Monday, November 30, 2020
I Don’t Want You to ‘Believe’ Me. I Want You to Listen. - The New York Times
I am not a private person — quite the opposite — but I do have two secrets. The first concerns some Bad Events that happened to me long ago (yes, it’s the sort of thing you are thinking of), and the second is an unrelated Fact about my neurological makeup.
Let me be clear: I am not ashamed of either of these things. Keeping them secret creates, in me, an uncomfortable feeling, as though I were hiding something, as though I were ashamed, and that bugs me all the time, like a scratchy tag in my clothing. But I can’t tell you what The Fact is, because you won’t believe me; and I can't tell you about The Events, because you will.
I have barely told you anything about The Events, but I suspect that you have already started believing. You want to be someone who believes women; you see this as the belief-challenge you have been waiting for; you want to rise to it. When I first told a therapist about The Events, she said: “Of course. In retrospect it makes perfect sense of so many things …”
Later she apologized for this as therapeutic overreach. Even therapists can’t help themselves — they are off to the races, believing and believing. On this topic, so much gets packaged into “being believed” that I fear the more I tell you, the less you will understand me.
I don't want you to think you know the meaning of The Events; I don’t want to be classified as damaged; I don’t want you to feel good about yourself for believing me; I don’t want you to feel sorry for me; and most of all, I don’t want you to praise my courage for “coming forward” or for “surviving.” The prospect of receiving praise or honor for this revelation fills with me with rage — when I imagine your admiration, I immediately imagine throwing it back in your face.
The Fact I’d like to tell you has to do with a difference between how we — you and I — think. But to get specific about this difference, I have to use a word you associate with people who don’t talk, who can’t take care of themselves, whose inner lives seem utterly obscure to you, people who harm themselves, people you struggle to see as human, people whose existence you see as a tragedy.
And you will find this comparison preposterous. You will tell me I shouldn’t use “that word,” you will helpfully offer me milder alternatives. You might acknowledge that I’m “quirky” or “idiosyncratic” — in a good way! — and that a few of those quirks may superficially resemble those people. But I have a professional career, a family. I can’t be like them. (Ask yourself: how much knowledge would you need, really, to be certain of this?)
You might be willing to budge a little if you could hear it from some medical professionals — though one might not be enough. You’d need a second and third opinion. Notice that if I told you I had cancer or diabetes or depression, or for that matter that I was left-handed, you would not insist on seeing my papers. You would not be inclined to think I was faking my left-handedness by having trained myself to use my left hand; or that I resembled depressed people only “in some respects.”
In the case of The Events, you are eager to assign victim status to me; in the case of The Fact, you are wary of assigning it to me. For you, there is only one question: how much suffering can she legitimately lay claim to?
You are so busy trying to answer this question — trying to serve as judge in the pain/suffering/disadvantage Olympics — that you cannot hear anything I am trying to tell you. And that means I can’t talk to you. No one can sincerely assert words whose meaning she knows will be garbled by the lexicon of her interlocutor. I don’t want privacy, but you’ve forced it onto me.
You might wonder why I have to tell you these things. Couldn’t I find a supportive community of people who endured similar Events, and wouldn’t I be believed by other Fact-Bearers? Yes, and individual connections of this kind are very valuable, but at the group level this kind of support has never worked for me.
Being surrounded by people who are supposedly like me inevitably leads me to feel maximally “different.” Probably my failure to benefit from such communities is a sign that I have not suffered so much, and deserve very little victim credit. So be it!
Solidarity is not my thing, openness is. It is a consequence of The Fact, for me, that I lean toward transparency in all contexts: I have to consciously prevent myself from oversharing (even more than I do), and I am honest from necessity rather than virtue.
There is a reason for all of this, which is that I am bad — really bad, you cannot imagine how bad — at figuring things out on my own. If I take too many steps in reasoning without the intervention of another person, I go very far wrong. So I have accustomed myself to reasoning in public as much as I can, to making sure to expose my mistakes to correction.
I know that I don’t know what corner assistance might come from. I don’t want to confide in a select group of people who grumble among themselves about how you misunderstand “us.” I want to talk to you, any and all of you, freely, so you can help me stop misunderstanding myself.
The truth is that I don’t know the meaning of The Events, for my life. Isn’t it at least possible that they simply don’t have any meaning? Or maybe the meaning will change once I am allowed to speak them out loud? Perhaps I really am scarred for life, but do we have to assume that from the outset?
If I could talk it through, I might have a hope of figuring this out. Because that is mostly how I figure out all the difficult problems of my life: I talk about them to whoever is available, whenever the problems seem relevant to something else I am thinking about; I listen; I rethink; I write; I circle back and write something else; over and over again; and over time I develop a stable picture.
With The Events, I am at sea. For so long I did not even allow myself to speak them to myself. Now that I can, it chafes at me that you have decided that if I want to talk about them with you, I have to follow your rules, and let you trample all over me. Perhaps more people who have experienced Events would talk about them with you if they thought you would do less “believing” and more listening.
Factwise, this is what I want to know: what, if anything, ties together the “superficial” differences in how I dress, how I talk, how my mind jumps around, my repetitive movements, my sensitivities, the kinds of patterns I see and the kinds I miss, my obsessions, my literal-mindedness, my odd oscillations between needing to be alone and needing to be with others, between striking you as charming and coming off as unbearable. Why do I struggle so much to understand which emotion I am feeling? Why am I so bad at predicting what you will find offensive?
The Fact makes me part of a group of people whose boundaries are amorphous; we do not all recognize one another, and even when we do, we are not sure what we have in common. You would like to manage this situation in a very specific way: First, carve off what you take to be the “most severe cases,” and find a cure that prevents any more of them from arising.
Second, assimilate the rest — people like me — as “normal,” or as normal enough, so long as you are sufficiently tolerant and accommodating. But I suspect all the tolerance and accommodation in the world won’t make me normal. Do we have to pretend that I am? Is that the condition on which you are willing to engage with me? And couldn’t a group of people have something in common even if “degree of suffering” isn’t that thing?
I could use your help — not your support, not your approval, not your reassurance but your help as an open and thoughtful audience for these difficult questions. But you won’t help me, because you won’t listen to what I’m trying to say, because all you care about is how much victim status I deserve. You are really letting me down.
Agnes Callard (@AgnesCallard), an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago and the author of “Aspiration: The Agency of Becoming,” writes about public philosophy at The Point magazine.
Now in print: “Modern Ethics in 77 Arguments,” and “The Stone Reader: Modern Philosophy in 133 Arguments,” with essays from the series, edited by Peter Catapano and Simon Critchley, published by Liveright Books.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
"Opinion" - Google News
November 30, 2020 at 12:45PM
https://ift.tt/36mjpVg
I Don’t Want You to ‘Believe’ Me. I Want You to Listen. - The New York Times
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
Sunday, November 29, 2020
OPINION: 'Defund the police' and the case for engaging in a national discourse - Arizona Daily Wildcat
Disclaimer: I am white. I am part of the race that has been responsible for the centuries of violence against Black people. My culture is the dominant culture in the United States. I have never had a bad interaction with the police. I have never been persecuted or discriminated against. I can walk or run anywhere I want to without fear. The only “talk” my parents gave me was about sex.
I am an ally of the Black community. I support Black Lives Matter. I support defunding the police. I make a conscious effort every day to consider my privilege and avoid perpetuating narratives based on white supremacy of white saviorism.
Perhaps the most troubling issue plaguing our national discourse at the moment is a disastrous lack of nuance. Nothing illustrates this more clearly than the gap between support for Black Lives Matter and support for defunding the police — two causes intimately related to each other. One recent poll from Spectrum News 1 in Los Angeles showed that 46% of participants supported reducing police budgets, while 68% saw police brutality against Black Americans as a widespread problem and 60% supported the Black Lives Matter Movement. The Spectrum News poll is consistent with the trend nationwide, with far more people supporting Black Lives Matter than defunding the police.
