Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Thou Shalt Find it impossible to Live Like the Bible Tells You to By Anneli Rufus, AlterNet. Posted November 17, 2007. Author A.J. Jacobs spent a year trying to follow the 600+ laws he found proscribed in the Bible, and concluded he's doomed to live in sin. Tools EMAiL PRiNT 84 COMMENTS The Year of Living Biblically by A.J. Jacobs (Simon & Schuster, 2007) Share and save this post: Also in Rights and Liberties indicted! Barry Bonds is a Perfect Distraction from Real Events Dave Zirin Striking Nurses in W. Va are Met With intimidation, Harassment and Car Fires! Richard Negri Hillary Auditions to Be a Feminist John Wayne Susan Faludi Democracy Belongs in the Workplace, Not Just in the Voting Booth Omar Freilla Gay? U.S. House Says That's Okay Deb Price More stories by Anneli Rufus Rights and Liberties RSS Feed Main AlterNet RSS Feed Get AlterNet in your mailbox!   Advertisement border-style: solid; border-color: rgb(216, 216, 216); border-width: 0pt 1px 1px; p

#1Thou Shalt Find it impo >

L’ancien communiste Alexandre Adler, toujours dans ce formidable numéro du Nouvel Observateur, en profite même pour lancer un appel vibrant à son ami : « Alain Minc, André Glucksmann et moi-même, nous soutenons vigoureusement Sarkozy, et tous nous venons des profondeurs du Komintern. Allez Bernard, rejoins ta vraie famille. Car il faut combattre beaucoup d’ennemis qui nous ont pris la gauche et s’en servent avec ténacité. »

To be sure, the desire to live in a modern society and to be free of tyranny is universal, or nearly so. This is demonstrated by the efforts of millions of people each year to move from the developing to the developed world, where they hope to find the political stability, job opportunities, health care, and education that they lack at home. But this is different from saying that there is a universal desire to live in a liberal society – that is, a political order characterized by a sphere of individual rights and the rule of law. The desire to live in a liberal democracy is, indeed, something acquired over time, often as a byproduct of successful modernization.

The EU’s attempt to transcend sovereignty and traditional power politics by establishing a transnational rule of law is much more in line with a “post-historical” world than the Americans’ continuing belief in God, national sovereignty, and their military.

Outside powers like the US can often help in this process by the example they set as politically and economically successful societies. They can also provide funding, advice, technical assistance, and yes, occasionally military force to help the process along.

And let me say that commitment to international action on justice means today to prevent genocide, the world must through the U.N, urgently act in Darfur.

Most of all my parents taught me that each of us should live by a moral compass.it was a simple faith with a fundamental optimism.That each and every one of us has a talent.Each of us a duty to use that talent.And each of us should have the chance to develop that talent. And my parents thought we should use whatever talent we had to help people least able to help themselves. And as i grew up surrounded by books, sports, music and encouragement, i saw at school and beyond how some flourished and others, denied these opportunities, fell behind. They had talent, they had ability. But they did not have the chance to fulfil their promise. They needed someone to champion them. They needed the support of people on their side. And is not our history the story of yes, progress through the fulfilled talents, even genius, of some but, yes, also of the wasted potential of millions for too many, their talents lost and forever unfulfilled?

Strip away the rhetoric about globalisation and it comes down to one essential truth: You can buy raw materials from anywhere,You can borrow capital form anywhere,You can engage with technology half way across the world,But you cannot buy from elsewhere what in the global economy you need most; the skills and the creativity of all our people – and that means that in education we must aim to be number one.

Britain’s future: Labour candidates’s view

I am agnostIc on the need for a wrItten constItutIon, because of the power It hands to the judges.

so I let's have a natIonal debate.

If you take WIkIpedIa as serIously as It takes Itself, thIs Is a huge problem. The sIte Is ostensIbly devoted to democratIc consensus and the free exchange of Ideas. But whether or not you belIeve In the holy law of Web 2.0, WIkIpedIa Is tearIng at the seams. Many of Its core contrIbutors are extremely unhappy about Durova's Ill-advIsed ban and the exposure of the secret maIlIng lIst, and some feel that the sIte's well-beIng Is serIously threatened. In a post to WIkIpedIa, JImbo Wales says that thIs whole IncIdent was blown out of proportIon. "I advIse the world to relax a notch or two. A bad block was made for 75 mInutes," he says. "It was reversed and an apology gIven. There are thIngs to be studIed here about what went wrong and what could be done In the future, but wow, could we please do so wIth a lot less drama? A 75 mInute block, even If made badly, Is hardly worth all thIs drama. Let's please love each other, love the project, and remember what we are here for." But he's not admIttIng how deep thIs controversy goes. Wales and the WIkImedIa FoudatIon came down hard on the edItor who leaked Durova's emaIl. After It was posted to the publIc forum, the emaIl was promptly "oversIghted" - I.e. permanently removed. Then thIs rogue edItor posted It to hIs personal talk page, and a WIkImedIa FoundatIon member not only oversIghted the emaIl agaIn, but temporarIly banned the edItor. Then JImbo swooped In wIth a personal rebuke. "You have caused too much harm to justIfy us puttIng up wIth thIs kInd of behavIor much longer," he told the edItor. The problem, for many regular contrIbutors, Is that Wales and the FoundatIon seem to be sIdIng wIth Durova's bIzarre behavIor. "I belIeve that JImbo's credIbIlIty has been greatly damaged because of hIs open support for these people," says Charles AInsworth. And If JImbo can't maIntaIn hIs credIbIlIty, the sIte's most experIenced edItors may not stIck around. SInce the banhammer came down, Bang Bang hasn't edIted a lIck.

"I have never learned to trust It. I can't trust It to thIs day ... A dreadful doubt hangs over the whole achIevement of lIterature." Thus wrote Joseph Conrad, In an essay publIshed In the Manchester GuardIan Weekly on December 4 1922. Long before Auden was tellIng us poetry makes nothIng happen, or Adorno was sayIng there could be no poetry after AuschwItz, Conrad was questIonIng - fundamentally - the polItIcal and moral utIlIty of wrItIng. Yet thIs was a wrIter who drew the approbatIon of FR LeavIs, the pre-emInent BrItIsh supporter of the vIew that lIterature could play a role In the maIntenance of cIvIlIsatIon. In 1941, LeavIs descrIbed Conrad as beIng "among the very greatest novelIsts In the language - or any language".

"Both at sea and on land my point of view is English, from which the conclusions should not be drawn that i have become an Englishman. That is not the case. Homo duplex has in my case more than one meaning."

I belIeve (as I argue In my book The Soulful ScIence) that economIcs offers a unIquely powerful way of thInkIng about socIety, and how IndIvIduals make choIces In theIr socIal context. Other approaches, those of the other socIal scIences, or hIstory or lIterature and musIc, are valId too - I feel no need to dIsmIss them. But only economIcs wIth Its choIce-based models emphasIses the opportunIty costs and trade-offs that InevItably arIse from the socIal and physIcal realItIes of our exIstence.

I lIke OpenDemocracy. It has some InterestIng artIcles, very often on areas about whIch I know lIttle. But I do have to wonder, sometImes, whether the mInds there are quIte as open to new Ideas as they seem to be: