Dataset Preview
The full dataset viewer is not available (click to read why). Only showing a preview of the rows.
Job manager crashed while running this job (missing heartbeats).
Error code: JobManagerCrashedError
Need help to make the dataset viewer work? Make sure to review how to configure the dataset viewer, and open a discussion for direct support.
pred_label
string | pred_label_prob
float64 | wiki_prob
float64 | text
string | source
string |
|---|---|---|---|---|
__label__wiki
| 0.610011
| 0.610011
|
OUR SAINT SOPHIA: PASTORAL LETTER
Our Saint Sophia
A Letter of His Beatitude Sviatoslav on the Occasion of the Centenary of the Renewal of Unity of the Ukrainian Nation and State
There has been a relative whirlwind of events no one could have imagined happening as they did. The Orthodox Church in Ukraine, by the benevolent decree of the Patriarch of Constantinople, His All-Holiness Bartholomew, has been united into one single jurisdiction. This has all been taking place over the last few months. A centuries old decision (regarded as a grave injustice by many) that made the Orthodox Church in Ukraine subject to certain hierarchs in the territory that became known as Russia - was overturned. All Ukrainian Orthodox faithful, represented by their Bishops, came together to elect one Bishop to be their head. They settled upon Metropolitan Epiphanius who is now the canonical Orthodox primate of the country with the title of Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine. This a truly great news to any Christian of good will that has prayed for Church unity. What has happened, is that the famous ancient cathedral of Holy Sophia in Kyiv, relegated more to the status of museum, has seen more and more activity. In fact, Epiphanius led the celebration of Christmas at the Cathedral for the all Orthodox of Ukraine. Holy Sophia, known to English-speakers as Saint Sophia, has an extremely important place in the history of Ukraine - especially when it regards the Church, soul and faith of the People. The Head and Father of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, His Beatitude Sviatoslav, chose to issue an extraordinary pastoral letter at this critical time of unheard of moments in recent Church history. A reading of the letter, will explain what it is that he wanted the reader to understand...
[The English translation is given below. The original Ukrainian text is accessible at the link below.]
Letter of His Beatitude Sviatoslav
On the Occasion of the Centenary of the Renewal of
Unity of the Ukrainian Nation and State
Most Reverend Archbishops and Metropolitans,
God-loving Bishops, reverend Clergy
Venerable Monks and Nuns, beloved Brothers and Sisters,
in Ukraine and throughout the world
"The wisdom of a prudent man is to discern his way."
Beloved in Christ!
1. By attentively observing with the gaze of the century that has passed since the revival of the unity of the Ukrainian nation and state, we contemplate God's pre-eternal plan for them and our holy Church. We feel that we are standing on the threshold of a new era full of unexpected challenges. These new challenges are directed to all mankind. Mankind is part of an entirely unknown-unknown and unsettling, but full of hope-phase of global transformations: religious, cultural, economic, technological, socio-political. These new challenges are especially felt by us, the children and heirs of the Kyivan Church.
2. In the modern context of our spiritual, cultural, and national existence, I sincerely invite everyone to direct the eyes of their own heart and mind to Divine Wisdom. The pre-eternal God manifests this Wisdom at the Nativity of Christ through His incarnate Son and reveals it in the Holy Spirit. In this Divine Sophia, the Wisdom of God, we reveal the profound wisdom (phronema) of the existence of our nation and our statehood-our Sophia of Kyiv, which is an icon and incarnation of the Wisdom of God. Sophia, the Wisdom of God, came to the hills of Kyiv with Volodymyr's baptism and laid the foundation of all of Kyivan civilization. These are the Gospel values and moral principles that illumined the culture of our ancestors and have become a solid foundation for the unification of the Ukrainian nation and the development of our statehood. Its wondrous incarnation and unshakeable sanctuary became the Cathedral of the Wisdom of God, the Sobor of Saint Sophia in Kyiv, which to this day remains an expressive symbol of the original integrity and fulness (pleroma) of the unified and indivisible Church of Kyiv.
3. During its millennial history, this wisdom remained the foundation of the sophianic civilization of Kyivan Christianity, a source of the aspirations of statehood of our nation, a cradle of its morals. Thus, understanding our purpose and responsibility in modern times means making the Sophia of Kyiv visible, alive, and active. This Wisdom is a guide for one's personal life, a way to exercise moral and political choices. It is by the power and actions of the Holy Spirit that it is the source of the national vigour and the answer to today's questions and new challenges-that is, to plan and implement this Wisdom of God by our actions in new times-means to pave the way for Ukraine's people into the future.
Sophia of Kyiv: The Christian Foundation of Ukrainian National Existence
4. In His saving passion, death, and resurrection, our Saviour had the final victory over death itself and its cause, sin, and gave the world peace, which "passes all understanding" (Philippians 4:7). The wisdom of God's plan was manifested in the incomprehensible beauty of the sacrificial love of the Creator Himself. After all, through His own Son, in the Holy Spirit, He completed the mystery of salvation of mankind, freeing it from the captivity of sin and eternal death. The Church of Christ is the Mystery of God's victory, which is called to resound with victorious hymns through the ages, reaching all times and peoples through the waters of holy baptism and life-giving grace. We, Christians, are the echo of His victory, the living image of His eternal and gracious Wisdom. The Wisdom that once and for all dwelt among men, laying out the way to the individual person and whole nations to the boundless expanse of God's love through the announcement to humanity of the crucified Christ-"the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24).
5. "The Wisdom of God was unknown until the time [of Revelation] and hidden from angels and people, not as non-existent, but as hidden, to be revealed at the end of the age," wrote Metropolitan Hilarion of Kyiv.[1] When, for our people, the "fullness of time" (Galatians 4:4) was determined by divine providence, that salvific proclamation echoed on the hills of Kyiv. It reached the depths of the hearts of our ancestors, enlightened their minds, and strengthened their will, from the multitude formed unity and integrity. In the baptismal waters of Volodymyr's font, the Wisdom of God was incarnated in the body of our national existence-it became the blood and flesh of the history of the Ukrainian people. From hence generously began to beat the only source of Light and Truth for the people united by God's grace. From this source, our ancestors drew knowledge and it allowed them to form an understanding of themselves and the world, which they transmitted to their descendants. From this source our identity was born-ecclesial, national, sovereign. Thanks to this source, the values of the organization of personal and social life were formed. They brought order to the economy, education, and the upbringing of youth. New principles defined the attitude towards the family, those in need and strangers, an understanding of justice and beauty, civic responsibility and care for the common good. Here, the spirit of the Ukrainian army was tempered and the code of values of the Ukrainian warrior-the protector of our native land-was formed. The habitual and everyday acquired the measure of the sacred and God-revealed.
6. In the light of the Wisdom of God, embodied in the call of our people, the principles of the internal structure of Ukrainian society, the ethical principles of its institutional organization, and, ultimately, the very foundations of our statehood were formed. This is the source of our awareness of social justice and the call of the government to serve the interests of the people and protect its welfare. Our culture, our literary language, and the direction of our development were formed in the bosom of Sophia of Kyiv. The Kyivan Church was not hostage to the political interests of state power or the servant of the mighty of this world, because she did not fall into the sin of worshipping worldly authority. She remained the soul and conscience of her people, teaching them to assess earthly power according to how this power serves God's Truth and the eternal law of the Creator. That is how, in the light of Sophia of Kyiv and the good of God"s people, the Ruskaia Pravda (Rus' Truth [Law]) of the Grand Prince Yaroslav of Kyiv, famously called Yaroslav "the Wise," was evaluated. The same Church still gathers the children of the one Truth, one Wisdom, and one Sophia into one whole. Thus, on the slopes of Slavutych-Dnipro, God's Wisdom "has built her house" (Proverbs 9:1), laid in the hearts of our ancestors the unshakeable foundations of values for ordering our present and building a common future. The Wisdom of God became Wisdom-Sophia-of Kyiv, which formed the foundations of our civilization.
7. Throughout the ages there flowed from here, by the power and action of the Holy Spirit, streams of Divine Grace that irrigated the surrounding lands. It is from here, from Sophia of Kyiv, that the life-giving beams of God's Wisdom enlightened all the surrounding territories of the Kyivan state. Having accepted, however, the grace of baptism, not all of them became capable of being completely transformed into the depths of Divine Wisdom, and, as in Kyiv, to build their ecclesiastical identity and social institutions in its light. Even when they imitated, and sometimes occupied, the Cathedral of the Wisdom of God in Kyiv, they distinguished their existence with the aggression of nomadic conquerors, according to the Apostle Paul, "holding the form of religion but denying the power of it" (2 Timothy 3:5).
The Kyivan Church: An Icon of Divine Wisdom
8. The souls of our ancestors became the temple of God`s Wisdom, not made with hands, on the shores of the ancient Borysthenes; the throne of the Kyivan metropolitans - the heart of the sophianic civilization. The temple of God's Wisdom, not made with hands, on the shores of the ancient Borysthenes became the souls of our ancestors, the heart of their civilization-the throne of the Kyivan metropolitans. The temple of Saint Sophia of Kyiv, the Wisdom of God, embodied the wisdom of our ancestors, illuminated by God's truth, and became "a wonder and marvel to all the surrounding lands."[2] For centuries, the mystery of salvation of our people was performed here. "Rivers of living water" (John 7:38) flowed from this temple to the heart and mind of every Ukrainian. Our grandparents received grace from the spiritual heritage of the holy and all-praiseworthy Apostle Andrew the First-Called, the holy teachers of the Slavs Cyril and Methodius, the blessed Princess Olha of Kyiv. In the time determined by Providence, thanks to the deliberate will of the holy Equal to the Apostles, Grand Prince Volodymyr, our ancestors became participants of the baptismal font, the inexhaustible bounty of God's mercy, and the radiance of eternal Truth. Since then, Divine Wisdom-the eternal Truth-enlightens our path. And the Cathedral of Saint Sophia remains a faithful witness, sanctified by this grace, of the unity of the Church of Kyiv.
9. The undivided Kyivan Church, in full communion with the ancient Churches of Rome and Constantinople, became for us the faithful path to the universal brotherhood of the Christian nations. Her birth was not obscured by fraternal division. Her mystical memory carries a permanent liturgical remembrance (anamnesis) of the first millennium, unbroken by the division of Christianity. Her mission is to faithfully embody God's plan of human salvation among "the one nation under God in the land on the hills of Kyiv," as His Beatitude Lubomyr reminded us,[3] and to serve the universal unity of all Christians. Her Gospel proclamation melodiously sounded in full symphony with the voices of the ancient apostolic Churches, so that the one Truth of the indivisible Church of Christ might enlighten the whole world, faithfully fulfilling the Saviour's command "that they may all be one" (John 17:21). For Sophia is the symbol of unconquerable unity and wisdom, which reaches high above the walls of temporary misunderstandings and divisions.
10. The Church of Sophia is a holy land of reconciliation and understanding, always open to the universal unity of the children of God scattered throughout the world. For the Wisdom of God knows no bounds; she is always the same and embraces everyone and everything, "reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and she orders all things well" (Wisdom 8:1). That is why today, just as a millennium ago, our Kyivan Church remains in full communion with the successor of the Apostle Peter, called by the Saviour Himself to serve the unity of His Universal Church and the integrity of the redeemed people of God. Together with the Bishop of Rome, our Church is in communion with other Eastern Churches. This reveals the special ecumenical vocation of our Church-a witness of undivided Christianity and a martyr of our times.
11. The confessor of the faith and long-time prisoner of the Stalinist camps, Patriarch Josyf Slipyj, left the immortal manifesto of the identity of our Church as the inheritor and successor to the fullness of Kyivan Christianity. This manifesto is the magnificent Cathedral of Saint Sophia in Rome, whose golden jubilee of consecration we celebrate in 2019. The construction of Rome's Sophia, together with the foundation of the Ukrainian Catholic University, is a testimony to the living and active Sophia of Kyiv, revealed in the very existence of the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church-a martyr in both Ukraine and beyond its borders. Patriarch Josyf's immortal Urbi et orbi (To the [eternal] City and to the World) message is engraved on the pediment of the university: Veritas et amor scientiae unit dispersos ("Truth and love of knowledge unite those dispersed throughout the world"). Building the Cathedral of Saint Sophia in Rome, consecrating it together with Saint Pope Paul VI, that ascetic of the faith of Christ contemplated the Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv as the maternal temple of our Church in which his great predecessors prayed. Patriarch Josyf saw the Kyivan church as the visible cathedral of the invisible Sophia, its ecclesial and national wisdom, which endured thousands of years in the body and blood of his native Church, and today triumphs over the whole of Ukraine and the whole world. The Patriarchal Cathedral in Rome is an expressive symbol of the universality of Kyiv's Sophia, an incarnation of the desire of our hearts to the fullness of unity in Christ, bestowed upon our people in the baptismal font of Prince Volodymyr. It is a sign of the perpetuity of the Ukrainian spirit, illumined by the grace of God-the same that Patriarch Josyf embodied in his own life.
12. The great confessor of the faith humbly commanded his descendants: "Bury me in our Patriarchal Sobor of Holy Sophia, but when our vision becomes reality and our Holy Church and our Ukrainian nation will arise, take my coffin, in which I will lie in rest, to my native Ukrainian land...If such be the will of God and the will of God's Ukrainian people, lay my body in the crypt of the renewed Cathedral of Saint Sophia."[4] Patriarch Josyf felt that Divine Wisdom reminds us of the task of restoring the original unity of the presently divided Church of Kyiv. Only then will we see a truly renewed Cathedral of Saint Sophia in Kyiv. Until this unity exists, none of the Churches that are heirs of this Church can alone take up the ancient Cathedral of the Wisdom of God, Sophia of Kyiv. It must rather be the meeting place for all the descendants of the sophianic Church of Kyiv, to be a reminder, a call, a watchman, and a hope of our unification in Christ.
13. Through the preached word, the Wisdom of God penetrated the heart of all, forming an inseparable unity, an insurmountable community of a great family, with its gaze turned to the unshakeable sanctuary, Sophia of Kyiv. Our Church, in word and deed, taught its faithful children to boldly assume responsibility for the fate of the whole nation and for our state. She has always been sovereign and fostered aspirations for statehood, constantly emphasizing the foundational values of the functioning of state and social institutions, whose reason of being it sought much deeper-in the treasury of the Wisdom of God. Inspired by her wise tradition, the venerable Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky wrote: "The Church, understood as a purely national institution, embracing only one people and separating it from all others, becomes a contributor to maintaining conflicts, reinforces national passions, and helps to oppress other nations. It leads to struggle, not to peace; to separation, and not to unity. Therefore, it is not Christ's."[5] The sophianic thinking of our Church constantly directed her sons and daughters to overcome internal conflicts, to unite their efforts, to consolidate the Ukrainian people, gathering it around the always genuine Gospel values. Sophia is the wisdom embodied in the personal and social life of the Truth, which creates the architecture of the historical existence of the people, allows the din of generations and civilizations to consolidate the institutional design of its identity, "to build its Native Home."[6]
14. Within the peace and quiet of the tradition of Sophia in Kyivan Christianity there formed a specific liturgical, theological, spiritual, and canonical heritage. This rich spiritual culture has, unfortunately, not been studied and investigated sufficiently. Today, together with our Orthodox brothers, co-heirs of the Church of Kyiv, we are called to reopen this common treasure, to explore and develop it as a precious foundation for our spiritual unity. Kyivan piety is above all the attention to the human heart at its deepest dimension, in which the ability to feel and comprehend reality and to make decisions under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is concentrated. It is there that the Wisdom of God works on the restoration of the human being, whose image had become obscured. Therefore, the human heart, as well as the surrounding reality, requires development of authentic values. The ideal of an asceticism (askesis) formed under such conditions is physical labour, which allows a person to feel closer to the created world and, at the same time, prompts them to take responsibility for themselves. From the human heart-"an abyss, wider than all the waters and the heavens"[7]-the Wisdom of God reaches the entire inner world of a person made conscious by the perception of responsibility for others. Hard work becomes a valuable ideal, an instrument of social service.
15. Responsibility for the common good and serving the needy remain two decisive features of the social dimension of Kyivan piety. We find numerous testimonies about them in the lives of the great saints of our land, including the venerable Theodosius of the Kyiv Caves and other ascetics from the Paterikon of the Kyiv Caves Monastery. This kind of piety forms the image of the person restored by the Holy Spirit, who lives in the fulness of integrity (sophrosyne) and which is particular to our spiritual culture-the holy man as a bearer and witness of Divine Wisdom. Prayer, work, fasting, and deeds of mercy allow man to become a living embodiment of the incomprehensible Wisdom of the Creator Himself. The first fruit of holiness guided by God's wisdom is the spiritual achievement of the holy martyrs of the brothers Boris and Hlib. From the depths of this special gift for our people, Divine Wisdom paved the way to the hearts of countless martyrs for the unity of the Church of Christ-both during the persecution of the Church of Kyiv in the Russian Empire and during the communist terror of the twentieth century: their "martyr's blood testifies before heaven and earth to their unwavering faith in God."[8] In the heart in which God's Wisdom has come to dwell, the Gospel principles become vital benchmarks for our present life, and from there, from the cell of our own heart, we go to the wide world, to transfigure it, to bring human society in line with these revealed values. For centuries, the Kyivan Church, faithful to its salvific mission, sanctifies the heart of every Ukrainian and all people with the grace of God, brightly shining a wonderful icon of Divine Wisdom before the world.
Sophia of Kyiv: A Valuable Paradigm for the Construction of Statehood and Social Institutions of the Ukrainian People
16. The ethics of social relations, formed in the context of the sophianic logic of our history, defines a special place for the leader of the people. The function of state power and public leadership in the Kyivan tradition acquires the features characteristic of it. It is easy to notice in Volodymyr Monomakh's Instruction: the grand prince is not guided in his actions only by his own intelligence and general human experience. He looks for God's statutes, wisely acknowledging the primacy of Divine Providence over his own will. State authority is, first and foremost, a ministry that leads to caring for the people entrusted by God, especially widows and orphans, the poor and the infirm. Laziness is perhaps the greatest of sins. Every human activity must be tireless and enlightened by God's grace. That is why the prince appeals in prayer to God with a request to strengthen his heart with wisdom. Moral and theological virtues are at the core of his personal life and social service: "And this is for you the foundation of all: have fear of God above all else."[9] The prince does not usurp power given to him by the Almighty to protect his native land and ensure the well-being of his subordinates. He is called to wisely dispose of it for the sake of peace and harmony in the country. In our system of values based on Sophia, God's people remain the bearers of God's Wisdom, and from there-a voice that is capable of reminding the prince of his sacred mission and warn against abuse of power.