While there has been no shortage of conflict surrounding the words in the statement “Black Lives Matter” — if you need an example, simply look to the countermovement “all lives matter,” which, unfortunately, is everywhere — it is relatively straightforward in its meaning. The lives of Black Americans are not being valued in our criminal justice system or society at large. Period.
RELATED: Postal Progress Q&A: How UA artists are fighting for racial equity one postcard at a time
“Defund the Police” is significantly more complicated. Broken down into its literal definition, it means to take funds away from the police. The problem is that when many Americans hear it as a chant or read it on a sign, they think the goal is to get rid of police departments.
The negative response towards defund the police can be broken down into two basic elements. First is the positive view of the police most white Americans have. In the U.S., 75% of white people say police in their community do "an 'excellent' or 'good' job … treating racial and ethnic groups equally,” and in “using the right amount of force" for each situation, according to a June 2020 publication from the Pew Research Center.
The second element in understanding a lack of support for defund the police arises when the meaning of the slogan is confused with police abolition. This is most clear in a Politico's Morning Consult poll that found that 59% percent of voters support diverting police funding to community programs, while only 29% support “defund the police”— a clear depiction of the general voter's misunderstanding of what defund the police truly stands for, as these two are one and the same.
The solution to mending this gap of understanding is a commitment by those calling for defunding the police to engage with the public in a more nuanced, in-depth explanation of the phrase and also a commitment by everyone reading protest signs or listening to chants to withhold response until they can gain a greater understanding of what defund the police means.
RELATED: What experts say about mental health during times of social and political tension
In a dialogue shaped by 280-character Tweets, memes and various other brief snippets of heated opinion, this would be a radical departure from how we engage with each other and with issues. It takes more effort and more time, but the payoff is immense.
The nature of political rhetoric in the past decade has grown increasingly emotionally divisive. Content that makes people scared and angry is the most effective for driving up engagement online, and engagement drives up profit. Algorithms are designed to push the most controversial content to the top of everyone’s feed regardless of its truth or value to constructive discourse.
Politicians of every party use divisiveness to seize and maintain control for the sake of power — not to help the people they are governing, and corporations aren’t likely to start shunning cash for the democratic good any time soon, so it’s up to us. It’s easy to forget our power in shaping today’s discourse when most of it occurs on platforms controlled by billionaires — all while COVID-19 has curtailed in-person dialogue — but we hold all the power.
It’s time we quit letting the desires of the wealthiest people in America to get even more wealthy destroy any semblance of constructive, kind and respectful dialogue in this country. This isn’t going to be a quick process — it will take years to undo the damage done and begin to build bridges across the rifts that have developed. It won’t be easy either.
The most powerful forces in our government and economy have a vested interest in keeping us divided and our politics divisive, so it’s going to be an uphill battle. All of that being said, I believe that there is a single idea with which we can find the inspiration and the seed of common ground that we need to get started. We all want the same thing. Not as democrats and republicans or as Americans or residents of any state or as members of our respective camps in regard to numerous issues, but as human beings.
RELATED: OPINION: Want to make a change on campus? Start here
We all want a better world. We want safer lives for ourselves and our children if we have them or plan on having them. We want to comfortably meet our basic needs so we can be free to pursue our more complex ones. We want the government to protect our rights and improve our lives. Most of us are selfish enough that fundamentally we only want things for ourselves. Some of the more selfless among us genuinely want the same things for everyone that we want for ourselves.
Almost nobody wants bad things to happen to others, at least not directly. Our black and white discourse and the disinformation have convinced many people that the things they want necessitate the suffering and oppression of others. This simply isn’t the case. If we all engaged in a discourse aimed at securing what we want and trusted that what we want and need doesn’t require denying others anything they want or need, we would all be better off.
We would be happier, healthier and richer and our society would be smarter, kinder and safer. The only people who would suffer in this almost unthinkable reality are the same people working so diligently to divide us right now. And they wouldn’t really suffer. They would be less rich and less powerful but still plenty of both. That seems a small price to pay for a fundamentally better world.
