isolated
What Should I Ask Zach Weinersmith? What Should He Ask Me?
Landsburg's Book on Milton Friedman


text:
Akhilesh Yadav claims ground level BJP workers want withdrawal of new farm laws
Lucknow, Dec 30 (PTI) Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav on Wednesday claimed that the ruling BJP's ground level workers also want withdrawal of three new farm laws as they feel they will not be able to face the people.
Thousands of farmers, mainly from Punjab and Haryana, are protesting at various borders of the national capital for more than a month against the three new laws.
In a tweet in Hindi, the SP chief said, "The BJP government should not 'cheat' farmers of the entire country for the benefit of a few rich friends and in today's talks, withdraw the agriculture laws. The truth is that the ground level worker of the BJP also wants the same because he is not able garner the courage to go among the general people. Political leadership of India has never been so barren." The government has invited the protesting farmers for the sixth round of talks on Wednesday in connection with the ongoing agitation The government has presented these laws as major agriculture reforms aimed at helping farmers and increasing their income, but the protesting unions fear that the new legislations have left them at the mercy of big corporates by 'weakening' the MSP and mandi system.PTI SAB DV DV
US President-elect Biden lands at Joint Base Andrews ahead of his inauguration
Washington [US], January 20 (ANI): US President-elect Joe Biden has landed at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on the eve of his inauguration in Washington.
Lockdown: Tennis Players Getting On With Life In Australia
With no way out, tennis players in lockdown are figuring out ways to keep themselves fit within the confines of their Melbourne hotel rooms as they prepare for the Australian Open.
Analysis: Saudi Overtures To Wary Biden Team Driven By Worries Over Iran, Economy
After months out of the global spotlight, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has swept back to centre stage with eyecatching diplomatic and economic moves aimed at showing the new U.S. president he is a valuable partner who can get things done.


text:
Mahan's Commentary
Rose Commentary
Dunagan's Commentary
Caton's Commentary
5:1 The {1} elders which are among you {2} I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
(1) He describes peculiarly the office of the Elders, that is to say, of them that have the care of the Church.
(2) He uses a preface concerning the circumstance of his own person: that is, that he as their companion communes with them not of manners which he knows not, but in which he is as well experienced as any, and propounds to them no other condition but that which he himself has sustained before them, and still takes the same trouble, and also has the same hope together with them.
5:2 {3} {a} Feed the {4} flock of God which is {5} among you, {6} taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
(3) The first rule: he that is a shepherd let him feed the flock.
(4) The second: Let not shepherd consider, that the flock is not his, but Gods.
(5) The third: Let not shepherds invade other men's flocks, but let them feed that which God hath committed unto them.
(6) Let the shepherds govern the Church with the word and example of godly and unblamable life, not by force but willingly, not for greedy gain, but with a ready mind, not as lords over God's portion and heritage, but as his ministers.
5:3 Neither as being lords over [God's] {b} heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
(b) Which is the Christian people.
5:4 {7} And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
(7) That the shepherds' minds are not overcome either with the wickedness of men, or their cruelty, he warns them to continually look at the chief shepherd, and the crown which is laid up for them in heaven.
5:5 {8} Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all [of you] be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: {9} for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
(8) He commends many peculiar Christian virtues, and especially modesty: an admonition all of us need, but especially the younger ones by reason of the perverseness and pride of that age.
(9) Because pride seems to many to be the way to the glory of this life, the apostle testifies to the opposite, that dishonour and shame is the reward of pride, and glory the reward of modesty.
5:6 Humble yourselves therefore {10} under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:
(10) Because those proud and lofty spirits threaten the modest and humble, the apostle warns us to set the power of God against the vanity of proud men, and to rely completely on his providence.
5:8 {11} Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
(11) The cruelty of Satan, who seeks by all means to devour us, is overcome by watchfulness and faith.
5:9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, {12} knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your {c} brethren that are in the world.
(12) The persecutions which Satan stirs up, are neither new nor proper to any one man, but from old and ancient times common to the whole Church, and therefore we must suffer patiently, in which we have such and so many fellows of our conflicts and combats.
(c) Amongst your brethren which are dispersed throughout the world.
5:10 {13} But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle [you].
(13) He seals up as with a seal the former exhortation with a solemn prayer, again willing them to ask increase of strength at his hands, of whom they had the beginning, and hope to have the accomplishment: that is, of God the Father in Christ Jesus, in whom we are sure of the glory of eternal life.
5:12 {14} By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.
(14) Continuance and perseverance in the doctrine of the apostles is the only ground and foundation of Christian strength: Now the sum of the apostles doctrine, is salvation freely given by God.
5:13 {15} The [church that is] at {d} Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son.
(15) Familiar salutations.
(d) In that famous city of Assyria, where Peter the apostle of circumcision then was.
Beza, Theodore. "Commentary on 1 Peter 5". "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible". https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/gsb/1-peter-5.html. 1599-1645.