17. Throughout the centuries, the light of the Gospel of Christ has abundantly enlightened every dimension of the life and ways of our nation. The Word of God laid the foundations of social and state institutions, deepened the understanding of human freedom and dignity, the rights and duties of citizens, the responsibility of the authorities, and helped to reconcile public and economic activity with revealed truths. An important echo of God's Wisdom in the history of the Ukrainian people in the Kyivan Church is the unquestioning respect for knowledge. Metropolitan Andrey once said: "All Ukrainians highly value science and education."[10] The Metropolitan himself and his successors made considerable efforts to prevent the Ukrainian people from losing their desire for wisdom. After all, knowledge leads to a deeper understanding of oneself and the surrounding world, allowing a person to fruitfully interact with reality. Science and education help people protect their identity, save their own soul, and create a blossoming future. Prosperity is the key to economic development and social progress, however, only when guided by true values: "If you love profit, look for it in a decent way," wrote Hryhorii Skovoroda.[11] By entering human reality, God's Wisdom enlightens minds and directs the human will to the right action, helping wisely to guide God's creation, which has been entrusted to it.
18. In a particular way, our people and its Church became witnesses of the incarnation of the Wisdom of God in their own history in inexpressible suffering and persecution, with faithfulness and dignity inherited for the sake of Christ and His justice. We are the Church of the Martyrs for God's Truth. The trials, which fell abundantly on the Ukrainian people, became a place of revelation of God's power and wisdom. They created our specificity, formed our identity. For we do not preach the wisdom of this world, but in our own history we authentically proclaim "a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification" (1 Corinthians 2:7). This is the very mystery of the divine plan, which appeared to the world from the height of the cross and illuminated it with the light of Christ's resurrection. This is the wisdom that bestows the fullness of life and overcomes death itself.
19. In his pastoral message to the clergy of our Church, written in the Krasnoyarsk region, Patriarch Josyf Slipyj, of blessed memory, compares the history of the Church of Christ to the cross-bearing (stavrophoric) procession of the righteous and martyrs for the Truth of God: "And in this cross-bearing procession, a separate row is made up of the confessors of our Greco-Catholic Church...There you see your grandparents and great-grandparents, parents and relatives, many of your spiritual children, friends, and acquaintances...Behind those worthy, venerable, and holy ancestors, you follow with your heavy crosses, falling under them not once or twice, but repeatedly, only to rise again. They are all with you in your struggle for the Church and its unity, to bear your heavy cross with you in spirit and prayer!"[12]Sophia of Kyiv is also the wisdom of our people (phronema), which is manifested in times of suffering and gives the power to transfigure the pain and sadness of persecution into the ineffable joy of faithfulness to Christ, into spiritual victory over the forces of fear and gloom, and into the triumph of the resurrection. Our Church has always been conscious of its mission before its own people and the whole world to proclaim the Gospel "not with eloquent wisdom of discourse," but by the love of the cross of the Lord, which "to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:17).
Sophia of Kyiv: The Hodegetria of the Eternal Purpose of the Children of the Ukrainian Church and the People
20. The righteous Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky ends his famous "Prayer for Divine Wisdom" with these words: "grant me the wisdom that I and my people lack; grant me the wisdom of true satisfaction, true happiness."[13] In these words, our great righteous hierarch seems to draw the eyes of his own heart toward the future, which must still be attained through the struggle of prayer and by joint hard work. Here was the whole wisdom of the Ukrainian people who, through centuries of trials, look forward and confidently strive for the fullness of their calling to be raised as "an ensign for the nations" (Isaiah 11:12), to be a people of God who, with insurmountable hope, set out on the path to the land promised to them, to the fullness of God's love and peace. And the guide for them on this path will be the Wisdom of God, embodied in their history-our Sophia of Kyiv.
21. Sophia of Kyiv is the wisdom of the people born in the grace-filled waters of Volodymyr's baptism. Since then, the values of the Gospel have laid the foundation for our worldview, have become the norm of organizing the life of society. The fostering of the Ukrainian family as the domestic Church, which preserved our ecclesial life during the years of most severe persecution, the transmission of the faith of our parents to future generations as the most valuable national treasure, and even the process of state-building in our history, imbued with the radiance of God's Wisdom. Her light teaches us to love our people and its united (soborna) state, while at the same time raising awareness that we are, according to the Apostle Paul, heavenly citizens, and here in this world we do not have a permanent place, but are humble pilgrims heading to our heavenly homeland (cf. Philippians 3:20). It is precisely this high purpose and vocation of every person that allows us to properly evaluate the earthly life and prepare well for eternity. On the way to the heavenly homeland, we are called upon to embody God's Sophia in our Ukrainian reality, to build a just world, to create a civilization of peace and love.
22. Dear brothers and sisters in Christ! Throughout our millennial history, our Church and our people have fully experienced in their bodies the experience of the Paschal Mystery of our Saviour. We have passed through difficult sufferings, have repeatedly experienced death and resurrection. We see the victory and the joy of the resurrection with our own eyes in a free, independent, and united Ukraine. Today, looking again into the eyes of the invaders, we ask the Lord: "Why did you raise us up? What is your plan (pronoia) for us?" To these questions, Divine Wisdom gives us an answer through our own Sophia of Kyiv! Today, just as a thousand of years ago, we are deeply aware of ourselves as the local and simultaneously global Kyivan Church-the Church of the Ukrainian people in unity with the successor of the Apostle Peter, as an integral part of the catholic Universal Church with the mission of uniting all Christians. We are confidently moving towards the fullness of God's Kingdom. Our sources are our values, our way of thinking and acting, our tradition and strategy of development, our experience. Our common memory, our fully open heart and helping hand, extended to the Orthodox brethren, our way to the future, our wisdom-this is our Sophia, the Sophia of Kyiv.
23. This Wisdom of the Church and the people is the key to our victory, our passion and indestructibility. This Wisdom, in the power and grace of the Holy Spirit, will lead us to a responsible choice this year, to renew and strengthen our state and to secure victory and peace, development and prosperity of the Ukrainian nation. Saint Sophia of Kyiv is the internal force that, without fear and anxiety, leads our people to the future in a particular civilizational way. By its very nature, it is universal-of great value to mankind, which helps all nations to enter a new era not with empty hands, but with the Eternal Wisdom that is at the heart of history. Our Sophia of Kyiv is its authentic reflection, the eternal radiance of Divine Providence, which reveals to us the truth about the person and its purpose in the universe.
Most Holy Theotokos, Throne of Wisdom, Orans of Kyiv and our Unshaken Wall! Lead us, heavenly citizens, on the paths of this earthly existence to our heavenly homeland!
+ SVIATOSLAV
In Kyiv,
at the Patriarchal Sobor of the Resurrection of Christ
on the Feast of the Circumcision of our Lord, God, and Saviour Jesus Christ
and our father among the Saints, Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia
1/14 January A.D. 2019
[1] Hilarion of Kyiv, Sermon on Law and Grace; Іларіон Київський, "Слово про закон і благодать," Філософська думка 4(1988), 89-101.
[3] His Beatitude Lubomyr (Husar), "Один Божий народ у краї на київських пагорбах: Слово Блаженнішого Любомира, Митрополита Києво-Галицької митрополії Української Греко-Католицької Церкви з нагоди започаткування повернення осідку митрополита до Києва, 13 квітня 2004 року," in Благовісник Верховного Архиєпископа Української Греко-Католицької Церкви Блаженнішого Любомира кардинала Гузара (Lviv: Друкарські куншти, 2004), vol. 4, 161-168.
[4] Patriarch Joseph (Slipyj), "Завіщання," in Будьмо собою! Життя і Заповіт патріарха Йосифа Сліпого (Lviv: Видавництво УКУ, 2017), 70.
[5] Metropolitan Andrey (Sheptytsky), "Правдива віра: Пастирське послання до вірних на Буковині," in Про Віру: Вибрані послання Митрополита Андрея та Патріарха Йосифа Сліпого (Lviv: Артос, 2013), 22.
[6] Metropolitan Andrey (Sheptytsky), Наша Державність. Як будувати рідну хату (Lviv: Артос, 2010).
[7] Hryhorii Skovoroda, "Книжечка про читання Святого Письма, названа «Жiнка Лотова». У 2-х т.," in Трактати, діялоги, притчі, переклади, листи, ed. Oleksa Myshanych (Kyiv: УНІГУ & НАН України, 1994), vol. 2, 34-60.
[8] Doxastikon, Tone 1, Sticheron at Psalm 140 from Vespers for the Feast of the Saints of Rus-Ukraine; Divine Office of the Byzantine-Slavonic Rite (Stamford, Ct.: Eparchy of Stamford, 2014), 780.
[9] "Повчання Володимира Мономаха (за Лаврентіївським списком)," Золотеслово. Хрестоматія літератури України-Руси епохи Середньовіччя ІХ - Хстоліть., vol. 2, ed. Vasyl Yaremenko (Kyiv: Аконіт, 2002).
[10] Metropolitan Andrey (Sheptytsky), Божа Мудрість, vol. 1, in Твори морально-аскетичні, vol. XLV-XLVII (Rome: Видання УКУ імені Св. Климента Папи, 1978.
[11] Hryhorii Skovoroda, Розмова, названа алфавіт, або буквар миру (Kyiv: Наукова думка, 1983), 200-249.
[12] Patriarch Joseph (Slipyj), "Пастирське послання до духовенства «Про становище духовних та вірних Української Греко-Католицької церкви після 1946 року та закликом бути стійкими під час переслідувань»," in Про Віру: Вибрані послання Митрополита Андрея та Патріарха Йосифа Сліпого (Lviv: Артос, 2013), 104.
[13] Metropolitan Andrey (Sheptytsky), "Молитва про Божу Мудрість," in Молитовник "Прийдіте поклонімся" (Lviv: Свічадо, 2004), 7; https://www.sheptytskyinstitute.ca/metropolitan-andrey-sheptytsky/.
НАША СВЯТА СОФІЯ
Послання Глави УГКЦ з нагоди століття відновлення соборності українського народу та його держави
News, Events & Photos
Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Winnipeg
Archeparchy
Clergy Councils
History of Archeparchy
Children's Camp
Religious Education Centre
Separated, Divorced & Widowed
Vibrant Parish Program
Youth & Young Adult
Holy Family Home
Holy Spirit Ukrainian Catholic Seminary
Immaclate Heart of Mary School (IHMS)
Knights of Columbus (KUCA)
Metropolitan Andrey Sheptycky Foundation (MASIF)
Metropolitan Andrey Sheptycky Institute (MASI)
SSMI Lubov Foundation
Ukrainian Canadian Committee
Ukrainian Catholic Brotherhood (UCBC)
Ukrainian Catholic Foundation of Canada
Ukrainian Catholic University
Ukrainian Catholic Women's League (UCWLC)
Ukrainian Catholic Youth & Young Adults (UCY/YA)
Ukrainian Park
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC)
Ukrainian Catholic Metropolia of Canada (UCMC)
Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Winnipeg (UKAW)
Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB)
233 Scotia Street, Winnipeg, MB R2V 1V7
E-Mail: chancery@archeparchy.ca
Copyright © 2020 Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Winnipeg All rights reserved.
|
cc/2020-05/en_head_0017.json.gz/line3
|
__label__wiki
| 0.875274
| 0.875274
|
Men's Eight PULLING FOR GOLD
MEN'S EIGHT ROWING TEAM, REIGNING WORLD CHAMPIONS
KEN MACQUEEN June 30 2008
Men's Eight PULLING FOR GOLD KEN MACQUEEN June 30 2008
Canada's Olympic hopefuls:
KEN MACQUEEN
Kevin Light has a jagged white scar running down the thumb of his left hand. It tells you some of what you need to know about the volatile chemistry of Canada's national men's eight rowing team. Light and the rest of the Victoria-based crew are the reigning world champions. Most if not all of the crew are bound for the Beijing Summer Games, though coach Mike Spracklen has yet to choose the final Olympic lineup for the eight-rowing's premier event. Their position as the best in the world-a race they won handily in Munich last September, ahead of German and British crews-puts them among the favour ites. But winning all the marbles in the year before an Olympics
No. 7 of a series
is considered to be somewhere between a mixed blessing and a curse. A world champion has never in recent times followed up with Olympic gold—such is the risk of applying pressure to the complex psychology of the eight. The Canadians were world champions entering the Athens Olympics, too. They made it as far as the gold medal race only to suffer an epic meltdown, limping across the finish in fifth place.
The loss was a painful thing to witness: physically imposing men the size of basketball players looked lost and vulnerable, their faces streaked with tears and summer sweat. “It was pretty disappointing,” says Britishborn Spracklen today, with typical understatement. “And when the guys came in from the race, and sat at the dock and cried, all of them, that was pretty unpleasant.” Light was in that Athens boat, and for six months afterwards his sleep was ripped apart by nightmares. He doesn’t remember the dreams, he says, just the horror of them. One night, in their thrall, he slammed his hand onto his night table, awakening to a room sprayed with blood.
It’s a new Olympic quadrennial. Light, a native of Sidney, B.C., came back, fighting for a place in the Beijing boat and a shot at redemption. So did Brian Price of Belleville, Ont., the coxswain who keeps the boat, and the coach’s race plan, on course. He, and rowers Adam Kreek of London, Ont., Ben Rutledge of Cranbrook, B.C., and Kyle Hamilton of Richmond, B.C., were all in the Athens boat, and clawed their way back to win the 2007 world championship. Each has their reasons for returning. Price, now 32, worked in civil engineering after Athens. “And all you’re thinking about is rowing,” he says. “What you didn’t do. What you could have done. What you still know you can do, and do better.”
Perhaps no one was more profoundly changed by the Athens disaster than Hamilton, the first of the crew to announce his attempt at an Olympic comeback. He wasn’t the strongest rower in 2004; in fact, he’d barely made the cut into the highly competitive men’s eight. He’d expected to leave Athens with a medal, retire from rowing and get on with life. He might have done so even
without the medal, if not for his wife, Erica. Devastated at the loss, he sought her out near the water’s edge. “I gave my wife a hug and the first thing she said was, ‘If you want to go another four years, I’ll support it,’ ” he says, sitting on the boathouse steps at the Elk Lake training centre outside Victoria on a recent spring day. “Whether she regrets that now is a whole other story.”
Today, some 3V2 years later, Hamilton has earned the key stroke seat of the eight. He’s the captain, the man who sets the pace, the team leader who acts as liaison with Spracklen, the soft-spoken autocrat who is one of international rowing’s winningest coaches. Spracklen admits he was surprised that Hamilton, of all people, would gamble on another
four years. The guy who barely made the boat in Athens emerged since as the crew’s natural leader. “He’s proven me totally wrong,” says Spracklen, stopwatch in hand during a recent morning on the water. “He can get strong, but he doesn’t lose his temper. He works extremely hard, it’s: T can do this guys, so you can do it,’ he says. He’s one of the best guys I’ve ever had leading.”
Athens was life-changing, says Hamilton. “When I look back on it I can honestly say that probably was the worst day of my life.” That day’s lesson, he admits, took time to sink in. It was a race. We lost. Get stronger. “When you look at the big picture,” he says, “I’ve got to consider myself pretty lucky if that’s the worst day of my life.” The irony of Athens, says Price, is that Hamilton would have retired if they’d won a medal but he
would have lost a sense of his own potential. “We never would have known how good Kyle could have been, because he’s amazing right now,” says Price. “He’s head and shoulders above what he was four years ago.”
The team heading into Beijing, in fact, is hardened and more complex than four years ago. No one in the boat then had Olympic experience. This time only a minority will be Olympic rookies. Added to the crew is Jake Wetzel, perhaps the most intense competitor in the boat. He won silver in the four boat in Athens, losing gold to an elite British crew by just. 08 of a second. To lose gold by inches is not an experience he intends to relive. “The margins are so small,” he says, “you want to be on the right side of it.”
The last eight got to the Athens finals on the strength of Spracklen’s obsessive focus on technique. This boat, says the coach, has far more horsepower: “It’s stronger in pretty well every seat.” He cites as an example the inspired addition of Malcolm Howard, a powerhouse who, as a pre-med student, crewed in the eight at Harvard during three undefeated seasons. ‘Physiologically, there is no one close to him,” says crewmate Hamilton. “I’m glad he’s on our side.” Howard, an Olympic rookie, loves the chemistry of the eight. “It’s such an achievement moulding eight personalities, eight ways of rowing, eight different-sized people to do one thing.” Adding to the mix is the Athens experience, which he says has only sharpened the resolve of coach and crew. “Mike tells us you learn more about yourself from losing than from winning.”
A heavyweight rowing shell looks deceptively frail. It is 18 m long, pencil-thin and weighs about 90 kg. Once Price, the cox, takes the only forward-looking seat and the eight hulking rowers squeeze into a line facing the stern, there’s no room for passengers, or their baggage. With the right coach and motivated athletes, training is a whole-body exercise: bulk becomes muscle, repetition becomes grace and, perhaps toughest of all, failure becomes experience.
That’s the thing about rowing the eight: to move forward, you have to look back. M
ken.macqueen@macleans.rogers.com
KYLE HAMILTON, CAPTAIN: OLYMPIC NUGGETS
Why rowing? It's the only thing I'm good at. I suck at every other sport.
Do you remember your first regatta?
It was a long time ago. It was pretty bad though, I'm sure. I was pretty bad at rowing until, well, about eight years ago.
Any pre-race rituals? I try to stay away from everyone. I like to be on my own.
What music do you listen to while training? I don't listen to anything when I train. I like to hear my thoughts. But before training and after training,
I like angry music. You know, Tool, something like that, or Rage Against the Machine.
Do you follow a special diet? Just volume. I make sure I'm getting [nutrition] right after a workout. I bring shakes down to every workout with blueberries, milk, some protein, all that sort of stuff.
Worst, or most embarrassing moment in competition? The most
embarrassing would have to be [placing fifth] in Athens, that's hands down. Playing junior high basketball,
I shot at my own net once. That's pretty embarrassing.
Do you have an inspirational quote? "To achieve what others don't, you have to do what others won't." That kind of is our training in a nutshell: do more than the other guy—more than the next guy on your team, and the guys on the next team.
What is the secret to surviving on Canada’s amateur sport funding?
A supportive wife. Credit cards. Supportive parents. Without all that you can't do it.
Do you have post-competition plans? After Beijing, my wife and I are going to Hawaii. A cousin of hers is getting married. We're only there for a week because I'm going back to school in September. I've got two more years of law school to finish up.
If I can bring a gold medal to law school it would be nice.
GUESS WHO’S WATCHING PORN
JUNE 30th 2008 2008 By MONIQUE POLAK
We don’t choose to be in nursing homes with our children paying forus, overstaying our welcome’
JUNE 30th 2008 2008
STÉPHANE DION’S HAIL MARY GAMBLE
JUNE 30th 2008 2008 By JOHN GEDDES
NOT JUST 'McBUSH’
JUNE 30th 2008 2008 By LUIZA CH. SAVAGE
THE PUZZLE OF FROZEN GAS
JUNE 30th 2008 2008 By NICHOLAS KÖHLER
'Bernardo and I talk about what’s in the news, or he makes some scatological remark about what's happened to Karla’
Don’t get this stuck to your shoes
MAY 10th 2010 By KEN MACQUEEN
Travis John Colby
November 2013 By KEN MACQUEEN
Mending fences in the West
|
cc/2020-05/en_head_0017.json.gz/line4
|
__label__cc
| 0.558738
| 0.441262
|
Nuclear Development LLC v. Tennessee Valley Authority
United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division
NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Plaintiff,
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, Defendant.
