The enormity of the destruction of flight MH17 should have led Mr Putin to draw back from his policy of fomenting war in eastern Ukraine. Yet he has persevered, for two reasons. First, in the society he has done so much to mould, lying is a first response. The disaster immediately drew forth a torrent of contradictory and implausible theories from his officials and their mouthpieces in the Russian media: Mr Putin’s own plane was the target; Ukrainian missile-launchers were in the vicinity. And the lies got more complex. The Russian fiction that a Ukrainian fighter jet had fired the missile ran into the problem that the jet could not fly at the altitude of MH17, so Russian hackers then changed a Wikipedia entry to say that the jets could briefly do so. That such clumsily Soviet efforts are easily laughed off does not defeat their purpose, for their aim is not to persuade but to cast enough doubt to make the truth a matter of opinion. In a world of liars, might not the West be lying, too?
As America grew and changed after World War II, urban planners dismissed the historic structure of town life. Old buildings were demolished to make way for modern architecture. Neighborhoods gave way to suburbs designed around and for the automobile. Not only did this erase the aesthetic loveliness of our towns, it had dangerous consequences for community. Alexandria’s battle to preserve something small and traditional amid the burgeoning sprawl of the nation’s capital region is a struggle with obvious parallels to the efforts of traditionalist conservatives around the country—those who believe in creative preservation, not just creative destruction. But there’s more at stake here, too: a future for American urbanism that doesn’t just hold onto the best of the past but makes it a viable, enlivening pattern for the 21st century as well. Redevelopment must be handled with a delicate touch, careful not to stretch or tear the precious fabric that makes a town a place.
Young Democrats have become selfishly against real equality in their opposition to any kind of moral restraint imposed by government. They’re the party of uninhibited freedom in one’s own personal life. And they are no longer moved by any sensitivity to the injustices of the growing inequality — or the struggles of the failing middle class — that are the consequences of the unmediated effects of the global competitive marketplace on ordinary American lives. Well, I’ve been saying for a while that big-government progressivism, or the communitarian Left, is dead.
According to Orbán, the time of liberal democracies has come to an end. Something else, something better will come that will ensure “competitiveness” in this global economy. Orbán mentioned a few countries worth imitating: Singapore, China, India, Turkey, and Russia. What a happy prospect in the center of Europe!
Close to the end of his speech Orbán listed a number of unexpected global occurrences. For example, no one would have ever imagined that Barack Obama could be sued by Congress for repeatedly encroaching on Congress’s power. He expressed his utter astonishment and continued: “What do you think, how long could I stay in office if parliament could sue me for overstepping our authority?” Viktor Orbán does not even pretend. He tells the whole world that he has unlimited power. He has no shame. In fact, he is proud of it.
Foreign journalists should no longer have to pretend either. They don’t have to use milquetoast adjectives like “conservative,” “right-of-center,” and “conservative-nationalist” anymore. Call it what it is. A one-man dictatorship with more or less free but unfair elections.
While you are on the demonstration, if passersby disagree with you about Israel and Gaza, do not surround them, shove them, steal their phone and call them a “Jew Zionist”. Having a different view of where blame and responsibility lie in the current conflict does not make someone a proxy-combatant for you to attack.
While you are at the demonstration, do not compare Israel to Nazi Germany. Gaza is not the Warsaw Ghetto. If you can’t tell the difference, this post explains it. It’s a totally false comparison that plays on Jewish sensibilities in order to provoke a reaction. Another word for that is Jew-baiting. Don’t do it.
In fact, don’t take any banner or placard that has a swastika on it. Not when it is equated with a Star of David and not when it is drawn on Bibi Netanyahu’s forehead. Don’t you find it odd that the only political demonstrations where it is considered OK by people on the Left to wave a swastika, just happen to be protests against the world’s only Jewish state? That’s an almighty coincidence.
Oh, and don’t wave a Socialist Worker banner out of the window of a Lamborghini. It makes you look like a shmuck. And I bet you don’t even need your Jewish friends to translate what that means.
There is no moral justification for Hamas firing rockets against Israeli cities, but what initially sparked the current conflict was Israel’s determination to undermine the reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas. By that agreement, Hamas actually subordinated itself to the Palestinian Authority and to a new government that was to be staffed by technocrats who had no affiliation to either party. As Nathan Thrall from the International Crisis Group wrote in The New York Times, that agreement could have served the interest of an Israeli government committed to a two-state solution:
It offered Hamas’s political adversaries a foothold in Gaza; it was formed without a single Hamas member; it retained the same Ramallah-based prime minister, deputy prime ministers, finance minister and foreign minister; and, most important, it pledged to comply with the three conditions for Western aid long demanded by America and its European allies: nonviolence, adherence to past agreements and recognition of Israel.