Follow Aidan Rhodes on Twitter
Aidan Rhodes is a journalism major from Flagstaff, Arizona. He is a passionate chef, athlete and writer.
"discourse" - Google News
November 30, 2020 at 08:45AM
https://ift.tt/33upHQN
OPINION: 'Defund the police' and the case for engaging in a national discourse - Arizona Daily Wildcat
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4
Opinion: I am not disappointed in Donald Trump - The Virginian-Pilot - The Virginian-Pilot
Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.
"Opinion" - Google News
November 30, 2020 at 06:16AM
https://ift.tt/3mlHcdD
Opinion: I am not disappointed in Donald Trump - The Virginian-Pilot - The Virginian-Pilot
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
There was only one fraud in the 2020 election - CNN
"Opinion" - Google News
November 30, 2020 at 05:14AM
https://ift.tt/2JqXqDK
There was only one fraud in the 2020 election - CNN
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
Engaging in a discourse on separation of powers - Daily Pioneer
A harmonious coordination between legislature, executive and judiciary is one of the crucial aspects that concern governance. And incidentally, this has been the theme of a two-day 80th All India Presiding Officers’ Conference in Gujarat and, most significantly, it was addressed by the President, the Vice-President and the Prime Minister on such a crucial issue. Speaking on the concluding day, which also happened to be the 71st Constitution Day, Prime Minister Narendra Modi underlined the significance of “Maryada” or the limitations of each branch of the government or the separation of powers. He also spoke about the checks and balances inherent in the Constitutional scheme of governance, including the institutional course-correction mechanism in case of any eventuality of deviation from the Constitutionally-sanctioned format.
According to the Prime Minister, there is a connection between the endeavour to harmonise the functioning of the three branches of the government and the “people’s trust”. The Prime Minister seemed to be insisting on “Jan Bhagidari” (people’s participation) in governance through connecting them with Constitution, which they gave to themselves and making constitutional ethos and language more popular with the younger generation. On the other hand, President Ram Nath Kovind emphasised more on the role of the Opposition and the requirement for deliberation with the ruling party. However, Vice-President Venkaiah Naidu was more attached to the theme and spoke of the “excesses” of the executive and legislature, according to him, the “violation of rights and liberties of citizens by the executive at times is too visible. At times, the legislature too has crossed the line …”, Besides, concerns were also expressed by the Vice-President about the increasing disturbances of balance between the various institutions under the Constitution.
The Vice-President was quite sceptical and critical about the judicial “overreach” and shrinking ground for the “jurisdictional sanctity enshrined in the Constitution” and also tended to beckon towards judicial interventions on matters ranging from fireworks on Diwali to denying the executive to play a role in judicial appointments in the higher judiciary. Which, according to him, has led to “avoidable blurring of contours demarcated by the Constitution”.
However, the concerns with some other quarters of this democracy have been different from the concerns expressed by the Vice-President. Some of the views have been contrary to the government, like, ‘it is actually the political executive which has been using its brute majority to get its way through many controversial issues’ and that, ‘the judiciary is not keeping up to the need of the hour to keep the balance between the three branches of the government and the monopolies in governance, basing upon the whims of the government’. To put it in another way, there is no denying that there are instances of judicial overreach or judicial activism but the discontent remains in the judiciary’s unwillingness to be the conscience keeper of the executive and to remind it the limits of its power.
There is no denying that, there is a need to introspect about the disturbed constitutional balance but not essentially the way the Vice-President wanted it to be. It is important that the executive must self-aware itself about the fact that how much unconstitutional it is to use majority or majoritarian principle to suppress reasoned voices of the opposition and that it does more disservice than benefit to the nation.
It is also important that the executive should understand that the separation of power is important to be preserved as ‘democracy’ is such a ‘magic wand’ that, it can any moment lead to changing of sides, those constituting treasury benches may find themselves in opposition in some point of time and vice-versa. And therefore, preserving separation of power shall benefit all, respecting dissent shall benefit and shall secure greater national interest and collective good.