LILES C. BURKE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Defendant Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”) has filed a Motion to Dismiss (doc. 22). Plaintiff Nuclear Development LLC (“ND”) has filed a response (doc. 28), and TVA has filed a reply (doc. 31). The Court also held a hearing on May 13, 2019. Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss is ready for review. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the Motion to Dismiss.
The Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Site is an unfinished nuclear power plant site located in Jackson County, Alabama. (Doc. 1, p. 2). TVA currently owns the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Site and has custody and control of it. (Id.). The Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Site is currently in deferred plant status pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”). (Id. at 3). In 2016, TVA declared the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Site to be surplus property. (Id.). On November 14, 2016, TVA entered into an agreement for the sale of most of the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Site, including the infrastructure and other assets located thereon, to ND. (Id.). The Court will refer to the portion of the Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Site subject to the agreement as “Bellefonte.” The purchase and sales agreement (otherwise referred to as the “Agreement” or the “Contract”) is attached as an exhibit to ND's complaint.
Section 1 of the Agreement states, in part:
At the Closing (as defined in Section 5 below), TVA shall sell, transfer, convey, assign and deliver title and possession to [ND], and [ND] shall purchase and pay for, all of TVA's right, title and interest in each of the following . . .
(e) To the extent feasible and permitted by applicable law, all permits, licenses or authorizations issued or required by Governmental Authorities or third parties in connection with the operation of the Site and listed on Schedule 1(e) (the “Permits”); provided, however, that with regard to the transfer of the two permits issued to TVA by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) to construct two B&W pressurized water nuclear reactors, this Section 1(e) shall not require TVA to certify that [ND] is qualified and fit to complete construction of and operate those reactors and, if [ND] informs TVA that it does not seek transfer of these NRC permits, TVA shall take whatever action is necessary to terminate those permits. Further, if, an applicable Governmental Authority has not accepted or otherwise allowed the transfer of a permit, license or authorization pursuant to this Section 1(e) by Closing, TVA's obligations under this Section 1(e) shall cease.
(Doc. 1, p. 4). Listed in Schedule 1(e) to the Agreement are certain facility permits, including the NRC Permits, CPPR-122 (Unit 1) and CPPR-123 (Unit 2) (the “NRC Permits”), both issued on December 24, 1974, and listed as “[r]einstated, currently deferred.” (Doc. 1-2, p. 47; Do c. 23-2).[1]
Section 6(a)(v) addresses conditions to closing, stating that
[t]he obligations of TVA and [ND] to consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement shall be subject to the fulfillment, at or before Closing, of each of the following conditions . . .
(v) There shall not be in effect at the Closing any law, statute, rule, regulation, permit certificate or binding order, decree or decision of any Governmental Authority (as defined in Section 9(a)(ii) below) restraining, enjoining or otherwise prohibiting or making illegal the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement . . . .
(Doc. 1-1, p. 7).
Section 7(a) of the Contract addresses TVA's representations and warranties. In particular, Section 7(a)(vii) states
TVA has full right, power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and to consummate the purchase and sale transactions provided for herein, and no authorization, consent or approval or other order or action of or filing with any Governmental Authority is required for the execution and delivery by the TVA of this Agreement or the consummation by the TVA of the transactions contemplated hereby.
Section 8(a) addresses ND's representations and warranties. Section 8(a)(vi) states that, to induce TVA to enter into the Agreement, ND represents and warrants to TVA, among other things, that “[n]o authorization, consent or approval or other order or action of or filing with any Governmental Authority is required for the execution and delivery by [ND] of this Agreement or the consummation by [ND] of the transactions contemplated hereby.” (Id. at 10). Additionally, Section 15(c)(i) states that ND, “either alone or together with its representatives and agents, has knowledge and experience in transactions of this type and is therefore capable of evaluating the risks and merits of acquiring [Bellefonte].” (Id. at 15).
Section 11(a) addresses the termination of the Agreement. Section 11(a)(iv) states that the Agreement may be terminated “[b]y either Party, upon written notice to the other Party, if . . . the closing conditions set forth in Section 6(a)(i) or 6(a)(v) [stating that nothing makes the consummation of the transactions illegal] are unfulfilled as of the Closing Date . . . .” (Id. at 13). Section 11(b) states, “Upon any termination of expiration or [sic] this Agreement, TVA shall be entitled to retain the Down Payment and any Compensated Costs paid by Buyer on or before termination or expiration, unless termination is under Section 11(a)(ii) or Section 11(a)(iv), in which event TVA shall return the Down Payment and any Compensated Costs paid by Buyer to Buyer within 30 days by check or electronically as directed by Buyer.” (Id.).
Upon execution of the Agreement, ND paid TVA $22, 200, 000.00 as a 20% down payment toward the purchase price of 111 million, with the $88, 800, 000.00 balance to be paid at closing. (Doc. 1, p. 4; Doc. 1-1, p. 7). In addition, ND also paid TVA an additional $750, 000 upon execution of the contract to compensate TVA for certain sales and administrative costs. (Id.). Pursuant to the Agreement, ND has paid TVA $875, 000 every three months from the date of the Agreement through November 30, 2018, for TVA's continued maintenance of Bellefonte. (Doc. 1, p. 4).
The Agreement originally provided for a November 14, 2018, closing date. (Id.; Doc. 1-1, p. 6). According to ND, it requested an extension of the closing date to May 14, 2019, “in order to complete certain activities for an orderly closing.” (Doc. 1, p. 5). TVA did not agree to this request. (Id.). ND alleges that on November 8, 2018, TVA raised, for the first time, a potential obstacle to closing. (Id.). Specifically, TVA advised ND that it would not, or could not, consummate the sale of Bellefonte without approval from the NRC for the transfer of the NRC Permits to ND. (Id. at 6). The parties agreed, in the First Amendment to the Agreement, to an extension of the ...
|
cc/2020-05/en_head_0017.json.gz/line6
|
__label__cc
| 0.572105
| 0.427895
|
Ali Pearson, owner of Alumni Exhibits in Sebastopol, California has been in the business of educational murals, scientific illustration, and sculptures for museums for over twenty years. Her breathtaking murals and precision sculptures can be seen in museums and visitor centers around the world. Working with Leslie Stone and Associates Alumni Exhibits painted and installed 13 murals in the Yosemite Valley Visitor’s Center in 2007. The same year Alumni Exhibits completed three murals for the Kings Canyon National Park Visitor’s Center in Grants Grove.
Local Bay Area projects include a mural at the Sunnyvale Murphy House Museum showing a 360 degree panoramic view of the Sunnyvale area illustrating the history of the valley. Point Reyes National Seashore and Tilden Park in Berkeley also have murals and sculptures produced by Ali Pearson illustrating the scenic characteristics and plants and animals of the region.
Ali Pearson holds a Bachelors degree from Colorado College and a Masters of Fine Arts degree in painting from the San Francisco Art Institute. She began her career as a museum artist/preparator by taking a volunteer position at the California Academy of Sciences and has had a lifelong interest and involvement in the study and preservation of nature. Ali Pearson founded Alumni Exhibits in 1999.
Bill Stockton of Alumni Exhibits began working in the exhibit business 14 years ago. He has fabricated interactives, casework, millwork, armatures, architectural elements, and “green” wood furniture for museums, aquariums, visitor centers and tradeshows. He is experienced in production design and project management, and adept at using AutoCAD and other industry related design software to produce working drawings for use in formal approval submissions and fabrication. His vast experience with jobs involving multiple trades and building interfaces compliments the visual arts skills that are the trademark of Alumni Exhibits.
Examples of Bill’s work can be seen in several locations in the Bay Area. The most recent example of Bill’s craftsmanship can be seen at The Aquarium of the Bay (on Pier 39 in San Francisco) for which he constructed a variety of elements utilizing Cypress lumber reclaimed from fallen trees in the East Bay. Bill has also contributed to exhibits at The Monterey Bay Aquarium, Yosemite National Park and the Smithsonian Institute.
Our goal is to do the best possible job for our clients and to get the work done on time. For larger projects, Alumni Exhibits has an amazing network of other artists that we bring on board. Our work at Yosemite Valley Visitor’s Center is an example of this type of collaboration.
Alumni Exhibits is associated with a broad network of specialized vendors. With access to everything from CNC laser fabrication to hand brazed artifact mounts, we have the experience and capability to produce a very broad spectrum of exhibits and are positioned to offer our services at competitive rates.
|
cc/2020-05/en_head_0017.json.gz/line10
|
__label__wiki
| 0.539841
| 0.539841
|
Co-Artistic Directors Announced for Melbourne’s New Festival
July 3, 2019 - Creative Industries, Latest News
Lauded artist, curator and festival director Hannah Fox and acclaimed director and choreographer Gideon Obarzanek have been announced as the co-artistic directors of Melbourne’s new festival from 2020-2023. Fox and Obarzanek jointly applied to curate Victoria’s largest cultural event, with the inaugural festival running from 20 August to 6 September 2020.
“The new festival will be of global significance and distinctly Melbourne, reflecting the creativity and culture of our city,” said Minister for Creative Industries, Martin Foley. “The festival will be shaped by two boundary-pushing and globally connected homegrown talents. I can’t wait to see what they have in store for us.”
“After a global search, we are thrilled to have two internationally admired and respected artistic leaders guiding our vision for Melbourne’s new cultural festival and major event,” said Chair of Melbourne International Arts Festival, Tim Orton. “That Hannah and Gideon are both Melburnians emphasises our city’s incredible contribution to culture.”
Currently Associate Creative Director at Dark Mofo and involved since its inception, Fox’s focus on sound art, large-scale public art, contemporary music and live art has seen her move from painting hundreds of sheep for Latitude Festival in the UK, to choreographing cranes for a vast car stunt show and collaborating with Banksy and Jane’s Addiction on a performance intervention.
As co-director of creative services company Supple Fox, she curated the contemporary music program at Melbourne International Arts Festival from 2009 – 2012, and recently devised Siren Song – a major outdoor sonic artwork that fills the skies of a city – in collaboration with Byron Scullin and Tom Supple, which continues to be remounted in cities around the world.
Obarzanek founded dance company Chunky Move in 1995 and was CEO and Artistic Director until 2012. His works have been performed in many festivals and theatres around the world including Edinburgh International, BAM Next Wave NY, Venice Dance Biennale, Southbank London and all major Australian performing arts festivals.
He was Artistic Associate with the Melbourne International Arts Festival from 2015-17, co-curator for XO State at the inaugural Asia Pacific Triennial of Performing Arts (Asia TOPA) from 2015-17, and his recent creations include There’s Definitely a Prince Involved for the Australian Ballet, L’Chaim for the Sydney Dance Company, Two Jews Walk into a Theatre for Melbourne & Adelaide Festivals and Stuck in the Middle With You the first Virtual Reality film commissioned by the Australian Centre of Moving Image.
“We are honoured to have the opportunity to rethink what a festival can be in a major city and especially this city,” said Fox. “Gideon and I share the mission to make a festival that marks each passing year with a large-scale ceremony specific to Melbourne, bringing people out of their homes and into proximity to each other to experience art that really shifts the status quo, even for a fleeting moment.”
“Melbourne’s new festival will be the crucible for diverse histories, communities and ideas to come together and define what it means to be in the here and now,” said Obarzanek. “I am thrilled to be working with Hannah and the rest of the team to create this extraordinary event that will both reflect and inspire this unique city.”
Fox and Obarzanek will join Executive Director, Kath Mainland and a diverse creative team of specialists to deliver a bold, global festival. With commissioned and world-first collaborations between local and international artists, a distinct program of visual and performing arts productions, and large-scale public events, it will celebrate Melbourne’s cultural, creative and culinary strengths. More details on the festival, including its name, will be announced late in 2019.
The 2019 Melbourne International Arts Festival runs 2 – 20 October. For more information, visit: www.festival.melbourne for details.
Image: Hannah Fox and Gideon Obarzanek (supplied)
Top Picks for the 2020 Midsumma Festival
Celebrating LGBTQIA+ diverse journeys and communities, Midsumma will spotlight an array of spectacular performances, exh...
MQFF 2020 – We’re Stories in Every Colour
Melbourne Queer Film Festival (MQFF) is marking its 30th festival by unveiling a new brand and marketing campaign that e...
Artists help communities during a crisis, not hind...
Artists are again finding themselves at the receiving end of criticism over funding. A mural on the wall of a fire stati...
|
cc/2020-05/en_head_0017.json.gz/line12
|
__label__cc
| 0.633651
| 0.366349
|
The Social Psychology of Making Enemies, Propaganda and War
Contrary to common belief, war and the creation of enemies is not coded in our genes.
The symbolic enemy of primitive-ritualistic warfare, where the enemy in is quite different from the modern notion of an enemy.
The withholding enemy of the greedy-colonial warfare who is part of the imperialist, capital grabbing culture.
The worthy enemy, a fighter of heroic wars is a fighter of heroic wars, what Bertolt Brecht calls "the beloved enemy”.
The enemy of God in a holy war has to be destroyed to ensure the safety of the holy group.
The threatening enemy in defensive wars that aim to protect one's country or homeland.
The oppressive, dictatorial enemy opposing liberation or revolutionary wars.
A classic study in the US in the midst of the cold war revealed that young students viewed the Soviets as “the enemy”, not because they posed a physical threat to the US but due to their different ideology and competitive stand as a super power. Most adults over age fifty who have gone through some personal experience with war define “the enemy” in the traditional way, meaning the country with which we are at war.
An enemy image is a representation of the enemy. The double standard dynamic is the most powerful in distorting perceptions of enemy images. This is a process whereby people use a different yardstick to judge the enemy’s actions or to assess enemy motivations than they use for themselves or for allies.
The tendencies to judge the enemy’s actions negatively, to remember mainly negative information and to attribute peaceful acts to situational factors are frequently accompanied by hostile predictions of the enemy’s intentions far exceeding what can be determined by the facts. As most people are likely to perceive an enemy as more dangerous and more hostile than they really are, they are also more likely to expect the enemy to act more aggressively and violently than can be assumed from the available facts. The ability to present and perceive the enemy in such paradoxical ways enables people to justify their attitudes and behavior towards the enemy.
Four of the unwritten rules of enmity are:
The enemy of my friend is my enemy
The friend of my enemy is my enemy
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
My enemies are friends with each other
While during the cold war it was the split between the USSR and the US, more recently it has been between the Arab-Muslim world and the US This dynamic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is also responsible for the awkward situations where the US found itself simultaneously supporting two sides of a conflict with arms during the lengthy Iran-Iraqi war in the 1970s and 1980s. During the 1991 and 2002 wars in Iraq the US found itself again in the awkward position of supporting Syria, who was opposing Iraq (the enemy of my enemy is my friend) and at the same time labeling Syria as a terrorist nation due its hostile position towards Israel, the US’ ally (the enemy of my friend is my enemy). During the cold war research has shown that the US’s enemy, at that time, the USSR, was closely associated in people’s minds with terrorism and drug trafficking. As predicted by the statement, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, as soon as he gained enough political and military power in Iran, the late Shah of Iran opposed the Kurdish minority who were fighting for their independence.
Accordingly, one of the primary goals of war propaganda is its creation of enemy images that strip the enemy of their human, domestic and individual characteristics. Analysis of enemy images and war propaganda reveals that there are nine levels to describing or perceiving the enemy. On the other hand in an era when television can show the enemy, their children and families right in our living rooms, it is no longer easy to dehumanize the enemy. To see the enemy as a full person, like us experiencing joy, pain, fear and hope, will change our relationships to our enemies. Far from justifying all of our enemy’s actions, understanding will give us an historical, political and emotional context for our enemy’s actions.
Abridged Article
Contrary to common belief, war and the creation of enemies is not coded in our genes. The first humans who could organize and train an army, plan and conduct a war against an enemy, appeared in the Neolithic period, only about 11,000 to 13,000 years ago. Psychological elements predispose us towards propaganda and war. We can act in evil ways and make enemies. By understanding how prejudice and propaganda moves people, enemy making and war might be stopped. The US cartoon character, Pogo, wisely says, “We have met the enemy and it is us”.
Ofer Zur tells us that, since the Neolithic Period, people have fought seven types of warfare, each represented by a specific type of enemy:
The withholding enemy of the greedy-colonial warfare who is part of the imperialist, capital grabbing culture. The greedy, dominating and colonial enemy in these wars was one who deprived the dominated people of their physical and psychological needs. From the view of the dominant party, the enemy was not to be destroyed but to be exploited, enslaved and used to fulfil the greedy needs of the elite group of people. The enemy in this war is to be exploited, nowadays not necessarily militarily or wholly militarily but economically exploited.
The worthy enemy, a fighter of heroic wars is a fighter of heroic wars, what Bertolt Brecht calls “the beloved enemy”.
The enemy of God in a holy war has to be destroyed to ensure the safety of the holy group. The Arabs, and many in the US, view the Middle Eastern wars as a holy war between Islam and Christianity. The Cold War too from the US viewpoint had the elements of a holy war against the “atheist communists”, and the recent war on terrorism has an underpinning of holy war on radical Muslim terrorists, both being depicted as the “good guys”, the US and its allies, versus the “bad guys”, anyone who contested the US view of the world.
The threatening enemy in defensive wars that aim to protect one’s country or homeland. The US fought in World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam to defend an ally, allegedly to “defend the free world”, or to defend itself from Communist or other believed threats. Troops and civilians alike are conditioned to believe that their country’s cause is just, their leaders are blameless, and that God is on their side against the vile and evil enemy “over there”.
The oppressive, dictatorial enemy in opposing liberation or revolutionary wars.
The recently conceived notion of a war on terrorism, although, beyond agreement that terrorism aims at inducing terror, no one has yet found a commonly agreed definition. After all, warfare generally induces terror. Consequently, terrorism is ften simply “name calling” against any “enemy of the state”. It is the term used by powerful governments when their enemy threaten the dominance of those governments in war albeit with far more primitive weapons. In the war on terrorism there are desperate attempts to identify and destroy the enemy by traditional means of bombing, but traditional warfare tactics are not effective with non-traditional warfare. The Israelis and other military and police forces in Mediterranean countries, the US in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, the British Army in Ireland, and others have all learned that you can’t use WMD to fight an enemy “out there” when the enemy is “right here”, within, all around or among us.
Enmity, Enemy Images And Paranoia
Recent dictionary definitions of “enemy” are on the lines of “a hostile force or power”, “a member or unit of such a force”, or “something having destructive effect”. US Federal law defines “enemy” as “the government of any nation with which the US is at war”. More personally, “enemy” can be defined as a person or a group of persons perceived to represent a threat to or hostile towards the perceiver. In the cold war, students we found to see the Soviets as “the enemy” not because they posed any actual threat to the US, but due to their different and competitive ideology as a super power. Most adults over age fifty who have gone through some personal experience with war define “the enemy” in the traditional way, meaning the country with which we are at war. However, most young people in Europe and the US, having not directly experienced war in their adult lives, consistently define “enemy” in terms involving different ideologies, religions, values or competition for world domination.