After looking at the effect of weather on MLB pitchers and the baseball odds, we now turn our attention to the hitters, and how different conditions can affect their performance.
On the heels of our Pulitzer-ignored article on weather and its impact on baseball pitchers, it's time to look at the other side of the coin and see how the hitters are affected by different conditions. Naturally, if pitchers get more strikeouts in colder weather, hitters are going to strike out more – it's the same coin, after all. But we're trying to keep the two sides as separate as possible for now. We'll combine them later when we look at the overall effect of weather on the baseball odds, specifically with the MLB totals.
Once again, let's start with the most obvious element: the wind. Once a baseball comes flying off a bat, it goes into the air, where the wind will either push or pull it in a certain direction – or neither, or both. Wind can be tricky like that, especially when it's circulating inside a baseball stadium with all those irregular nooks and crannies.
One of the most important things to look at when you're making your MLB picks against the total is how much impact the wind has at each specific stadium. Stats are freely available on the Interwebs to show you how the totals are doing when the wind is blowing in a certain direction at a certain speed; for example, as we go to press, the OVER is 11-4 at Dodger Stadium this year when the wind is blowing out to right field at up to 10 mph, compared to 1-4 when blowing across the diamond from left to right.
While a 15-mph gust of wind can turn a deep 400-foot fly ball to center into a 445-foot home run, something as simple as elevation can have nearly the same effect even on a calm day. As we said in our look at pitching in warm or cold weather, air density plays a significant role; colder air is denser, so pitches slow down and break more. Naturally, it'll be the same for hitters in cold weather – we'll get to that in a moment.
For now, let's stick with elevation. Coors Field in Denver (elev. 5,200 ft.) was a notorious hitter's park because of the thin air, so notorious that they started using a humidor in 2002 to store the baseballs and make them a little squishier. Otherwise, there's about a five-percent increase in the flightpath of a ball hit at Coors Field compared to a ballpark at roughly sea level, like Fenway Park or Yankee Stadium. That's enough to turn a 400-foot deep fly into a 435-foot homer.
Okay, now let's get back to the temperature. Scott Lindholm at Beyond the Box Score did a fine job last year of breaking down the numbers at Baseball Reference and showing how batting average and home run rates increased as the temperature rose. Batting averages went from .251 when it's 40 degrees or below, to .277 when it's over 90. Home runs shot up from .023 per at-bat to .034.
Again, much of this is because there's less break on the pitches when it's warm out. But it's also because the air is less dense and the ball travels farther when the hitter makes contact. Combine these factors, and you naturally get a higher rate of OVER results the warmer it gets. The betting market does cut into the profitability of this play – there are plenty of savvy bettors out there who are watching the weather reports and moving the MLB odds when they make their MLB picks. But there are also enough "squares" in the market who are betting blindly and making this angle worth pursuing. Just don't blame the weather reporter if things don't turn out right.


text:
Latest News, Profiles
Meet the winners of the 2014 Anti-Trafficking in Person's prize
Posted on August 5, 2015 by homevida2014
Last year, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) endowed the Best Anti-Trafficking in Person prize in the 2014 HomeVida Short Script Competition. This category highlights the issues surrounding child and women trafficking n Nigeria
As production for the movies kick off, meet the 3 young script writers who won last year:
1) Tunde Apalowo for 'Lost Children'
Tunde Apalowo is a self trained filmmaker and a cinephile. He studied Civil Engineering at the University of Benin, but has since abandoned it to pursue a career in film making. As a screenwriter, he has written a couple of scripts for MNET and other producers; and as a director, he has shot and produced a couple of short films. He is currently working on his first feature film.
2) Onyinye Muomah for 'Kelechi'
Onyinye Muomah is a multiple award-winning writer and content producer. Her works include novels, short films and a play set for stage in 2016.
3) Brenda Ogbukaa for 'Homecoming'
Chidinma Brenda Ogbukaa is a twenty five year old freelance screenwriter and blogger from Abuja, Nigeria with a degree in educational psychology. Her screenwriting experience includes two short films titled 'If Only' and 'Homecoming', which won the Best Screenplay category in the 2014 Nigeria Integrity Film Awards (HOMEVIDA). My first feature-length screenplay 'Beauty of the Mind' was nominated for Best Screenplay in the 2014 ZAFAA GLOBAL AWARDS. She was part of the writing team on the Africa Magic Hausa series titled 'Ali' and 'HOW FO DO?' a Ten-week Pidgin English public awareness TV drama highlighting the various strategies, deceptions and misinformation used during electoral campaigning to mislead potential voters, especially at the grassroots level as well as contribute to and promote meaningful participation of the citizenry in the 2015 Nigerian Election Process. 'HOW FO DO?' premiered on DTN, Channel 118, on Startimes and other networks in Nigeria and was sponsored by Open Society Initiative For West Africa (OSIWA) as part of its Electoral Campaign Project.
Congrats once again to all our winners!!!
2014 Brenda Ogbukaa Homecoming Homevida Short Script Competition Kelechi Lost Children Onyinye Muomah Tunde Apalowo UNODC
The Jury Decides!!!
#FunTrivia: Guess Who???
carina · August 10, 2015
Congratulations to the winners.
ckjacob.blogspot.com for fiction stories.