The Doctrine of Separation of Powers was propounded by Montesquieu in ‘De l’espirit des lois’ although it was first proposed by John Locke to separate the legislative power into discontinuous legislative power, continuous legislative power and federative power. And in 1787, the founding fathers of the United States of America took this principle into the frames of their constitution. Since Montesquieu believed in his theory that the same person should not form part of more than one of the three branches of the government.
And the Supreme Court of India has in cases like IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu and Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain has observed that the separation of powers was limited in the Indian context unlike the United States. Irrespective of this, it is important to protect and preserve the kind of separation of power inherently designed within the Constitutional framework.
The separation of powers doctrine contemplates a system where powers are delegated by the Constitution to the three branches of the government and, thereby, exactly drawing the contours of the jurisdiction of each such branch along with reasonable grounds of trespass into each other’s domain for ease of business and in greater national interest.
(The writer is a lawyer and public policy expert and a Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Law and Media Studies at School of Mass Communication, KIIT University. He can be reached at sjyotiranjan3@gmail.com.)
"discourse" - Google News
November 30, 2020 at 01:46AM
https://ift.tt/2JqHvW1
Engaging in a discourse on separation of powers - Daily Pioneer
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4
Saturday, November 28, 2020
Wheelchair tennis: Altering perceptions, changing the discourse on disabilities in rural India - sportanddev.org
Poverty and disability, a concoction of this misfortune is an undeserving bane of life for any child. Children with disabilities born into underprivileged sections of the society are perhaps most deprived of opportunities, often facing the stigma, discrimination and negative perceptions which exclude them from education and community life, depriving them of opportunities necessary to their social and economic development. Persons with physical disabilities are often seen in Indian society as liabilities and dependent due to their restricted mobility.
There is a striking need for a change in the social perception of the children with disabilities in the rural communities of India, where disabled children are looked down as a “punishment for the wrongdoings of families”.
Sport has the power to influence these perceptions of the society, reduce stigma and transcend the socio-cultural barriers in the society. In Anantapur, an economically backward, drought-prone, poverty-stricken district in Andhra Pradesh, this power of sport is being harnessed for the benefit of the children with locomotor disabilities.
Anantapur Sports Academy (ASA), a sport for development initiative in collaboration with Rural Development Trust (RDT), Fundacion Rafa Nadal and Ashta Foundation’s Indian Wheelchair Tennis Tour (IWTT) started the wheelchair tennis program in Anantapur for children with disabilities.
Tennis as a sport is perceived to be the sport of the people of the rich in India and elsewhere. Lack of access to quality infrastructure, equipment and coaching hamper access to sport in the rural and backward areas. In India, wheelchair tennis is rare, and only a few in society have access to it.
ASA joined forces with RDT and created a wheelchair tennis program for children with locomotor disabilities, giving them an opportunity to explore and enjoy the sport. In June 2019, the wheelchair tennis program started in Anantapur Sports Village (ASV), with 10 children (3 girls, 7 boys). Training sessions areheld twice a week, and exercise sessions are held daily to strengthen their upper limbs. Regular training sessions include fun workouts, mobility training, and tennis coaching.
With the technical support of IWTT, two coaches from Nadal Educational and Tennis School (NETS) at ASV were specially trained to coach children in wheelchair tennis. Physical education teachers at RDT’s inclusive school help children exercise every morning.
“The sport did wonders to their confidence,” says Nanda Gopal, a physical education teacher. “I’ve seen their progress with my eyes, they are now more confident and fit. This sport is showing a very positive impact on the education, self-esteem and the overall attitude of the children,” he adds.
“The progress of these children has been radical. Not only physically, but also socially and emotionally. Before, they used to wait outside the court. Now they are eager to start and are not shy of anything or anyone,” says Dasharatha Ramudu, Director of Disability Inclusive Development, RDT.