While enemy traditionally has been defined as some type of perceived or real threat, “enmity” puts more emphasis on mutuality. Hypothetically, nation [A] can be an enemy of nation [B], while nation [B] does not consider [A] its enemy. An enemy image is a representation of the enemy. So, an image of “the enemy” can be accurate or biased, imaginary or real. More often than not, it is both. The role of war propaganda is to propagate a stereotypical bad, evil or demonic image of the enemy. Riitta Wahlstrom defines “enemy image” as “the commonly-held, stereotyped, dehumanized image of the outgroup”:
The enemy image provides a focus for externalization of fears and threats… a lot of undesirable cognitions and emotions are projected on to the enemy.
There is an emphasis on the processes of dehumanization (which legitimizes violence against the enemy), externalization, projection and several cognitive biases.
The pathology of the normal person who is a member of a war-justifying society forms the template from which all the images of the enemy are created.
In publicing enemy images and war, propaganda exploits people’s sense of insecurity, their loyalty and clinks with the group, and their predisposition to paranoia. Seeing the world as divided into us and them, undesirable negative qualities are projected on to the enemy. Social psychologists have documented the importance of the outgroup and enmity in the formation of group identity and group cohesion. These social instincts, or their lack, and the relative strength of one’s sense of self contribute to the individual’s vulnerability to war propaganda and establish an individual’s inclination towards making enemies. Enemies are suitable targets for unacceptable negative feelings or guilt by individuals or groups, as they attempt to rid themselves of these emotions. In the US, some people made Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld, or the military-industrial complex, with some justification, into their enemies. Internal group cohesion and group identity was promoted to counter the aggressive war campaign against international enemies led by these leading politicians.
Young children adopt attitudes, including enemy images, without really understanding them. But, at adolescence, they can think more abstractly and can draw more accurate conclusions from their personal experiences. In this way, children learn about enmity from their surroundings and internalize prejudices and enemy images as part of the process of becoming members of their culture. Thereby, people may use a different yardstick to judge the enemy than they use for themselves or friends and allies. During a conflict this double standard allows each side to regard its own deeds as defensive while denouncing the enemy’s as offensive. The double standard bias leads not only to misconceptions about the enemy and to an exaggerated perception of danger, it may also force the escalation of conflict to a point where mistrust and bad feeling renders negotiation no longer viable, then war may be inevitable.
The enemy’s hostile actions are commonly attributed to natural characteristics, while conciliatory or peaceful actions are attributed to the circumstances. In other words, when the enemy is acting peacefully, the external circumstances force it to. It is not voluntary. Americans, in tests, chose negative motives when bad acts were fictitiously ascribed to the enemy, but positive ones when the same acts were ascribed to the US.
The tendency to judge the enemy’s actions as malign, to remember mainly negative information, and to attribute peaceful acts to the situation rather than free will are frequently accompanied by hostile predictions of the enemy’s intentions far exceeding what the facts support. As people mainly see an enemy as more dangerous and more hostile than they really are, they also mainly expect the enemy to act more aggressively and violently than objective evidence suggests. The enemy will be seen as unwarrantedly hostile when we misread its intentions. The projection of hostile intent onto the enemy, can be provocative, and cause an escalation of the conflict, thereby becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Mirror Image
A close analysis of the images of the enemy as perceived by opposing parties reveals that they often see each other in a similar light, as Uri Bronfenbrenner showed in the cold war, and which remains true. The mirror image has manifested clearly in the way both sides of the Iraq war of 2002 depicted themselves and the other. The United State’s narrative of the war has been:
Altruistic Americans risk their lives to topple an evil dictator and establish democracy and human rights.
Psychology shows that people pay attention to, and recall more negative adjectives and stories about people they consider “the enemy”, than with people they consider friends. Terrorism and the external enemy have preoccupied the attention of Americans. Incredible statements about the USSR and then by Muslims are readily accepted in the US and the West generally because they describe “the enemy”. Evidence suggests this gullibility is shared with the other side. The bias in credibility assessment maintains a person’s inner mental consistency by ignoring, tuning-out, disregarding or denying any information that is inconsistent with their attitudes towards the enemy. It is a process which culminates with hostile and very often wrong predictions of the enemy’s intentions. It mobilizes people through fear and hate to feel justified in going to war and killing the enemy without guilt.
Someone seen as an evil enemy today can be an ally and a trusted friend tomorrow. War propaganda often focuses on historical differences between “us” and “them, the enemy”. Propaganda distorts truth and skews historical actuality with the goal of perpetuating present enmity towards a contemporary enemy. The fascists who effected the putsch in Kiev spread the lie that the Russians invaded the Ukraine when it was the German Nazi armies, The Ukraine being already within the Societ Union. Equally, after 9/11, the Taliban had to be depicted as the world’s most threatening enemy who were also hiding Bin Ladin to spread unreasonable terror worldwide but especially in western homes. There are modern nations, such as Finland, Costa Rica and Switzerland, without enemies and there have been peaceful societies throughout human evolution. But most groups, nations, tribes or countries have an enemy. Each in group often has an out group. Enmity with some other is important to maintain group cohesion and group identity, explaining the prevalence of the idea of the enemy. Even so, no one has shown that groups necessarily require enemies, or that there are no other ways to maintain group cohesion and identity.
The dynamic of enmity is complex and often has significant inconsistencies and paradoxes. Four of the unwritten rules of enmity state that:
My enemies are friends with each other.
While during the cold war it was the split between the Soviet Union and the US, more recently it has been that between the Arab-Muslim world and the US. The notion of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is responsible for the embarrassment of the US finding itself simultaneously on both sides of a conflict in its Middle eastern machinations since the 1970s. Thus the US is simultaneously bombing ISIS in Iraq and Syria while supporting ISIS as a weapon against Syria, allegedly a terrorist nation (the enemy of my enemy is my friend--at least to some degree!). Syria is also hostile to Israel, the US’s ally (the enemy of my friend is my enemy). People assume that their enemies are friends with each other. During the cold war the US’s enemy, the USSR, was blamed by Americans for all kinds of terrorism and drug trafficking. Our enemies of the day are therefore typically regarded as allies of each other, and with other threats whether communism, terrorism, or human rights violations in general. Our side don’t do things like that, not because it is true, but because no one propagates the evidence for it that exists, and because no one likes to think that our side is ever beastly!
Ignorance and Dehumanization
The above biases and distorted perceptions are to do with ignorance of the world beyond national borders and the enemy in particular, often fostered deliberately. Twenty-eight percent of US citizens believe that the USSR fought against, and not with, the US in World War II. Ignorance also perpetuates personal attribution of barbaric actions to the enemy. To fight our own kind we have to dehumanize the enemy, to see other human beings as less than human. So, the main goal of war propaganda is to paint an enemy stripped of their human characteristics, to paint them as monstrous!
Broadly there are nine ways of characterising the enemy. Least likely is as being recognizably human, but is possible and even likely in primitive ritualistic and heroic, romanticised warfare. Otherwise, the enemy is depicted as increasingly less human, becoming merely a representation of death, destruction and evil. Caricatures and cartoons in the press, on the Internet and TV depict Bin Ladin, Saddam Hussein or Muslim opponents as a “demonic enemy”. The war on terrorism depicts the enemy as an animal and the US soldier as a hunter. Pictures of American service men and women sexually humiliating prisoners held in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in 2004 mocked the pious aim of Muslims of “submitting” to God by putting them in subservient, dehumanizing positions that sub-feminized the enemy before their dominating female guards.
The west also depicts and dehumanizes the enemy on the computer or videogame screen, and through the selling of “shoot-em-up” videogames largely played by children and unsophisticated young men. On the other hand in an era when television can show the enemy, their children and families right in our living rooms, it is not as easy to dehumanize them as it once was. In the summer 2014 assault by the IDF on Gaza, it was the Israelis who came out on TV as the least human by their murdering thousands of largely helpless Gazans in their homes. More and more sophisticated techniques must be developed to continue denying the enemy’s humanity. Although the US has the largest store of war instruments on the planet, domestically they have to protect themselves at airports against the Pimpernel terrorists by checking soft drink bottles, tennis shoes and threatening weapons like nail clippers.
Today it is imperative to seek ways of reducing enmity among groups and discover if nations can exist without enemies. Every war runs the risk of escalating to a nuclear level, so by failing to settle disputes amicably we risk destroying ourselves. We must stop dehumanizing the enemy and view them as human beings whose grievances mau be legitimate. To see the enemy, like us, experiencing joy, pain, fear and hope, will help us to empathize with our enemies, giving us an historical, political and emotional context to understand our enemy’s actions, to recognize the enemies’ needs, hopes and fears, and the catalysts that motivate them. We will be less likely to make hostile predictions, to have selective negative attention, and we will apply fewer double standards in assessing the enemy’s actions.
The central need in doing this is to develop a healthy skepticism about what the media tell us about our supposed enemies, and why anyone should want us to believe the lies they propagate. The answer is the need of the ruling elite to capture absolute power and greed for wealth that anables them to do it. But while true, that is another story. Meanwhile, relatively few US citizens have a passport to travel abroad, and consequently they have a narrow view of the human race. Those who do travel broaden their awareness of the common humanity of all people. Grassroots citizen diplomacy, sister-cities, pen pals and other networking activities between the members of warring groups can drastically reduce enmity by rehumanizing the enemy.
Enmity might once have promoted group cohesion and enhanced group identity, we have moved far from the situation of small bands of wandering humans when this was so. Now there is ample evidence to show that groups can develop cohesion and identity without enemies. The danger in the current US war against terrorism is that it will descend to the level of the terrorist-enemy it fights and by that destroy the very values that the US is fighting to preserve. Fighting the enemy on its own terms can destroy the country itself.
The un-abridged article can be read at this address:
http://www.zurinstitute.com/enmity.html
Posted by AskWhy! Blogger at 12:10 AM 0 comments
Labels: Dehumanization, Enmity, Ignorance, Propaganda, War
Psychology and Class in War and National Hatred
Social psychology has revealed that even tiny infants distinguish between people close to them with whom they feel comfortable and others, strangers whom they dislike. For two million years of human social evolution, we lived in small groups of about 150 people, and distrusted strange, even though neighbouring groups. So it is that people learn to separate those they like from those who make them feel ill at ease, to separate good people from bad. It is out of such primitive thinking that the structures of enmity grow and can be exploited by unscrupulous leaders whether political or religious. Hesse showed that, by age five, children have the idea of the enemy, someone whom they see as whatever in the culture seems most fearful and threatening—a wild beast, a demon or someone with evil intent. Interestingly, these Hesse’s subjects did not generally see their own nationality as having evil intent.
Now we live in a global village but still have our loyalty to clans and tribes, albeit much bigger and more dangerous ones. Disputes between them can still lead to violence and war but now they can end up as genocide. The nuclear threat has fed off Christian apocalyptic thinking to split the peoples of the world globally into good and evil. Worse, the singular delusion of US exceptionalism as America being God’s own country and Americans as God’s latter day Chosen People, forced their conviction that, they, being good, would be saved in the event of a nuclear holocaust and the evil enemy would perish. The danger of reinforcing infantile thought patterns is clear.
War begins in the mind, with the idea of the enemy.
Broyles W Jr, Why me?-why them? The New York Times , 1986
Yet analysis of the images of the enemy as perceived by opposing parties reveals that they often see each other in a similar light. Uri Bronfenbrenner has coined the term “mirror image” and documents how American and Russian views of each other during the cold war were essentially interchangeable:
Our enemy is a coarse, crooked megalomaniac who aims to kill us.
Tommy White, retired US Air Force Chief of Staff
Both sides felt that:
the other was the aggressor
the other’s government exploited and deluded its people
the majority of the people were essentially good and were not sympathetic to the government’s deceitful leadership
the other government should never be trusted—they have hidden, sneaky and secretive ways to go about their plots
their policy verges on madness, while ours is, of course, rational and humane.
Examples of the mirror image dynamic are numerous. In a testimony to Bronfenbrenner’s thorough research it is as relevant to the 2002 Iraq-United States war as it was during the cold war. Americans and Iraqis have accused each other’s governments of misleading their people for their own self-interests. The Americans and Arabs have repeatedly exchanged accusations of the other’s attempt to dominate the world, control its oil supply and insatiate greed. The mirror image has manifested clearly in the way both sides of the Iraq war of 2002 depicted themselves and the other: The United State’s narrative of the war has been: “Altruistic Americans risk their lives to topple an evil dictator and establish democracy and human rights.” On the other side the Arab narrative was: “The same Yankees who pay for Israelis to blow up Palestinians are now seizing Iraqi oil fields and maiming Iraqi women and children.” Both, Iraqis and Americans accused each other of violation of human rights, ruthlessness and greed.
During the cold war the United States blamed the Soviet Union for expansionism when they invaded Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. The Soviet Union blamed the United States for expansionism when it sent troops to Vietnam, Grenada and to countries in South America. Americans blamed the Soviets for human rights violations of minorities and Jewish dissidents, and the Soviets reminded Americans of their systematic violation of the basic human rights of the poor and African Americans in the United States. Both sides blamed the other for violations of international treaties, for the support of terrorism and for the escalation of the nuclear arms race. The United States blames Iraq for being part of the Axis of Evil, along side Iran and North Korea, and Iraq, and many other countries, consider the United States, Britain and Israel as their own Axis of Evil.
This principle explains how people are more likely to assess the informer and information that represent their view as more credible than the informer who presents an opposing view. This bias in the judgment of sources of information explains the resistance of enemy images to change. Statements by the Iraqis and the United States, or statements by the Soviet Union and the United States against each other, have often been perceived as credible by their respective audiences only because they describe “the enemy”. This principle was also evident within American political culture between political parties, when in conflict over a course of action or the selection of a candidate for office. Research on the credibility of newscasters also confirms that the more consistent the newscaster’s report was with the research subject’s predispositions, the more credible the newscaster was perceived to be.
Americans with negative attitudes towards nations whom they saw as hostile to the United States (eg, North Korea and Iran or, a couple of decades ago, the Soviet Union and Iran) are likely to assume that the relationship between these countries was positive. In other words people are likely to assume that their enemies are friends with each other. During the cold war research has shown that the United States’ enemy, at that time the Soviet Union, was closely associated in people’s minds with terrorism and drug trafficking. Similarly, Saddam Hussein had been associated with Bin Ladin right after 9/11, even though there was no evidence of such relationship.
When the enemy is presenting a conciliatory or peaceful offer, it is met with paranoid suspicion and is suspect for its hidden “real goals”. When Saddam Hussein, for example, finally allowed the UN inspectors to survey the presidential palaces and other locations, it was demanded that he be met with as much suspicion as when he did not allow them to inspect any of the sites. The fact that the inspectors did not find any evidence of weapons of mass destruction did not change the United States’ or the British government’s opinion in regard to Hussein’s dangerousness. Partly as a result of this double standard in attribution, both governments were unfazed by the lack of evidence and went on with their war plans.
One of the most critical elements in fighting our own kind is the ability to dehumanize the enemy, that is, to perceive other human beings as less than human:
The image of the enemy is not only the soldier’s most powerful weapon, it is society’s most powerful weapon. It enables people en masse to participate in acts of violence they would never consider doing as individuals.
Sam Keen, Faces of the Enemy
“Moral” or “civilized” human beings do not intentionally and rationally kill other human beings, but they do kill Gooks, Huns, Japs or Niggers. The substitution of labels from Soviet citizens to Reds, Jewish people to Hibbs or rats, American men to Yankees or Arab people to fanatic Muslims serves a simple but profound function: it allows people to kill with a minimal or no sense of guilt. Accordingly, one of the primary goals of war propaganda is its creation of enemy images that strip the enemy of their human, domestic and individual characteristics. In the words of Butler Shaffer:
War, by its very nature, is sociopathic… it dehumanizes people.
John E Mack tells that a school pupil after the war being taught by his teacher about Russians complained angrily, “You’re trying to get us to see them as people”. At this level of dehumanization the enemy is represented not only as inhuman, but also as a lifeless object. In the Iraq war of 1991 the United States depicted the enemy as a small dot-type target on the computer or videogame screen. Dehumanized enemies are often referred to by technical names or the code-numbers of their weaponry rather than by nationality or even real personal names. During the cold war this allowed the United States to fight not the Soviet army but the SS11 (Soviet long range nuclear missile) or the Frog (Soviet short range nuclear missile). An explosion on the TV or computer screen or the elimination of an SS11 by a Minuteman I (United States long range nuclear missile) are not likely to lead to feeling of regret regarding the loss of human lives. The technical names of weaponry as a representation of the enemy shield us from these feelings. George Orwell reflected well when he stated:
Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
Doublespeak is the most advanced level of dehumanization. Through Doublespeak, a term coined by George Orwell in his novel 1984, human lives are presented as abstractions. “Collateral damage” is doublespeak for civilian casualties, “servicing the target” is a euphemism for killing. Numerical terms, such as “megadeath”, stand for one million dead people. There is nothing in these terms that evoke any thoughts or feelings in regard to the human lives being destroyed; they elicit neither guilt nor shame. Therefore, killing and the destruction of life can go on. Additional examples of Doublespeak are: “coercive diplomacy” for bombing, “permanent pre-hostility” for peace and “engage the enemy on all sides” for ambushes. Consistent with the effort to mask the destructive power of weaponry, nuclear weapons have often been given pet names, such as “Poseidon” for the United States nuclear submarine, “Peacekeeper” or “Minuteman” for long-range nuclear missiles, and “Honest John” for the surface-to-surface missile. Acronyms are also abstractions. GLCM (pronounced as “glick-em”) stands for “ground launched cruise missile” and SLCM (pronounced “slick-em”) stands for “submarine launched cruise missile”. Possibilities for names of recent wars in Iraq have included euphemisms such as: “Desert Storm”, “Infinite Justice” and “Enduring Freedom”.
There is a substantial, politically influential, and aggressive body of American opinion for which the specter of a great and fearful external enemy, to be exorcised only by vast military preparations and much belligerent posturing, has become a political and psychological necessity.
George F Kennan, former US Ambassador to the USSR
One of the central shifts in the post 9/11 era is the emergent focus on militant Islam and the war on terrorism. The enemy appears to be rigidly defined and split tidily in two. On one side is the American technically superior empire and her supporters, on the other, terrorism, fueled by the energy of low tech, grass roots, religious, militant martyrs. Most terrifying to many is the sickening infectious enmity that is spreading across the planet, dividing nations—especially the United States, creating religious factions, pitting ethnic groups against one another as it demands a decision to line up behind one warring faction or the other. These two groups have become the modern “superpowers” with new war tactics that are truly terrifying. The old tools of war, and the antiquated posturing of the military, could appear almost comical if they were not so sad, if they did not bear such horrifying consequences. The war being waged is killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and there is no end in sight.