But from the beginning, Israel set out to undermine it. That was consistent with Israel’s denial of Palestinian self-rule, and it helped to provoke the current conflict.
Vse navedeno kaže, da pisanja na roko nikakor ne gre izrinjati iz šolskih klopi na račun uvajanja računalniških pripomočkov, kakršne so tablice. Te naj bodo le dopolnilo ostalim oblikam učenja in poučevanja. Kako tablice delujejo, otroci dovolj zgodaj ugotovijo sami, v šoli bi moral biti poudarek na drugih aktivnostih, meni Tancigova. Pisanje na roko spodbuja tudi razvoj fine motorike; predmeti, v okviru katerih se odvijajo telesne aktivnosti in spodbuja kreativnost (umetnost), bi morali imeti več prostora v šolskem kurikulu. Finski arhitekt in izjemni mislec Juhani Pallasmaa v knjigi Misleča roka(izid izvirnika 2009) zelo dobro pokaže pomen povezanosti telesa in možganov (utelešena kognicija) ter poudarja povezovanje uma in roke ter pomen ročnega risanja pri ustvarjalnem delu.
Uporaba sodobnih tehnologij ima po drugi strani za posledico, da se, laično rečeno, možgani polenijo. Človeški možgani so zelo plastični in se oblikujejo odvisno od rabe, zato ni vseeno, v kakšnem okolju živimo ali kaj delamo. Prva svarila pred pasivizacijo je bilo slišati že v času zmagovitega pohoda televizije, z internetom in sodobnimi tehnološkimi igračkami je podobno. Posledice prevelikega naslanjanja na tehnologijo je zaznati pri študentih, ki imajo zaradi pomanjkljivega znanja pogosto velike težave pri iskanju informacij ali selekcioniranju le-teh, se raje kot na izvirnike naslanjajo na kratke obnove knjižnih in strokovnih del, ki jih dobijo na spletu … Vse to neredko vodi v površinskost, nepoglobljenost in nereflektiranost /…/
Dawkins’ narrowmindedness, his unshakeable belief that the entire history of human intellectual achievement was just a prelude to the codification of scientific inquiry, leads him to dismiss the insights offered not only by theology, but philosophy, history and art as well.
To him, the humanities are expendable window-dressing, and the consciousness and emotions of his fellow human beings are byproducts of natural selection that frequently hobble his pursuit and dissemination of cold, hard facts. His orientation toward the world is the product of a classic category mistake, but because he’s nestled inside it so snugly he perceives complex concepts outside of his understanding as meaningless dribble. If he can’t see it, then it doesn’t exist, and anyone trying to describe it to him is delusional and possibly dangerous.
Bonus: članek dr. Mateja Avblja, objavljen v Delu pred enim letom, ter intervju z Bernardom Brščičem, objavljen v reviji Razpotja poleti l. 2011:
Spoštovanje vsakega posameznika, njegova ekonomska osamosvojitev, razcvet civilne družbe in s tem pravega družbenega pluralizma bodo Slovenijo pomagali odpreti tudi navzven in jo spremenili v svetovljansko družbo. Odprta za pretočnost dobrih idej, ne glede na njihov izvor ali svetovnonazorsko obarvanost, bo evropska Slovenija lahko pritegnila tudi številne posameznike s sveta, ki bodo s seboj prinesli spet nove ideje, nov kapital in nove spodbude za nadaljnji družbeni razvoj, obenem pa bodo Slovenijo vpeli tudi v globalne okvire.
Sam menim, da je ekonomiziranje, torej postavljanje primata ekonomiji in reduciranje vsega družbenega na ekonomsko, pogubno. Politika preprosto ima svojo dimenzijo in ekonomija ji je podrejena in je samo sredstvo za reševanje ekonomskega problema. V 20. stoletju pa smo zdrsnili v to, da je ekonomija postala primarna in politika zgolj odvisna od ekonomije. Politika se tako reducira bodisi na zadovoljevanje interesov – gre za politiko brez romantike, bodisi na urejanje javnih zadev iz vidika sodobne doktrine menedžiranja. Sam obema pojmovanjema politike in političnega ostro nasprotujem, zlasti redukciji političnega na udejanjanje interesov. Res pa je, da ob analizi slovenske stvarnosti človek zelo hitro dobi občutek, da politika ni nič drugega kot udejanjanje interesov.
Kljub temu sam menim, da je izhod iz te brezupne družbene krize povezan ravno z reafirmacijo političnega, s sposobnostjo političnih skupin, da artikulirajo skupno dobro.