Wheelchair tennis has boosted the confidence of the children, given them a passion to pursue sport and positively influenced them. “When I play tennis, I feel everything is possible,” says Ganesh, a player in the program. “I feel lucky to be part of the program,” adds D. Sirisha.
Through IWTT’s ‘The First Serve’ workshops, children in the program also had an opportunity to meet and train with Nalani Boub, an Indian-Swiss world ranking wheelchair tennis player. Today, she stands as a role model and an aspiration for these starters. The ASA-RDT wheelchair tennis program aims to send these athletes in national and international competitions.
This program is a testament for the transcendental power of sport and its inclusive nature. Programs like these are creating a positive impact in the lives of children with disabilities and changing the perceptions and discourse in the society on disabilities.
Ernest Abhishek Paul is the Communications Officer at Anantapur Sports Academy
"discourse" - Google News
November 28, 2020 at 02:45AM
https://ift.tt/2Vb54EL
Wheelchair tennis: Altering perceptions, changing the discourse on disabilities in rural India - sportanddev.org
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4
Friday, November 27, 2020
Opinion: Trump’s fraud case continues to unravel - The Virginian-Pilot - The Virginian-Pilot
Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.
"Opinion" - Google News
November 28, 2020 at 06:06AM
https://ift.tt/3q5g98x
Opinion: Trump’s fraud case continues to unravel - The Virginian-Pilot - The Virginian-Pilot
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
Wheelchair tennis: Altering perceptions, changing the discourse on disabilities in rural India - sportanddev.org
Poverty and disability, a concoction of this misfortune is an undeserving bane of life for any child. Children with disabilities born into underprivileged sections of the society are perhaps most deprived of opportunities, often facing the stigma, discrimination and negative perceptions which exclude them from education and community life, depriving them of opportunities necessary to their social and economic development. Persons with physical disabilities are often seen in Indian society as liabilities and dependent due to their restricted mobility.
There is a striking need for a change in the social perception of the children with disabilities in the rural communities of India, where disabled children are looked down as a “punishment for the wrongdoings of families”.
Sport has the power to influence these perceptions of the society, reduce stigma and transcend the socio-cultural barriers in the society. In Anantapur, an economically backward, drought-prone, poverty-stricken district in Andhra Pradesh, this power of sport is being harnessed for the benefit of the children with locomotor disabilities.
Anantapur Sports Academy (ASA), a sport for development initiative in collaboration with Rural Development Trust (RDT), Fundacion Rafa Nadal and Ashta Foundation’s Indian Wheelchair Tennis Tour (IWTT) started the wheelchair tennis program in Anantapur for children with disabilities.
Tennis as a sport is perceived to be the sport of the people of the rich in India and elsewhere. Lack of access to quality infrastructure, equipment and coaching hamper access to sport in the rural and backward areas. In India, wheelchair tennis is rare, and only a few in society have access to it.
ASA joined forces with RDT and created a wheelchair tennis program for children with locomotor disabilities, giving them an opportunity to explore and enjoy the sport. In June 2019, the wheelchair tennis program started in Anantapur Sports Village (ASV), with 10 children (3 girls, 7 boys). Training sessions areheld twice a week, and exercise sessions are held daily to strengthen their upper limbs. Regular training sessions include fun workouts, mobility training, and tennis coaching.
With the technical support of IWTT, two coaches from Nadal Educational and Tennis School (NETS) at ASV were specially trained to coach children in wheelchair tennis. Physical education teachers at RDT’s inclusive school help children exercise every morning.
“The sport did wonders to their confidence,” says Nanda Gopal, a physical education teacher. “I’ve seen their progress with my eyes, they are now more confident and fit. This sport is showing a very positive impact on the education, self-esteem and the overall attitude of the children,” he adds.
“The progress of these children has been radical. Not only physically, but also socially and emotionally. Before, they used to wait outside the court. Now they are eager to start and are not shy of anything or anyone,” says Dasharatha Ramudu, Director of Disability Inclusive Development, RDT.