When the world was faced with two real superpowers, both seemingly equally powerful, Bronfenbrenner perhaps had no valid means to objectively testing whether one side or the other was making legitimate claims. Now there is only one superpower, the US, faced only by lesser powers, so the rationale for lying by its rulers who know their own absolute strength cannot be justified at all by psychological reasoning except perhaps by their utter insanity! Looking at the world since 1945, the US has had a hand in innumerable instances of wars and interventions, often against minnows. Each time the same fears were propagated, and now the fear of gangs of bandits in countries far off is again being wound up into a threat to the existence of the mightiest power in the world. Well, now it no longer washes. These gangs are not existential threats to anyone except perhaps their immediate neighbours, but certainly not the USA, so we can clearly see that the fears being generated are deliberately induced. Yes, based no doubt on deep psychological fears from the time when life was rather precarious, but not based on anything real today. And if the US is perpetuating these threats and fears unilaterally now, maybe we should ask who was driving the propaganda even in the cold war years. Maybe it was not quite as even as Bronfenbrenner thought.
Individuals may have little to do with the choice of national enemies. Most Americans, for example, know only what has been reported in the mass media about the Soviet Union. We are largely unaware of the forces that operate within our institutions, affecting the thinking of our leaders and ourselves, and which determine how the Soviet Union will be represented to us. Ill-will and a desire for revenge are transmitted from one generation to another, and we are not taught to think critically about how our assigned enemies are selected for us…But the attitude of one people towards another is usually determined by leaders who manipulate the minds of citizens for domestic political reasons which are generally unknown to the public.
1988 John E Mack, MD
The Lancet, 1988
National leaders have become adept at keeping their people focused on the supposed threat of an outside enemy. Yet the “cold war” taught that today we no longer could destroy the enemy on the other side of the wall, the river or the ocean without destroying ourselves. Destroying “the enemy” in the nuclear era inevitably means self-destruction. Even then people kid themselves that their protective myth will guarantee them safety, whether some sort of Star-Wars defensive system or the protection of God whisking away people still alive to heaven for a grandstand seat to watch the fireworks. As for terrorism, it is no different. We cannot eliminate terrorism, we cannot bomb it or any other belief or ideology out of existence. What we are left with is to attempt to increase our effectiveness in persuasion and proving what works in practice. For that we must stop dehumanizing the terrorist enemy and view them as full human beings with some legitimate grievances.
There is no self-awareness or self-responsibility at the highest political level which corresponds to the awareness of personal responsibility with which we are familiar as moral beings in society. So we have to create a new expectation of political self-responsibility—a political morality. Instead of constant blaming of the other side, we need to give new attention to adversaries’ culture and history, to their dreams and their values. We can no longer afford enemies, and nor is the notion of national security any longer useful. The security of each depends on everyone else. Regrettably the most powerful people in the world are the unbelievable rich who control it and therefore us all.
Conflict can become genocidal when powerful groups think that the most efficient means to get what they want is to eliminate those in the way.
Chirot, D and McCauley, C, Why Not Kill Them All?
Until they cease to want more by any means at all, as they have done so far, or they are forcibly removed from the equation, we can never have a world free of war. Greed at the top is the ultimate perpetuator of international enmity.
Mack, J E, The Enemy System (short version)
Chirot, D and McCauley, C, Why Not Kill Them All? The Logic and Prevention of Mass Political Murder
Zur, O (1991), The love of hating: The psychology of enmity. History of European Ideas
Posted by AskWhy! Blogger at 11:48 PM 0 comments
Labels: Class, Enmity, Mack, National Hatred, Psychology, War, Zur
The Social Psychology of Making Enemies, Propagand...
|
cc/2020-05/en_head_0017.json.gz/line13
|
__label__wiki
| 0.813722
| 0.813722
|
2017 / ian brill / movies
Ian’s Top Ten of 2017
by · Published January 13, 2018 · Updated January 25, 2018
10. War for the Planet of the Apes
The third film of Fox’s new Apes films is the brilliant culmination of what this series has been driving toward. For the first time in the franchise a film is entirely told from the apes’ POV, proving that Andy Serkis can anchor a film in a mo-cap performance. The story is part-war story and part-revenge film. Director Matt Reeves goes for the epic feeling of films like The Bridge on the River Kwai or The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. By exploring the inner turmoil of Serkis’ Caesar, caught between war and peace, the film lives up to those ambitions in a way that’s true to the very essence of the original Apes films.
9. Brigsby Bear
A film that asks, “What would happen if the kid in Room was rescued in his thirties…and watched a strange mash-up of Doctor Who and Teddy Ruxpin in the meantime?” While most of the film’s cast may come from comedy – it stars Kyle Mooney from Saturday Night Live and co-stars Matt Walsh, Michaela Watkins, and Andy Samberg – the film does not play its premise as either an absurd comedy or a dramatic tragedy. Instead it’s something in between and director Dave McCary strikes the right tone by being empathetic towards all the characters while never wallowing in sentimentality. Since James’ quest is to complete the Brigsby Bear story, the film becomes a celebration of niche fandom, one that is sweet without denying the gravity of what has occurred. Between his work here and his triumphant return in Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Mark Hammill is proving that he is one of our greatest character actors.
8. Dunkirk
Previous Christopher Nolan films have been marred by overexplaining the premise. This film breaks free of such cumbersomeness, with many moments being sparse of dialogue. Dunkirk is all about the visceral experience of being alongside these soldiers as they are caught between the Nazis and the Atlantic Ocean. Nolan and his crew muster up all their abilities to place you in these situations, with scenes such as the torpedo attack on a British ship come to life in stark reality thanks to possibly hundreds of intricate camera and sound choices. The result feels like a pure expression of what cinema can do.
7. The Shape of Water
It feels great to declare that the best Guillermo Del Toro film in years is also the most Guillermo Del Toro film in years. It’s a fairy tale from a filmmaker that has never forgotten that many fairy tales often have horrific elements. The film turns early-60’s Baltimore into its own world of vivid colors and dwindling sunlight. A secret government lab is both antiseptic and strangely fascinating. That last part may be due to Doug Jones’ performance as the amphibian/humanoid “asset” and his romance with Sally Hawkins’ mute Elisa. Many have written about how this is a romance between a woman and a fish, but it’s also a romance between two characters who never speak which means Del Toro must depict their love only in visuals. This leads to many beautiful cinematic scenes, including one of the most unique, and but wonderful, sex scenes in recent years.
6. Blade Runner 2049
The fact that there even is a Blade Runner sequel that’s good is noteworthy since the entire endeavor sounded like a bad idea. The fact that it is a triumph, and in some ways better than the original, is cause for celebration. Unlike the original film, where the “romance” feels like a product of Deckard’s dehumanized relationship with Replicants, the romance between Ryan Gosling’s K and Ana de Armas’ Joi, both machines, feels real and keeps the film intriguing. Combined with director Denis Villeneuve and cinematographer Roger Deakins’ brilliant visuals, and what good have been a cringeworthy failure is instead a masterpiece.
5. Call Me by Your Name
Within a story that may seem too placid and calm at first glance, director Luca Guadagnino captures the great unknowingness of young queer love. Timothée Chalamet and Armie Hammer deliver two of the best performances of the year with Chalamet displaying all the awkwardness and self-loathing that can come from such new and powerful feelings. Because the film’s era, the story has a “trap door” under it the entire time. What the film does with that, thanks to the performance by 2017 all-star Michael Stuhlbarg, is surprising and life-affirming.
2017 was a year that showed audiences the many ways horror films can be done. This includes The Shape of Water and Get Out, as well as It, Split, and It Comes at Night. Olivier Assayas’ Personal Shopper may be the most austere of all these films, which is befitting for how lonely its main character is. Kristen Stewart’s Maureen go through life inside someone else’s wealthy lifestyle, she is the personal shopper for an absentee celebrity boss. At the same time, she is devoted to someone else’s death, contacting the spirit of her late twin brother. It isn’t until the film’s brilliant last line do we see how much agency she has, and it makes everything, especially the long text message with a stranger, seen in a whole new light. This is a film that deeply hides its secrets, even when you think it’s giving you everything. When it reveals itself, it is a stunner.
3. Get Out
Have you ever seen a so-so horror movie with a great concept and you said to yourself, “I wish this concept was in a better movie”? Get Out is the better movie. The brilliant concept that the film pivots on isn’t fully revealed until the third act and truth be told, there are not a lot of scares for most of the film. The true “horror” that makes up much of the film is in the soul-cringing faux-pas, one after another, that Daniel Kaluuya’s Chris must bear. When that real-life horror flows into the film’s fantastical premise, it’s revealed how well first-time director Jordan Peele threaded the needle. Not just that, his visualization of “The Sunken Place” may be the best way of depicting what marginalization feels like.
2. Phantom Thread
When we saw that Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest film was an English period drama, it must have left some scratching their heads. Much of the San Fernando Valley’s own Anderson’s best work is about the life and history of Southern California. But Phantom Thread proves to be a worth addition to Anderson’s canon as it is another exploration of another of his pet themes: the lives of misfits. Reteaming with Daniel Day-Lewis, Thread tells the story of the romance between Day-Lewis’ successful dressmaker Reynolds Woodcock and Vicky Krieps’ Alma. Woodcock is a man who can only express himself in his work, and it does not seem to have a place for love. While Alma is a waitress thrown into the world of high-fashion in 1950s London, she never shrinks or demurs against Reynolds’ world. In a year where we had many sweet romances (Shape of Water, Call Me by Your Name) this is a film where the romance is like two generals fighting a battle on the field of war. Anderson’s masterful craftsmanship makes clear that is where the passion is found, making the climactic moment of this film one of the strangest yet most romantic moments in a year of strange romances.
1. Lady Bird
Lady Bird’s specialness isn’t found in its most inventive scenes but the most clichéd ones. A teen girl decides to ditch her popular friends to see her old best friend. An emotional drive to an airport. A gay teen admitting he’s afraid to come out. We may have seen such things a hundred times before but director Greta Gerwig clearly loves all her characters so the spark of humanity is never lost in those moments. This is seen most vividly in the relationship between Saoirse Ronan’s Lady Bird and her mother Marion. Both characters’ points of view are treated with sympathy and empathy, so every scene between them become some of the best-acted and moving scenes in cinema of the year. There are many films that try to remind older audience members how it feels to be young, albeit in a superficial way. This film reminds us of the real struggles of adolescence while at the same time providing great insight into the challenges parents face, often in silence.
1917: Shallow Trench, by Tyler Smith
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker: All Their Host…
Ford v Ferrari: Men at Work, by Scott Nye
Monday Movie: Rebel Without a Cause, by Aaron Pinkston
AFI Fest 2019: A Hidden Life, by Scott Nye
Scott's Best Films of the Decade
Luiz's Top Ten of 2019
AFI Fest 2019: To the Ends of the Earth, by Scott Nye
Tags: battleship pretensionbpfilmfilmshorrorian brilllistmoviemoviestop ten
Criterion Prediction #67: The Magnificent Ambersons, by Alexander Miller
by · Published December 14, 2016
Imitation, by Jack Fleischer
by · Published October 13, 2011 · Last modified November 13, 2011
Chaos and Control, by David Bax
by · Published June 6, 2013
Next story Monday Movie: The Caine Mutiny, by David Bax
Previous story BP Movie Journal 1/11/18
|
cc/2020-05/en_head_0017.json.gz/line14
|
__label__cc
| 0.698808
| 0.301192
|
We are continuing our series on Whitaker's Disputations. This post will look at Stapleton's second argument defending the assertion that we need the Church, specifically the Catholic Magisterium, to identify the canon for Christians, and that this identification gives the Church the most "certain" authority possible.
(For those interested in the earlier sections of Disputations, Green Baggins has begun analysis on the first chapter--the number of books contained in the canon.)
Stapleton's Second Supporting Argument
Stapleton's second argument1 can be summarized as follows:
P1 The canon cannot be discerned by appealing to style, phraseology and other criteria without the additional judgment of the Magisterium.
P2 The Magisterium knows best how to judge style, phraseology and other criteria.
C1 Therefore, we need the Magisterium to identify the canon.
A Simple Reply
Whitaker levels three counter-arguments, but only the second (and a directly related part of the third) will be discussed here, perhaps because it is the most practical and powerful:
Secondly, although we should concede all this to him, yet where will be the coherence of his reasoning,— The church knows best the voice of the spouse, and the style and phraseology of scripture; therefore its authority is the most certain? For what though the church know? What is that to me? Are these things therefore known and certain to me? For the real question is, how I can know it best? Although the church know ever so well the voice of its spouse, and the style and phraseology of scripture, it hath that knowledge to itself, not to me; and by whatever means it hath gained that knowledge, why should I be able to gain it also by the same?2
This argument is further supplemented:
But as to his pretence that because the church delivers the rule of faith, it must therefore be the correctest judge of that rule; we must observe that the terms deliver and judge are ambiguous. The church does indeed deliver that rule, not as its author, but as a witness, and an admonisher, and a minister: it judges also when instructed by the Holy Spirit. But may I therefore conclude, that I cannot be certain of this rule, but barely by the testimony of the church? It is a mere fallacy of the accident. There is no consequence in this reasoning: I can be led by the church's voice to the rule of faith; therefore I can have no more certain judgment than that of the church.3
Two observations for now:
1. The point is well-received. If the Church gives us the canon and we cannot come to know it any other way, what of it? How does it logically follow that the Church is now the most authoritative body in the life of the believer? How does it follow that we should now submit our interpretations of Scripture to the Magisterium?
Whitaker uses an analogy to shore up this point (which I have slightly tweaked): There were Jews who could not have known (intellectually or by faith) Christ as the Messiah had not John the Baptist revealed him to them. Does it therefore follow that John the Baptist was the best interpreter of Christ's commands? Should these Jews have submitted their interpretations of Christ's words and commands to John's first and foremost? It's not obvious how that would be the case.3
2. It is also instructive for Whitaker to remind us that however the Church gains knowledge of the canon, laypersons should also have access to those means. If the Church identifies the canon through historical inquiry, why are we not allowed to engage the same texts with the same tools and come to the same conclusions independently? What, specifically, is it about the Magisterium that allows it identify the canon? Should the methods and reasons used to arrive at this knowledge remain inaccessible to everyone outside of the Magisterium? It's not obvious why this should be the case.
Athanasius is a fine example of this. Before any council met to recognize (or "determine" as some Catholics would argue) the canon, the famous father had successfully identified the New Testament canon:
...it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued stedfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance...Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.4
If Athanasius was able to identify the canon without recourse to the determination of the Magisterium, why are Protestant Christians any different?
1. William Whitaker, Disputations, 286-287.
2. Ibid., 287.
4. Athanasius, Festal Letter 39.
Labels: disputations on holy scripture, matthew schultz, Sola Scriptura, william whitaker
Truth Unites... and Divides said...
"If Athanasius was able to identify the canon without recourse to the determination of the Magisterium, why are Protestant Christians any different?"
If Athanasius could do it, then Protestant Christians can also identify the canon without having to consult a Magisterium.
Alexander Greco said...
Identifying the canon is not at issue. A clock is right at least twice a day. The issue is definitively stating what the canon is. As demonstrated over at Turretinfan's blog, Protestants have enough difficulty distinguishing the essentials from the non-essentials. Determining what books belong in the canon can't be any easier without recourse to some authority, which is exactly what happens. I seriously doubt that Matthew Shultz has gone through each book of the Bible, along with all the other writings which were competing for inclusion, and identified what the canon should be.
Determining what books belong in the canon can't be any easier without recourse to some authority, which is exactly what happens.
Authortity isn't the problem. It's the addition of the word "infallible" when placed before it that is heretical.
Which makes the Protestant position that much more untenable. A fallible collection of infallible books, all based upon the authority of other fallible men. It's great to hold your NIV now and tell us that you know what the canon is. As Turretinfan stated before, you know the ingredients of a pizza by looking at the pizza. On the other hand, if someone were to tell you to go make a pizza, would you know where to begin? The same applies to the Scriptural canon.
Without talking to God directly, or having the benefit of first hand experience, we all rely on some other authority. If that authority is fallible, it could be right, but it could also be very wrong.
Matthew Schultz said...
Alexander writes:
Identifying the canon is not at issue. A clock is right at least twice a day. The issue is definitively stating what the canon is.
1. Stapleton thinks Protestants cannot identify the canon at all without recourse to the Catholic Magisterium. So basic identification, let alone "definitive" identification, is very much relevant.
2. I'm not sure what grounds you have to imply that not going through the Magisterium means Protestants are guessing or lucky or some such thing (as a broken clock) when they try to identify the canon. That's a significant implication, but you would need to produce evidence to support it. It's also not helpful to just smuggle it in right at the beginning.
As demonstrated over at Turretinfan's blog, Protestants have enough difficulty distinguishing the essentials from the non-essentials. Determining what books belong in the canon can't be any easier without recourse to some authority, which is exactly what happens.
So it's not necessarily an easy task. What's the consequence of this? How does this overturn or affect Whitaker's reply?
I seriously doubt that Matthew Shultz has gone through each book of the Bible, along with all the other writings which were competing for inclusion, and identified what the canon should be.
You'd be correct. But various scholars have done that and provided external authentication for the canon we have over and against other competing books. So I don't really understand why you're suggesting that I need to personally go through all the possible candidates.
And I seriously doubt anyone who wants to appeal to an authority to "definitively" settle the canon has gone through each of the claims of the countless "infallible" denominations and groups to identify which is really the authority God has established. As with all these kinds of discussions, the lack of certainty is only being pushed back a step, from the identification of the canon, to the identification of the authority who will identify the canon for us.
On the other hand, if someone were to tell you to go make a pizza, would you know where to begin?
FIrst, you trust God to be able to put His word, infallibly, into the hands of his church. He can do this without "the church" being infallible. He just can do it. If he can't, he's not God.
Second, from the human side, there were certain tests for canonicity. Having the authority of an Apostle or someone authorized by an Apostle. There were very few of those.
Third, consider the process of how these documents were assembled in the first place. Paul writes a letter; everyone copies it and sends it around. Meanwhile, Paul collects his own letters, and makes sure everyone, even in his own day, wants copies of his letters. There is very good evidence that Paul began collecting his own letters during his lifetime. The four gospels, too, were collected very early on.
Once a document is issued by an Apostle or someone known to be an associate of an Apostle, is there really any question about it? Does the authority of a document in that situation somehow get lost, needing an "infallible church" to somehow re-affirm it?
Look at how this must have happened from the perspective of those "assembling the pizza." You have a Gospel, a life of Christ. Was it, or was it not composed by an Apostle, or an associate of an Apostle. Yes or no? Yes? Then it's something we revere and collect and read in the church for instruction.
It's not like there was a church council, and the infallible magisterium sat down and said, "Ok, guys, what have we got?" The authority was inherent within the documents, as soon as the documents were extant.
Reading "infallible magisterium" back into
Reading "infallible magisterium" back into the process is simply an anachronism.
You are confusing the issue of authoritative pronouncement with that of tradition. St Athanasius didn't derive his canon in a vacuum - he received what was passed onto him! In other words, he derived it from tradition. This is, likewise, how the Jews knew what was canonical and what was not.
This is where a typical fallacious argument usually manifests itself, when Protestants "respond" to this by noting these folks didn't need a magisterium to know their canon. That's irrelevant. The issue is how they knew the canon, and the fact is that knowledge didn't come from any 'table of contents' given by God in some scripture.
The issue of Authoritative Pronouncement is what comes into play when disputes or questions arise, and that is where the Church authoritatively settles the issue. So, when the book of Esther or some other disputed book is under discussion, the Church can step in and authoritatively settle the dispute one way or the other.
The Protestant has no way to settle disputes over the canon. A Protestant could logically and consistently toss out any given book from Scripture and other Protestants would be powerless to stop him (without cutting off the very branch that supports them). Someone could argue the private correspondence by Paul to Timothy and Titus was just that, private correspondence, and thus not meant for every individual Christian as part of public Church readings. The Protestant would be crippled as far as refuting that claim.
Nick writes:
St Athanasius didn't derive his canon in a vacuum - he received what was passed onto him! In other words, he derived it from tradition
Yes, that's what Athanasius says in the quote I provided. I'm not sure what you're suggesting or trying to argue here. Did I imply Protestants derive the canon "in a vaccum" (whatever you mean by that phrase)? No.
It seems completely relevant to Stapleton. It seems completely relevant to those Catholic apologists who think we need the Magisterium to identify the canon for us. If you think all this talk about whether we need the Magisterium is irrelevant, then perhaps your argument is with the defenders of your faith, not with Whitaker or me.
That's a series of assertions lacking supporting arguments. How do you know Protestants have "no way to settle disputes over the canon"? Do you mean the evidence usually invoked on discussions of canonicity is ambiguous or vague or indecisive? Or do you mean that some folks will never come to accept the complete canon as Scripture? I don't know how you'd prove the former without committing yourself to an epistemology that renders historical judgments on all historical documents, including documents used to prove Catholicism, meaningless. If you mean the latter, then we are left with a situation that every communion and denomination has to suffer.
That is what I saw implied in your comments such as:
"the famous father had successfully identified the New Testament canon"
The notion of "identifying" the canon gives off the impression they were some how self-authenticating and he "successfully" came up with the list on his own. If that wasn't what you were getting at, I stand corrected - though it would also be a huge blow to the Protestant side who won't accept a canon derived from tradition.
The Catholic claim never was that without an official Magisterial pronoucement we wouldn't know anything about the canon, quite the contrary. What is wrapped up in the magisterium talk is that of deriving the canon through tradition and not of self-authentication.
You asked: "How do you know Protestants have "no way to settle disputes over the canon"? Do you mean the evidence usually invoked on discussions of canonicity is ambiguous or vague or indecisive?"
Yes, the second sentence is my point. Appealing to historical documents and such does nothing for the Protestant, since historical documents are fallible and non-authoritative.
The Catholic claim never was that without an official Magisterial pronoucement we wouldn't know anything about the canon, quite the contrary.
So you think Stapleton was wrong to argue as he did?
Or am I misreading Stapleton?
If I am not misreading Stapleton, how can you say the Catholic position was never what Stapleton argues?
By the way, the issue for Stapleton is not whether we would know anything about the canon without the Magisterium, but that decidedly smaller set of facts addressing whether we could see the whole set of books as inspired given means outside of the Magisterium. You need to be careful here in how you characterize the state of the controversy.
You seem to be introducing concepts you didn't have in mind previously. That the evidence for the canon is ambiguous or some such thing is not the same as saying such evidence is fallible and non-authoritative. Something can be clear while being fallible and non-authoritative, and something can be ambiguous while being fallible and non-authoritative. So your comments here are a bit confusing.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "non-authoritative" or how that's relevant to the question.
Now, how would you go about demonstrating that the evidence is, indeed, ambiguous? What allows you to make such a claim? It would be helpful here to discuss some standard commentary on canonicity from top Protestant scholars to demonstrate your point.
Also, what prevents that claim of ambiguity from applying across the board to all historical inquiry, including inquiry into whether, for example, the Roman Catholic denomination is grounded in the historical documents known as the early church fathers and Scripture? The same kind of evidence is discussed in both cases (canonicity and, say, Papal succession), and it seems impossible to say that ambiguity in one does not necessitate ambiguity in the other.
You are misreading Stapleton. Note Whitaker's words (p285):
"Firstly, the major is true, if he mean books properly canonical, which have been always received by the church; for these the church ought always to acknowledge for canonical: although it be certain that many flourishing churches formerly in several places had doubts for a time concerning many of the books, as appears from antiquity."
There is a distinction between levels of authority being used by the Church. As Whitaker notes, there were doubts at times on various books, but the 'standard' by which Christians went by was what the local churches had passed on as 'canonical'. When times came for definitively settling disputes, that's where official Magisterial authority steps in.
This is further made clear by the fact Stapleton uses terms like "most certain authority" and "all doubt removed," indicating levels of certainty.
Then, if that weren't enough, Stapleton's position is made even more clear:
"The second argument wherewith Stapleton confirms the assumption of the preceding syllogism is this: All other mediums that can be attempted are insufficient without making recourse to the judgment of the church; and then he enumerates the mediums upon which we rely. For as to the style (says he) and phraseology, and other mediums, by which the scripture is usually distinguished"
Notice the phrase "insufficient," meaning there is some degree of sufficiency, and he "enumerates mediums which we rely" and by which Scripture is "usually distinguished." So the real issue is how disputes on the canon can be *ultimately* settled - which is impossible in the Protestant system.
As for your comments on 'ambiguity', I never had that in mind. I was speaking on the issue of non-authoritative, meaning regardless of what any Father or Council said about the canon, in Protestantism such comments would be non-authoritative.
Paul Hoffer said...
I do not really have time to go in depth with this but both you and Whitaker apparently ignore the fact that St. Athanasius happened to be a part of the "Magisterium." In fact, in the order of things, he was the head of the third most important see in the Catholic Church and had the authority to set the canon for the bishops under him. Just thought you might be interested in that fact.
I am aware of that. The issue is that Athanasius as part of the Magisterium is really not the same as saying we need the Magisterium in its infallible, ecumenical capacity to determine the limits of the canon for us. I think there's a substantial difference between one bishop fallibly telling us about a canon he received and verified and all the bishops of the Roman Catholic denomination meeting to vote on and infallibly determine the limits of the canon.
I'm not sure, though, how you'd defend this concept from Athanasius' writings:
and had the authority to set the canon for the bishops under him.
> 'Determining what books belong in the canon can't be any easier without recourse to some authority...'
'But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. ...My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me'
|
cc/2020-05/en_head_0017.json.gz/line18
|
__label__wiki
| 0.763355
| 0.763355
|
Who Are the Tea Party Patriots
By : William John Cox - Sunday March 6, 2011
Most people only see the public faces of the Tea Party Patriots: those doing televison interviews, appearing on the covers of magazines, waving from the steps of private jets at political rallies, and who spend the millions of dollars in tax-free donations they have raised; but who are the 15 million “patriots” who actually attend the thousands of local tea parties across the heartland of America? Answers were sought at the TPP’s American Policy Summit held during the (...)
read more, comments...
End of 2011: Fall of the “Petro-dollar wall” and a major monetary-oil shock for the United States
By : LEAP - Saturday March 5, 2011
Public announcement GEAB N°52 (February 16, 2011) With this issue our team is celebrating two important anniversaries in anticipation terms. Exactly five years ago, in February 2006, the GEAB N°2 suddenly encountered worldwide success by announcing the next "Triggering of a major global crisis" characterized especially by "The end of the West as we have known it since 1945”. And exactly two years ago, in February 2009, in the GEAB N°32, LEAP/E2020 anticipated the start of global (...)
Must Watch! John Pilger’s ‘The War You Don’t See’
By : John Pilger - Friday March 4, 2011
On Charles Ponzi Day We Celebrate Another All Time Record In Food Stamp Usage
By : John Lohman - Friday March 4, 2011
Bernanke’s plan to recreate Libya in our own back yard is continuing to work magnificently. It is no surprise that on Charles Ponzi day, the update to food stamp usage indicates that in December those receiving an average of $134 per month has just hit 44.1 million people. These lucky people will soon be able to buy an inflation adjusted 2.3 crumbs of notional bread with this generous handout from the Chairsatan. In other words, America is now the land of the free, home of the (...)
Home Of The ‘Brave’ Imperialists?
By : David G - Friday March 4, 2011
“Let’s just call a spade a spade. A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses … Then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down,” he told a congressional hearing. Friends, this astounding statement came from Robert Gates, the U.S. Defense Secretary, one of the warlords of the Obama Administration. What he’s saying is that the U.S. must destroy all the air defenses which surround military (...)
From California, and into Wisconsin’s Friendly Roar
By : Gerry Daley - Thursday March 3, 2011
The wave of protest cresting in Madison is amazing: students, workers, seniors, everyone is coming together in peaceful but unyielding opposition to Governor Scott Walker’s attack on democracy. I was there last week with a California Nurses Association contingent that flew in with the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor to add our voices and bodies to the wave. When the L.A. Fed marched en masse into the Capitol rotunda waving our “L.A. Supports You” signs, the (...)
(video) The Republicans’ all-out war on women
By : Elizabeth Schulte - Thursday March 3, 2011
Reports on the right’s latest assault—and the stirrings of resistance. ANTI-CHOICE Republicans are waging an all-out attack on women’s right to abortion—in Congress, where the Republican-run House voted to strip funding from Planned Parenthood; and in individual states, where legislators are proposing bills so extreme that they could ban abortions altogether. But supporters of abortion rights are starting to push back. Thousands took part in marches across the (...)
(video) Koch brothers play self-serving role in Wisconsin battle
By : Juan Lopez - Thursday March 3, 2011
Multi-billionaire corporate magnates Charles and David Koch, major behind-the-scenes players in the dispute between Wisconsin public employees and Republican Gov. Scott Walker, stand to gain more than meets the eye from this epic battle. Buried deep inside Walker’s 144-page contested budget bill are 10 lines, unrelated to employee takeaways or union rights, which would allow the state to sell to or contract with a private corporation any state-owned heating, cooling and power plant, (...)
(video) Epic battle in Wisconsin is a taste of our power
By : Wisconsin - Thursday March 3, 2011
Siân Ruddick looks at the stuggle in Wisconsin, which is changing the US The battle in Wisconsin has seen hundreds of thousands of US workers rediscover their power. In the most powerful protests for many years, public sector workers—with the support of students, war veterans, pensioners, local campaigners and even some police—have brought the city of Madison to a standstill. They have shown the US right that they will face determined resistance to any attacks they try to push (...)
Letter of march to Obama.
By : kakine - Thursday March 3, 2011
Mr President Obama The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington DC 20500. Mr President, I would like to begin this letter with a poem written by one of the Cuban Five, Antonio Guerrero, when he was locked up in solitary confinement at the Oklahoma Federal Prison, waiting for his next transfer. This was one year ago. A poem of hope, that pays homage to the international solidarity movement that is growing ever stronger, asking (...)
(videos) New Jersey rallies to support Wisconsin workers
By : Norman Markowitz - Wednesday March 2, 2011
Thousands of trade unionists rallied in front of the state Capitol in Trenton last week in solidarity with the public workers of Wisconsin who are fighting back against, Scott Walker a righting governor trying to do in 2011 what he would not have dared to do in 1911, when Robert La Follette, Sr., the leading progressive reformer in the nation, was Wisconsin’s United States Senator. La Follette more than a century ago had led Wisconsin to become the most advanced state in the nation (...)
Supporting America’s Ambassador of Peace
By : Cathy Garger - Wednesday March 2, 2011
Supporting America’s Ambassador of Peace Cathy Garger "Peace is not something you wish for; It’s something you make, Something you do, Something you are, And something you give away". Robert Fulghum Today I got some bad news. Apparently, my father in law’s health necessitates him to undergo open heart surgery soon. Upon hearing this, my mind immediately flooded with images - memories of my own father on an ICU ventilator immediately following his triple bypass, the (...)
For the Benefit of Uncle Sam
By : Husayn Al-Kurdi - Tuesday March 1, 2011
For the benefit of Uncle Sam and Israeli There will be a raid tonight on Tripoli All the cut-throat killers will be there Landing by land, sea and air Murdering for Democracy! And all the while the Yahoo!s smile As their masters celebrate their victory For the benefit of Goldman Sachs The armored robots will attack Flooding onto Libyan shores As their Flickring Twittering Media roars About their liberty! And the mean ugly Americans Play the part of Christians and pray to their God of (...)
WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!!!
By : David R. Hoffman, Pravda.Ru Legal Editor - Monday February 28, 2011
Although it has been overshadowed by events in Libya and Egypt, there is a battle going on in the United States, and it is not hyperbole to suggest that it is a battle for the very soul of the nation. By current estimates, at least sixteen state governments are in the process of declaring war on American workers, and protests have erupted in at least four of them—Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Indiana. Since all of these states are located in the same geographical area, I initially (...)
Libya Opposition Literally Running Protests from Washington
By : Johnny Canuck - Sunday February 27, 2011
www.empirestrikesblack.com "Again we are told the protests are spontaneous, inspired by the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings. Again we are told it is the youth yearning for freedom and ’democracy’. But when we look behind the curtain, we see yet another old man from Washington pulling the levers, blowing the smoke, and flashing the lights.." http://empirestrikesblack.com/2011/...
Video: Rep. Donna Edwards: “Today, We Are All From Wisconsin!”
By : William Hughes - Saturday February 26, 2011
On Saturday, Feb. 26, 2011, a Union-led solidarity rally, backed by a wide coalition of progressive groups, was held in Annapolis, MD. The action was in support of the ongoing “Wisconsin Protest.” One of the featured speakers at the spirited event was Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD).
A Tale of Three Nations: Freedom, Religion and the Rights of Women
By : William John Cox - Thursday February 24, 2011
As the youth-led Freedom Movement of 2011 spreads rapidly across the Middle East and around the world, one can only wonder what would be happening in Iraq today if the U.S. had not invaded eight years ago. What does the movement portend for the rights of women in other nations, such as Tunisia and in the United States? The rights of women continue to deteriorate in Iraq under the U.S. installed Shiite government; their status is now threatened by Islamists in Tunisia, the most secular of (...)
Zionist West reports Tunisian, Libyan, Egyptian & Bahraini Arab Revolutions but ignores Iraqi protests
By : Dr Gideon Polya - Thursday February 24, 2011
Western media have been reporting the Arab Revolution underway in countries including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen and Bahrain. However while pro-Zionist, Western media and politicians laudably support the courageous protests for democracy in these countries, there is extraordinary silence in relation to the demands for democracy in Occupied Palestine and Occupied Iraq in which the indigenous inhabitants live under the tyrannical rule of genocidal European invaders (...)
Video: Doreen Hicks: “Healthcare is a Human Right!”
By : William Hughes - Wednesday February 23, 2011
On Wednesday morning, Feb. 23, 2011, activists rallied at Lawyers Mall, in front of the State House, in Annapolis, MD. They are urging the General Assembly to adopt a bill, entitled: “Maryland Health Security Act.” It calls for a state single-payer healthcare system. One of the speakers at the rally was Doreen Hicks of the United Workers organization. To learn more about the Single-Payer issue, go to: (...)
Video: Dr. Margaret Flowers: “Maryland Can Lead the Way on Single Payer!”
On Wednesday morning, Feb. 23, 2011, activists rallied at Lawyers Mall, in front of the State House, in Annapolis, MD. They are urging the General Assembly to adopt a bill, entitled: “Maryland Health Security Act.” It calls for a state single-payer healthcare system. I spoke with Dr. Margaret Flowers after the rally. She is a Congressional Fellow with the “National Health Program.” To learn more about this issue, go to: (...)
|
cc/2020-05/en_head_0017.json.gz/line31
|
__label__cc
| 0.584533
| 0.415467
|
Silvestre Revueltas
Born on the last day of 1899, in Santiago Papasquiaro, Durango, a small town in the north of Mexico, as a child, Silvestre Revueltas showed great interest in music, his early artistic bent apparent by 1906. When his family moved to Mexico City, he studied at the National Conservatory of Music in Mexico City and, with his notable aptitude for composition and conducting, completed his musical education with the greatest distinction at the Chicago College of Music. He studied the violin with Jose Rocabruna and composition with Rafael J. Tello.
In 1917 he moved to the United States to study at St Edward College in San Antonio, Texas, and later in Chicago, remaining there until 1924. With Carlos Chavez he organized the first concerts of contemporary music in Mexico in 1924 and 1925, events that had a great impact with music then completely unknown to audiences in the capital. After a rather long concert tour in Mexico and in the United States, he returned to his home country, where he remained from 1929 onwards. In 1929 Chavez offered him the position of assistant conductor of the Orquesta Sinfonica de Mexico, which he held until 1936. Working together they were able to do much to promote Mexican music, offering a rich repertoire including works by the most outstanding and prominent names of the period. At the same time Revueltas began a very successful career as a prolific composer, activity which brought Cuauhnahuc (Cuernavaca) (1930), Esquinas (Corners) (1931), Ventanas (Windows) and Colorines (Coloured Beads) (1932), Janitzio (1933), Caminos (Roads) (1934), Homenaje a Federico Garcia Lorca (Hommage to Federico Garcia Lorca) (1936), Itinerarios (Routes) (1937) and Sensemay (1938). This series of works constitutes a vivid example of his extraordinary contribution to the form of the national Mexican symphonic poem, with compositions that show his originality and freshness of inspiration, together with his technical mastery.
He occupied various positions of importance in the musical life of Mexico and wrote music for films. It was the celebration of the success of La Noche de los Mayas that precipitated his final illness and death on 5 October 1940. On 15 December 1938 Revueltas himself conducted the Symphony Orchestra of Mexico in the Palacio de Bellas Artes in a programme that included Sensemay, inspired by the poem of the same name by the famous Cuban poet Nicolas Guillon, a work dealing with the negro ritual of the death of a snake. A work of marked rhythms, it strangely brings to mind at times the music of the American composer Aaron Copland.
1938 Sensemaya LP
New York Philharmonic cond. Leonard Bernstein
1938 Sensemaya CD
Aguascalientes Symphony Orchestra cond. Enrique Barrios
1938 La noche de los Mayas CD
1940 La coronela CD
Unfinished ballet score, completed by Blas Galindo
|
cc/2020-05/en_head_0017.json.gz/line32
|
__label__wiki
| 0.757663
| 0.757663
|
Mao’s legacy
It is fashionable, writes Eric Gordon, to put Chairman Mao in the dock. But, he argues, that is too simplistic a reading
08 February, 2019 — By Eric Gordon
Zhang Zhenshi’s portrait of Mao Zedong
SEVENTY years ago Chinese soldiers, part of the Eighth Route Army, marched into Peking – now known as Beijing – and established the Communist regime.
Has it been a success story? Some historians will shake their heads. Some commentators will admit it has been, but at a great human cost.
Along the way the man seen as the founder of the new state, Chairman Mao, is reviled as a monster.
Somehow, all these pieces are juggled together in the Western view of China, seen down the centuries as a mystery within a mystery.
But it cannot be denied that in economic terms China has performed a miracle in economic development, turning what was the second-most impoverished country in the world in 1949 into what it is today – a rapidly developing economy that has been dragged out of poverty.
It is today more modern in many ways than Britain. I know many young Chinese visiting this country who find it sluggish compared to China – transport is faster and more sleek, military hardware is more sophisticated, high technology is beginning to outstrip Silicon Valley.
There are two super-powers in the world today – the US and China. There were signs of all this for those who wanted to see when I first went to China in 1965.
It was only 16 years after the triumph of the Communist Party but by then the country had already made enormous progress – literacy was spreading rapidly through the country, women were being treated with equality, life expectancy was going up. And all achieved with the most populous country in the world. I think China’s population at the time was around 500 million.
I am not starry-eyed about China. Though I confess I am drawn to its great philosophers like Confucius, and believe Mao was a pretty competent philosopher as well as being a good calligrapher and a poet.
He was also a dictator and could be ruthless – the attribute of great leaders for thousands of years. Churchill, thank goodness, could also be ruthless and no doubt took many moral decisions in the Second World War that an ordinary person, like me, would shirk from.
In his defence, Mao did not escape unscathed in his part leadership of the Communist army from the early 1930s until 1949. The army was really led by a fascinating man, Chu Teh, from a poor peasant family, who became a war lord, dealing in drugs, but then recanted, and joined the Communist movement.
I once got into trouble at the Foreign Languages publishing house in Peking where I worked in the 1960s when editing a book on the early days of the Red Army, correcting a line that referred to Mao as the military leader. By then a cult had developed around the man unfortunately.
Mao, who was one of the founders of the Communist Party, suffered for his beliefs, as did fellow adherents. There was a bloody purge in the late 1920s in Shanghai when thousands were executed by the nationalist leader Chiang Kai Shek. This formed the subject of a visiting French novelist Andre Malraux who wrote a riveting book about it, Man’s Estate.
I actually met him in the 1960s when he was visiting China as the French minister of culture while we were both enjoying a sumptuous meal at a hotel in one of the old capitals of ancient China.
It is not widely known that in his early years Mao’s wife was captured by the nationalist forces and was hanged – her decapitated head was hung outside the gates of the city where she had been caught.
Mao married again – his last wife was an actress who had a political brain and when Mao was in his late 60s pulled a lot of wires behind the scenes as a leading figure in the committee that ran the Cultural Revolution.
Using the age old device leaders indulge, Jiang Qing began to make lots of speeches in 1967 warning the nation against “foreign spies” in order, no doubt, to divert attention from growing tensions and disastrous decision-making during the Cultural Revolution itself.
With a number of foreigners in Peking I fell victim. I was “lucky”, perhaps because I was a British journalist – Britain had more pull in those days than it has today – and was locked up in a small room in a hotel with my wife and young son – “imprisoned” for two years on a pretty poor diet, all under guard.
Foreigners I knew, however, were jailed. I was questioned about them and coward though I suppose I am, I would not say a word about it to my interrogators, much to their anger.
I met them later. In many ways their lives were ruined. But at least they were alive.
Not dissimilar purges in the Soviet Union in the 1930s led to mass executions.
I know it is fashionable to put Mao in the dock. Historians – none of whom, to my knowledge, even lived in China in the 1950s and 60s, perhaps were not even alive then – cross him out as one of the world’s great monsters.
But that is too simplistic a reading of the times.
China had never evolved the heritage of democracy we benefit from. It didn’t fall into our laps. We had to struggle for it. Those with power don’t want to relinquish it – understandably. The first steps were the Magna Carta, the benefits of the English Revolution passed off as a Civil War in the 16th century. Later came the parliamentary reforms.
All that time, China was ruled by emperors with unquestioned and unparalleled power.
Lack of fearless debate, real throbbing democracy, in China is its weakness.
At the moment, it has a mixed economy which Harold Wilson, maybe Jeremy Corbyn, would perhaps cast envious eyes on – part capitalist, part state-owned.
It has a rising middle-class whose demands, and need, for open debate will become clearer by the day. Unless it is heeded, China’s growth will falter.
Blog comments powered by Disqus.
First again! Your Tribune delivers results
20 December — By Helen Chapman
From the West End Extra
Buck: ‘Brexit and bad timing hit Labour’
20 December — By Tom Foot
Tulip Siddiq supports Sir Keir Starmer to be next Labour Party leader
09 January — By Richard Osley
Arsenal to get a place on the political map
10 January — By Calum Fraser
|
cc/2020-05/en_head_0017.json.gz/line33
|
__label__cc
| 0.542171
| 0.457829
|
<-CHM130
Humans have been familiar with acids and bases for thousands of years. They didn’t know the exact chemistry but they knew a lot about them.
The word acid comes from Latin word acidus meaning sour, sharp, or tart taste. Vinegar as you might remember means sour wine. Vinegar is acetic acid in water. Acetum is a historical name for vinegar and comes from the word acere meaning to be sour.
Citrus fruits also have a sour or tart taste due to a different acid called citric acid.
Sweet-Tarts get their sour or tart taste from citric acid.
Remember, I mentioned in an earlier tutorial that you can taste the protons from acids. Like this girl's reaction, protons taste tart or sour.
When hydrogen's proton comes off or reacts with something, its electron is left behind. This makes the remaining molecule negatively charged. Acetic acid disassociates into the hydrogen ion (H+) and the acetate ion (C2H3O2-). If water is present, it will grab the H+ ion.
The first definition of an acid is a substance that releases a proton (H+). It's normally released in water, since water is the most common solvent. As an example, hydrochloric acid is shown disassociating into H+ and Cl-. Sometimes the equation is shown with water receiving the H+ making H3O+. In reality, water will absorb the H+, but for simplicity's sake, it's often not shown (top reaction).
This definition is usually called the Bronsted-Lowry definition of an acid.
In general hydrogen that gets released from "X" leaves its electron behind, so it comes off as H+ and the "X" part left behind becomes negatively charged X-.
Power of a Protons' (+) charge.
1) A proton can attract electrons
2) A proton can push other protons
In other words it has the power to affect other compounds. Sometimes the effect is on their color.
For example, the color of wine or grapes is affected by the acid (protons) present.
A group of compounds called anthocyanins are responsible for the colors of these plants. It is theorized that this pigment evolved as protection to the high levels of ultraviolet light in Earth’s early history. Besides ultraviolet light, these pigments absorb different frequencies of visible light. This provides plants with different colors.
The color of this pigment is affected by the concentration of protons (acid level) in the plant. The red of this rose is affected by the acidity level in the petals. Change the acid levels, and the color of the rose will change.
Red cabbage has a particular wide range of color change depending on the pH. In a lab for my CHM107 class, I have students extract the pigment in red cabbage. The pigment belongs to the anthocyanidin family of compounds.
In this picture you can see that the red cabbage pigment goes from purple (neutral) to red (strong acid) as the concentration of protons (acid) increases.
As the pigment is exposed to lower levels of acid and higher alkaline levels of hydroxide (OH-) the color goes from purple to blue to green to yellow to green. Again, the molecule of
The old favorite poem starter "Roses are Red, Violets are Blue..." has a new explanation. The pH in violets is probably different than the pH in roses.
There's been an effort to genetically modify roses to make them blue, but they haven't yet controlled the pH, so no success yet.
The bright colors of autumn are due to anthocyanidins and the acid levels in the leaves.
The next time you go by a produce section in the grocery store and see the different colors in the fruits, realize that protons (pH) are partly responsible. In other words, dip them in a strong acid, and they will change color. Dip them in a strong alkaline solution and they will change to a different color.
Compounds are classified as inorganic or organic. Organic compounds contain carbon and are often produced in living things. Inorganic compounds normally have no carbon and are created by chemical reactions without the need for a living organism.
Acids are also classified as organic or inorganic for the same reasons.
Inorganic acids are usually stronger than organic acids. You probably have heard of sulfuric acid (battery acid), hydrochloric acid (pool acid), nitric acid, and phosphoric acid.
Organic acids are usually created by living organisms. Acetic acid is made by bacteria that converts alcohol to acetic acid.
Citric acid is produced in citrus (hence the name) and other plants.
The simplest organic acid is formic acid, which is made by ants and makes up their venom.
The way to recognize an organic acid is the presence of a carbon attached to two oxygens with one oxygen attached to a hydrogen. It's called the "carboxylic" group (COOH). The hydrogen has a tendency to be released, which is why it's acidic. Organic acids are not as strong as inorganic acids. For example, only about 1% of the acetic acid molecules lose their hydrogen to water. For the inorganic acids, it’s usually 100%.
The calcium salt of oxalic acid (calcium oxalate) is found in a house plant called Dumb Cane. The plant was used as a way to punish prisoners and slaves. They were forced to chew one of the leaves. Intense pain in the mouth and throat would follow and the person could not speak (That's why it's called Dumb Cane). Dumb in the sense of deaf and dumb.
In the leaves of Dumb Cane are cells with needles of calcium oxalate. When chewed, these cells explode and shoot these needles of calcium oxalate into the mouth. So this contributes to the pain of this salt of oxalic acid.
Calcium oxalate is the main ingredient in kidney stones.
Why are acids important?
Acids often cause a chemical change.
Remember the synthesis equations I showed on making flavorings? What I didn't mention was that a strong acid, like sulfuric acid, is needed as a catalyst to speed up this reaction. The protons of the acids are attracted to the oxygen atoms, which aids in the release of water and the connecting of the two reactants (ethanol & butyric acid).
Even though acids are useful in synthesis reactions, acids are also useful for decomposition reactions.
If you have ever mowed lawns, you might have wished that there was something useful for grass clippings. Acids can turn grass clippings into something valuable: sugar.
Grass is mostly cellulose, which are chains of glucose molecules. Even though this graphic shows glucose molecules coming to together to make cellulose (with water being released), acids can cause the reverse reaction. It can help water break up the long chains of cellulose and turn it back into the glucose. The sugar (glucose) can be fed to yeast, which will make us ethanol for drinking or for mixing with our gasoline. Now there's a good use of grass clippings.
So far we focused on acids, but what is the opposite of an acid? The opposite would be something that can neutralize or cancel the acid. The name for the opposite of acid is alkaline or basic. Let's see where the word "alkaline" came from.
Al Kali is the Arabic name for the plant we call the saltwort plant. What was discovered a couple thousand years ago was that the ashes from the saltwort plant had the ability to neutralize the power of acids. These ash residues were also called bases. The ashes were looked upon as the basic makeup (the base) of the plant.
In the ashes were sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, plus sodium and potassium carbonates (K2CO3). The hydroxide ion (OH-) would react with the hydrogen ion (H+) to form water. So this neutralized the acid. Carbonates also grab onto H+ ions then decompose into water and carbon dioxide. Anything that could neutralize acids like the Al Kali plant did was called alkali, alkaline, base, or basic.
The common alkaline compounds come from the Alkali Metals or the Alkaline Earth Metals (no big surprise). These metal hydroxides are alkaline because they release "OH-" that can neutralize "H+" by turning it into water.
Above the excess H+ ions are taken out of circulation by turning them into HOH (water) by combining with OH-. Another compound that can take H+ ions out of circulation is nitrogen compounds known as amines. That's because nitrogen has an extra pair of electrons that a positive hydrogen will be attracted to. So H+ will latch onto the pair of electrons leaving fewer H+ ions in solution.
Another class of compounds are called "Alkaloids." (see below) From the name, we guess they must be alkaline in nature meaning they can trap H+ ions. That's true. They contain nitrogen and, as you just learned, nitrogen has an extra pair of electrons that will attract H+ ions. (Roll cursor over image to see H+ attachment.)
Bronsted & Lowry defined acids as substances that released H+. They also defined bases (alkaline) as substances that released OH-.
Lewis Base: Gilbert Lewis broadened the definition of acid and base. A Lewis base possesses a pair of electrons that H+ can bind to, like the amines and alkaloids shown above. Here we see ammonia (NH3), methoxide (CH3O-), fluoride ion (F-), and hydroxide (OH-). They all have a pair of unshared electrons available for H+ to bind to. These unshared pair of electrons are often referred to as a lone pair.
Lewis Acid:
On the top we see the acid (H+) being attracted to a Lewis base (a substance with an unpaired electrons (a lone pair) on nitrogen in ammonia. On the bottom, we see the compound, boron trifluoride, that is also attracted to the same lone pair of electrons. So it behaves like the H+ acid and is called a Lewis Acid. Boron has 3 outer electrons that it shares with 3 fluorines. If boron shares the lone pair electrons of nitrogen, then boron will have a stable octet (eight) outer electrons. That's why boron trifluoride binds with ammonia (bottom right). All atoms have their outer shell full of electrons (hydrogen with two; nitrogen, fluorine, and boron with eight).
A discussion of acids and bases is not complete without an explanation of "pH". Everyone has heard of pH but few actually know what that means. First of all "pH" gets its name from "potential for Hydrogen" more specifically, the hydrogen ion (H+). So it's a scale that reflects the concentration of H+.
The numbers in the scale is counting the number of zeros in the denominator of a fraction. So a neutral pH of 7 is 1 over 10,000,000 (which has 7 zeros). pH 3 means 1 over 1,000 and so forth. Being a fraction, the more zeros the smaller the number. 1/1,000 is a bigger amount than 1/10,000,000, right? So the scale is reverse. Higher pH means smaller amounts of H+.
So we have the fraction, but a fraction of what? Well, it's the preferred way of counting in chemistry, which is the mole. Since this is concentration, it's moles per liter (molar=M). So pH is counting the moles of the H+ ion per liter but as a fraction. So pH3 is 1/1000 mole of H+ ions per liter. This is also written as 0.001 moles/liter (M) or 10-3 moles/liter (M).
This product says its liquid has a pH of 5, which is slightly acidic and will neutralize the alkaline residue from mortar. What is the concentration of H+ with a pH of 5?
The quick way is to put 1 over 1 followed by five zeros ( 1/100,000). So the concentration is 1/100,000 moles per liter. As a decimal fraction, it's 0.00001 M. The other way is to put the negative of the pH number as the exponent of 10. So pH5 is 10-5M (moles per liter H+).
This healing cream is listed as having pH 5.5. What is the concentration of H+?
Our shortcut doesn't work because we can't write out 5.5 zeros, but we can use the other method of changing it to -5.5 and putting it as the exponent of 10. 10-5.5. Putting 10-5.5 into the calculator will come back as 3.16x10-6, so the concentration is 3.16x10-6 M (moles per liter) or 0.00000316M. So pH 5.5 has less H+ ions than pH 5.
0.00001000 = pH 5
0.00000316 = pH 5.5
Remember the higher the pH the less H+ concentration. Also, note that a change from pH 4 to pH 3 is 10 times more H+. For example pH 2 is 1,000 times more H+ than pH 5. (5-2=3 which is 10x10x10)
Let's end on a bit of trivia. What is the strongest acid known?
It's fluoroantimonic acid (HSbF6). The yellow spheres are fluorine and the purple one is antimony (Sb). It's prepared by adding hydrofluoric acid to antimony pentafluoride.
HF + SbF5 -> HSbF6
This acid is 20,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger than 100% sulfuric acid. It has a syrupy consistency and dissolves pretty much everything. It can be stored in Teflon bottles. In contact with water, it explodes. If added to hydrocarbons like propane, gasoline, oil, or wax, it causes them to gain a positive charge making them quite reactive. Imagine a wax candle that would be dangerous to touch. So even if the acid is gone, its affect on the wax would make the wax extremely dangerous. In essence the wax itself becomes a very strong acid, more specifically a Lewis acid because it will be hunting out a pair of unshared electrons and those could be in the proteins of your skin.
Since April. 30, 2008
|
cc/2020-05/en_head_0017.json.gz/line38
|
__label__cc
| 0.666876
| 0.333124
|
Organización Social
Piezas Relacionadas
Ambiente y localización
Cotidianidad
Ritualidad
Native peoples > Mapuche
Prior to the 16th Century, the Mapuches are thought to have lived a dispersed and nomadic existence and their way of life was characterized by gathering and by slash and burn horticulture. Spanish chroniclers used several names to identify local groups, including Levo, Lof, and Rehue, probably because of their cultural differences or their spatial or temporal separation. These local groups were composed of different “houses” separated from each other and in which the males of each lineage lived with their wives and unattached daughters. The males’ spouses had been brought from other communities under the prevailing patrilocal system.
The ruka was the traditional dwelling of the extended Mapuche family. These structures differed in size and form, being rectangular, circular or elliptical. The most common type had a strong frame of roble hardwood and was covered on top and sometimes on the sides with bunches of straw to provide insulation from the extreme cold and to protect the inhabitants from the rain. These dwellings had no windows and only a single entrance, which faced eastward toward the Puelmapu, the Land of the East, homeland of the Gods. Inside, the hearth (kutral) was placed at the center and always kept burning, coating the walls with soot.
The Mapuche used very little furniture, mainly wankus (small stools made from a single block of wood) and beds, which lined the walls of their dwellings. Domestic implements hung from the ceiling and walls, and special storage spaces were used to store food. The traditional ruka, which is no longer in use, was built by the community and inaugurated with a rukatún ceremony that included dances with kollong masks. Today, the vast majority of Mapuche communities live in western style dwellings, although their interior divisions and usage of space are reminiscent of the traditional ruka. In urban settings, however, Mapuche dwellings and use of space differ little from those of most working class Chileans.
|
cc/2020-05/en_head_0017.json.gz/line40
|
__label__wiki
| 0.785823
| 0.785823
|
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
Commentary ::
Do You Condemn Rush Limbaugh?
by Rush Limbaugh 07 May 2004
"Rush Limbaugh says what happened over there (in Iraq) was no different than a fraternity initiation. He said these guys were blowing off some steam, having a good time. Do you endorse or do you condemn Rush Limbaugh's words?"
RUSH: Let's go to the NBC Nightly News last night. Chip Reid, reporter, is doing a report on the uproar on Capitol Hill over the possible resignation of Rumsfeld. He's on with Brokaw. He says, "Now a backlash from many conservative Republicans today during debate in the House on a resolution to condemn the Iraqi abuse some Republicans also condemned the Democrats accusing them of using the issue to score political points against the Bush administration."
Then plays DeLay saying, "Democratic leadership's decided to take a political position and is undermining our troops in the field." And Reid says, "conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh is now leading the charge in accusing the media and the Democrats of hyping the Iraqi abuse story." And he played this clip from yesterday's show.
RUSH ARCHIVE: Welcome to the real world. They're not pictures of violence, they're not pictures of death, they're not pictures of horror. I am not going to join the chorus of people who aren't even thinking, who are just reacting with emotions.
REID: The abuse of Iraqi prisoners, a story that was initially greeted with bipartisan revulsion, now at the center of a furious political debate.
RUSH: And then last night, or yesterday afternoon on Crossfire, The Forehead was on there hosting on the left side. Paul Begala who was on with Novak, and they had a couple of guests, Bob Wexler, the congressman from down here in Florida, a Democrat, and Republican Eric Cantor. And The Forehead said to Cantor, said, "Congressman Cantor, in the last segment you said, and I quote, 'You have to be accountable for the words you use.' Well, Rush Limbaugh says what happened over there was no different than a fraternity initiation. He said these guys just blowing off some steam, having a good time. Do you endorse or condemn Rush Limbaugh's words?"
CANTOR: I do not take lightly the incidents that occurred in Iraq. No question, the individuals responsible need to be held accountable. The president said as much --
BEGALA: Do you condemn Limbaugh?
CANTOR: I do not necessarily agree with what was said, no.
WEXLER: I condemn him.
RUSH: So the question on Crossfire was, "Do you condemn Limbaugh?" Now, why? Why on the NBC Nightly News and why on Crossfire does my name come up, and why do I have to be challenged? I don't mind that I am, don't misunderstand, but, "Do you condemn Limbaugh?" "I condemn Limbaugh." So Wexler's got his hand up, gets a badge of honor, he condemned Limbaugh. And then on NBC, of all the people they could go out there and play highlights of. What do you think, Mr. Snerdley, what's the reason for this? What is the reason? [talking to program observer] No! The '04 election is all politics now, but I'm just going to tell you what I think, folks, I'm not going to hold back.
I think the reason that I have to be condemned, and they've got to play sound bites from this show, and have people pooh-pooh it is because it's effective. It's because there's one voice in this country that's contrary to the herd, to the mentality here that has picked up steam; and everybody is in that herd, and everybody is making a rush in that certain direction, and there's one voice out there which is saying, "Whoa, wait a minute, this is not what everybody is saying it is." And because it is political, Mr. Snerdley, you're right, because it is political, and of course they're not playing me in context. I don't care about that.
The point is that they're using me because I'm the most prominent, maybe not the only, but I'm the most prominent voice that's not in this pack mentality. And since this is political, they have got to play this voice of mine and have people refute it and say it's not right. It's wrong or it's condemnable, or some sort of thing proving that this is political. Because I'm not an elected official. I'm not part of the Joint Chiefs. I'm not in the command structure. I'm not in the chain of command at all, and yet I have to somehow be condemned and discredited? It proves it's politics, folks!
RUSH: Let's go back and review some of the sound bites I played earlier that mention me. And again, I want you people to understand that this is simply to show you that there is a total political context here rather than some serious supposed outrage over abuse.
Now, I'm not saying there isn't any of that, that's not what this is. This is an opportunity. This is a political opportunity for opponents of the president that continue to take more shots where there's blood in the water and so they're do doing everything they can to win this election for John Kerry since he's so inept at doing it himself. How else do you explain the NBC Nightly News, Crossfire, and the White House press briefing bringing me up in official questions to elected officials about my opinion of this?
I'm not elected, I'm not in the chain of command, I have no authority over anybody involved in any of this. And yet, as you will hear, I'm either be criticized or illustrated as an example of the opposition. Criticized on Crossfire as a man who needs to be condemned, and being asked by a reporter of the White House press spokesman whether or not the president disavows what I'm saying or agrees with it.
If that doesn't illustrate to you that this is political and since I am a voice that has not joined the pack on this, and this is a media-led frenzy, "Okay, let's do what we can do to nullify this disagreeing voice or discredit it or what have you." First example, NBC Nightly News last night with Tom Brokaw, Chip Reid is the reporter doing the report on the uproar on Capitol Hill about the possible resignation about Rumsfeld, about which I have seen nothing in these hearings so far, by the way.
And Chip Reid starts out talking about a backlash from many conservative Republicans and a debate, resolution in the Florida house, and he quotes Tom DeLay saying the Democratic leadership has decided to take a political position undermining our troops in the field. Then he says, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh now leading the charge. "Conservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, leading the charge in accusing the media and Democrats of hyping the Iraqi abuse story."
(Replaying of sound bite.)
RUSH: Now, don't give me this business that it was initially greeted with bipartisan revulsion. That's a little bit of misinformation. Doesn't mean it was greeted with bipartisan condemnation and agreement with the liberal left and the media on this. Now, here's Crossfire, you've got The Forehead, Paul Begala, representing the left. The guests are Congressman Eric Cantor, he's a Republican from Virginia, and Bob Wexler from down here in Florida. He's the guy that all those mistaken Buchanan voters called to complain during 2000.
And The Forehead says, "Congressman Cantor, in the last segment you said, and I quote, 'You have to be accountable for the words you use.' Well, Rush Limbaugh says what happened over there was no different than a fraternity initiation. He said these guys were blowing off some steam, having a good time. Do you endorse or do you condemn Rush Limbaugh's words?"
RUSH: "I condemn Limbaugh!" I condemn -- do you condemn -- this is Crossfire. I'm proud to be there, don't misunderstand, but if this doesn't prove it's political. I know nobody saw it, that's why I'm playing it.
Let's go to the White House press briefing, not much time here, White House daily press briefing, Scott McClellan. You're going to hear the voice of April Ryan, infobabe reporterette for the American Urban Radio Network.
RYAN: There's a segment of society that differs with the White House as it relates to these pictures and the investigation of U.S. soldiers' conduct to include Rush Limbaugh, who Tuesday, agreed with a caller equating the pictures to a college fraternity prank and said U.S. soldiers should not be punished because it was an emotional release as they were letting off steam. What's the White House say about that?
MCCLELLAN: April, I think the White House says what we said yesterday and what the president has said over last few days.
RYAN: No, seriously, this man is a conservative --
MCCLELLAN: I actually answered a question earlier today about that matter, and I addressed it then.
RYAN: But to stand out strongly trying to let the Arab world know that this is wrong, and then you have the proverbial spokesperson for the conservative party saying this, doesn't that send a mixed message?
MCCLELLAN: I think the president's views have been made very clear.
RUSH: Do you get this? "Isn't this conservative party spokesman, Limbaugh, isn't this a mixed message? Can't you guys disavow?" Oh, my friends. I'm just a kid from Missouri that wanted to be on the radio.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050704/content/rush_on_a_roll.guest.html
Re: Do You Condemn Rush Limbaugh?
by Kris Samsel
krissamsel.dsl (nospam) verizon.net (unverified) 08 May 2004
I don't condemn Rush. He is a dope addict. He needs to realize that HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OWN ACTIONS. And quit using drugs. It's hard. He can do it.
Why condemn him? He's sick.
Condemn Bush. He's straight!
|
cc/2020-05/en_head_0017.json.gz/line42
|
__label__wiki
| 0.84913
| 0.84913
|
Bishonen
“He’s mindfucking you.” This is what one young man in this 1998 movie tells another that he thinks a third individual is doing to the second person. At times, I felt that this is what director and scriptwriter Yonfan (also) was doing to the viewer(s) of that which takes as its international title the Japanese word that translates into English as “pretty boy(s)” (From “bi-”, short for “bijin”, and “shonen”, which refers to young males). How else would one account for his having stated -- this according to Shelly Kraicer of the “Another Chinese Cinema Page” website -- that he had made this romance-infused dramatic offering, one whose main characters are all gay men who have some kind of personal connection with one another, “for women (presumably heterosexual) who wanted to watch beautiful young men”? Similarly, I find myself wondering why it is that he -- whose full name is Man-Shih Yonfan (but seems to prefer to just be referred to as Yonfan) -- opted for this very male-centered, largely Cantonese language production to have a voice-over narration done by a Mandarin speaking female (Although her name does not appear in the credits, Brigitte Lin has been identified as having had this part in this Sylvia Chang executive produced film). Then there is the seemingly over-long, drawn-out, circuitous and rather teasing route that the viewers of BISHONEN... are taken before being properly introduced to the character who I think is at the heart of this ultimately quite moving effort: A straight arrow looking young man (sensitively portrayed by then newcomer, Daniel Wu) who initially appears to be one half of a heterosexual couple -- but actually is gay -- and gets named as Sam without it being revealed until quite a bit later in the work that he was previously known as Ah Fai. Something else that I have to admit to feeling disconcerted by is the fact of BISHONEN... being undeniably generally aesthetically pleasing in terms of its visuals -- and maybe also its score (though I found the sentimental movie’s music to verge on being too sappy for my taste) -- even when quite a bit of what is shown taking place in this work is rather psychologically disquieting, emotionally messy and even downright ugly in terms of what gets implied to have been done to certain individuals whose welfare the offering’s viewers ought to find themselves caring for. And lest anyone wonder, I’m actually am not referring here to: Pretty much all of the physically attractive young people -- who include Terence Yin as the individual who goes by the initials of K.S., and Hsu Chi in the supporting role of Sam’s friend, Kana -- that are seen in the film not being heterosexual; and/or three of them -- Jet (who Stephen Fung charmingly essayed), Ah Ching (who I think was played by Jason Tsang) and Sindy -- being gigolos who are part of what Hong Kongers would call a “duck shop” named S.M. Bay (operated by a business-minded individual played by Cheung Tat Ming). To some degree, it is tempting to superficially suppose that BISHONEN... could not help but be a glossy looking work by way of it being helmed by a director who made his mark as a fashion photographer prior to entering the world of movie-making (and therefore may be better at getting a work to look good than ensuring that the presented images fit the main mood and themes of the film). However, in keeping with one of the primary points of this thought-provoking production (for which David Chung is the credited cinematographer and Sherry Kwok is the art director), I do suspect that there’s more to this than initially meets the eye. Appearances can be deceiving. This adage is particularly applicable with regards to BISHONEN...’s principal character: Who, as his mother noted, “wants so badly to be seen as good all the time”. Unfortunately for Sam/Ah Fai, he -- like other humans -- could not be. Instead, the young policeman -- who lived with and cooked for the parents (played by Kenneth Tsang and his real wife, actress Chiao Chiao) he very obviously loved as well as did not want to let down in any way (be it by being revealed to be a smoker or homosexual) -- ended up with what was rather euphemistically described by the movie’s seemingly omniscient narrator as a “double personality”, and leading a double -- maybe even more -- life whose different strands ended up coming together in ways that he could and did not anticipate. When viewed from this perspective, the story of Sam/Ah Fai looks to be a sad and cautionary tale about the tragedies that seem to invariably result from a person’s doing things that cause him to feel guilt (not least because he knows that it will cause others to have pain). However, this is not to say that the atmospheric movie is entirely joy-less and that its chief protagonist’s life was one that was completely love-less. Far from it, in fact. Another point that I think is worth emphasizing about BISHONEN... is how sincerely idealistic, innocently idyllic and rose-tinted-lens romantic much of it did seem. Finally, and against some interesting odds, I do think that Yon Fan and co. -- including the lead actors from whom he successfully coaxed out some truly touching performances -- did manage to get the message across that the kind of love that some people consider to be just plain wrong is one that others can endow with much purity and great beauty.
NB - cameos come in the form of James Wong (a client), Paul Fonoroff (on the street), Joe Junior (the photographer) and Ng Hong-ning (as a rough customer).
My rating for the film: 7.
|
cc/2020-05/en_head_0017.json.gz/line43
|
__label__wiki
| 0.953902
| 0.953902
|
Boeing’s Man Pushed for the Iran Nuclear Deal—and Now the Company Is Selling $25 Billion Worth of Planes to Tehran
Green Skies
A former top Clinton administration official has been quietly—and simultaneously—working for Boeing while vocally supporting the Iran nuclear deal.
Betsy Swan
Political Reporter
Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast
Boeing is grabbing headlines for its first-of-its-kind, $25 billion deal with Iran Air, Tehran’s state-owned airline.
But the American aerospace giant isn’t exactly publicizing the fact that it paid a lobbying firm to “monitor” the nuclear agreement that made its $25 billion sale to Tehran possible. Or that Boeing has on its payroll a former top Clinton administration official who used his clout to garner support in the corridors of powers for the Iran deal.
Thomas Pickering, one of the country’s most respected diplomats and a and former ambassador to Israel and the United Nations, has been quietly taking money from Boeing while vocally supporting the Iran nuclear deal—testifying before Congress, writing letters to high-level officials, and penning op-eds for outlets like The Washington Post.
Pickering confirmed via email—from his Boeing corporate email address—that he was on staff at the company from 2001 to 2006 and has been a paid consultant for them ever since.
“I was a Boeing employee from 1/2001 to 6/2006,” he emailed. “I was a direct consultant to Boeing from 7/2006 until 12/2015 when contract for consulting was moved to Hills for my work.”
“Hills” refers to Hills & Company International Consultants, where Pickering is a principal. In a previous email, Pickering referred to his “contract arrangement with Boeing” in the present tense.
He didn’t respond to a follow-up email asking if he disclosed his relationship with Boeing when discussing Iran with members of Congress and with the press. The Daily Beast found no evidence that he made a habit of making such a disclosure, and will update this piece if we do.
News of the impending sale highlights just how much Boeing and Iran’s state-owned airline both stand to benefit from the nuclear agreement for which Pickering advocated. The fact that Pickering did not regularly disclose his relationship with Boeing—which, as is now obvious, had a massive financial interest in the implementation of the Iran nuclear agreement—has drawn criticism from government transparency advocates, who consider it to be a violation of ethical standards.
Neil Gordon—an investigator for the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington watchdog organization—said Pickering should have been upfront about his work for Boeing when testifying before Congress on the deal and making the case for it in op-eds for major publications.
“In Pickering’s case, he has a direct connection to Boeing, which I think should be disclosed,” he said.
“I think it’s necessary for the public debate,” Gordon added. “It’s necessary for the public to fully realize the participants’ financial interests. Some of them might have a direct financial stake in a particular outcome.”
Boeing, he added, clearly had a financial interest in the Iran nuclear agreement. The deal reopened the door to American business dealings with Tehran, which time and again had looked to restock its aging fleet of planes with newer, Western models.
Gordon compared it to a controversy in 2013, when many think tank scholars and military experts arguing for a U.S. military presence in Syria didn’t disclose that they had financial ties to defense companies that stood to benefit from the intervention. Media outlets presented these commentators as independent, Gordon noted, when they weren’t. And, he added, Pickering’s situation is similar.
Over the past few years, Pickering has been one of the most vocal and visible advocates for the nuclear agreement with Iran. On June 19, 2014, he testified before the House Armed Services Committee about his views on the need for a comprehensive agreement with Iran. He did not mention Boeing in the disclosure form he provided to the committee prior to his testimony. Boeing also isn’t mentioned in his bio that the House kept on file.
Besides testifying before Congress, Pickering also signed a letter on July 7, 2015, to congressional leadership, along with other former diplomats, urging them to support the nuclear agreement. That letter didn’t disclose his connection to Boeing, and it drew broad media coverage, including from the Huffington Post, Politico, and the AP. None of those reports noted his work for Boeing. The White House also cited the letter in its publication “The Iran Nuclear Deal: What You Need to Know About the JCPOA.” Boeing is not mentioned anywhere in that document.
Rep. Mark Takai cited “hours discussing the matter with Amb. Thomas Pickering” in a press release announcing his support for the Iran deal, and Sen. Dick Durbin name-checked him in a Senate speech arguing for the deal.
Additionally, Pickering co-authored a Washington Post op-ed arguing that the deal “could help save Iraq”—and, of course, without disclosing his ties to Boeing. And he wrote an op-ed for Tablet on July 27, 2015, called “A Guide for the Perplexed: The Iran Nuclear Agreement” arguing for the deal. Again, no mention of Boeing. Tablet described him as a former diplomat—and not as a current consultant to a company that stood to make billions off the agreement.
His bio at the National Iranian American Council, which generally backs a cooling of tensions between Washington and Tehran and where he serves as an advisory board member, notes that he worked at Boeing until 2006 but does not note that he still consults for the company. Same for his bio at the anti-nuclear weapon group Global Zero. His bio at The Iran Project doesn’t mention Boeing at all.
Pickering wasn’t the only person on Boeing’s payroll who closely followed the Iran nuclear agreement. A lobbying report filed with the government on Oct. 19, 2015, shows the company paid Monument Policy Group LLC between $5,000 and $50,000 between July 1 and Sept. 30, 2015, to do lobbying work on the agreement, as well as other issues. A separate report—accessible, like the first one, through a public database—shows Boeing spent between $5,000 and $4,956,000 lobbying from Oct. 10, 2015, through the end of that year. It lists “U.S.-Iran Relations” as an issue it worked on. The Washington Free Beacon noted these reports in a story published Jan. 29 of this year.
Tim Neale, a spokesman for Boeing, said the company did not take a position on or lobby for the Iran nuclear deal and the negotiations that preceded it.
“Monument Policy Group passively monitored congressional debate on the nuclear agreement for Boeing, but did not engage congressional offices on the agreement,” he added. “Our own lobbying activity in Q4 was in response to questions we were getting about the potential for airplane sales to Iran, plus misconceptions about the potential for Ex-Im Bank financing of such sales, which we felt were important to correct.”
Boeing’s decision to sell planes to Iran Air has already generated some controversy in Congress. Rep. Peter Roskam, an Illinois Republican, wrote an editorial for USA Today promising to do everything he can to stop the deal from going through.
“Boeing says it must go wherever Airbus goes,” he wrote, citing the fact that the company’s European competitor recently signed a deal to sell planes to Iran Air. “But history is a merciless disciplinarian to those who make themselves complicit in evil because ‘someone else was doing it.’”
State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Tuesday that it “welcomes” Boeing’s plan to sell planes to Iran. And backers of the Iran deal say the sales are an integral part of realizing the promise of sanctions relief.
Trita Parsi—the president of the National Iranian American Council—said Boeing’s deep interest in the agreement didn’t surprise him. Nor did the company’s desire to keep a low profile on this issue.
“Obviously Boeing wants this deal with Iran, but it’s a tricky one,” he said. “It has a lot of political dimensions. That is something Boeing would probably prefer not to deal with.”
“Once the deal was approved, I’m not surprised that Boeing would step things up a little bit,” he said of the company’s additional lobbying in the months after the U.S. signed on to the Iran nuclear agreement.
Parsi also said Boeing could have drawn unwelcome criticism from the public and from Congress if it publicized its support for the nuclear agreement.
“I think more than anything else, they were trying to make sure they would put up some sort of buffer against too many members of Congress jumping on the train of condemning Boeing for doing something that it is now legal for them to do,” he said.
Parsi added that Boeing’s tentative agreement to sell planes to Iran Air will be critical to the success of the Iran nuclear agreement. If Boeing and Iran Air can finalize and successfully implement the multibillion-dollar sale, it will be easier for other American companies to do business with Iran, he said. On the other hand, if criticism from political leaders and the public makes completing the deal too politically costly for Boeing, then other companies will be unlikely to follow its lead. And if that happens, then Iran’s sanctions relief will be in word only—the country won’t benefit from the U.S. decision to lift some sanctions, and that could disincentivize its leaders from holding up their end of the agreement.
“If the Iranians end up de facto not getting sanctions relief, the deal will collapse,” he said. “That’s right now the biggest threat to the sustainability of the deal.”
|
cc/2020-05/en_head_0017.json.gz/line45
|
End of preview.
No dataset card yet
- Downloads last month
- 6