Wheelchair tennis has boosted the confidence of the children, given them a passion to pursue sport and positively influenced them. “When I play tennis, I feel everything is possible,” says Ganesh, a player in the program. “I feel lucky to be part of the program,” adds D. Sirisha.
Through IWTT’s ‘The First Serve’ workshops, children in the program also had an opportunity to meet and train with Nalani Boub, an Indian-Swiss world ranking wheelchair tennis player. Today, she stands as a role model and an aspiration for these starters. The ASA-RDT wheelchair tennis program aims to send these athletes in national and international competitions.
This program is a testament for the transcendental power of sport and its inclusive nature. Programs like these are creating a positive impact in the lives of children with disabilities and changing the perceptions and discourse in the society on disabilities.
Ernest Abhishek Paul is the Communications Officer at Anantapur Sports Academy
"discourse" - Google News
November 28, 2020 at 02:45AM
https://ift.tt/3q7nYuy
Wheelchair tennis: Altering perceptions, changing the discourse on disabilities in rural India - sportanddev.org
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4
A Strike Against the Discourse of Unreason - NewsClick
The November 26 strike is significant, not only because it protests against the Modi government’s brazen and unprecedented attacks on workers and peasants in the country, not only because these attacks carry forward an imperialist agenda, but for a deeper and less discussed reason as well, which can be seen as follows.
The ascendancy of Hindutva elements derives from the success they have achieved in shifting the public discourse in the country. The discourse they displaced had occupied centrestage for close to a century; indeed, ever since 1917 when Gandhiji had visited Champaran to investigate the condition of the peasantry there. This discourse, which underlay the entire anti-colonial struggle and the subsequent politics of post-independence India, right until the coming to power of the Hindutva forces, revolved around people’s material life, or on the “this-sidedness” (to borrow a phrase from Marx) of their practical being.
The role of the State was supposed to bring about an improvement in this material life, and different political formations vying to capture political power suggested different ways by which this could be done within this discourse. In other words, different political parties had different positions, but these positions were all articulated within this particular discourse, which had to do with poverty, unemployment, growth, development, healthcare, education, and numerous other issues linked to these.
Even Indira Gandhi’s infamous Emergency which took away people’s rights and imposed her authoritarian rule over the country, did not seek to alter this discourse; on the contrary she tried to make the Emergency palatable to people within this discourse itself, through her 20-point programme and pronouncements that were supposed to be a panacea for improving people’s material lives. The BJP, however, is incapable of making any contribution within this discourse; it has scarcely any ideas of its own on economic matters other than naïve adherence to hand-outs from its corporate sponsors or from Bretton Woods institutions.
In fact, its agenda has always been to change this discourse, and introduce an alternate one that concentrates exclusively on issues like building temples, destroying mosques, seeing terrorist conspiracies all around in which members of the minority community are involved, spreading hatred everywhere, and dividing people through a systematic inculcation of unreason. Unreason must necessarily inform this discourse since the hatred sought to be generated by it needs to be sustained by a narrative that obliterates the distinction between history and mythology, and that has scant regard for evidence.
The corporate-financial oligarchy has much to gain from backing this substitution of discourses in the current context of the dead-end that neo-liberal capitalism has reached; the economic justifications for its hegemony that were being advanced till now have ceased to carry any credibility, not only because there was no “trickle down” even when growth was apparently impressive, but also because this growth itself has now petered out because of the crisis of neo-liberalism, swelling unemployment even further. The change in discourse suits this oligarchy in the new situation, which is why it has propelled the BJP to power with massive financial support.
The BJP’s remaining in power depends crucially upon keeping up this discourse of unreason, and preventing the alternative discourse which had held sway all these years – within which class struggles had generally been fought until now – from coming back to the centre-stage; if that discourse returns then it knows that its ascendancy will be over. But precisely because of the acute suffering that people have been exposed to because of the crisis of neo-liberalism, upon which the COVID-19 crisis has been superimposed, this discourse cannot be sidelined for long; it keeps coming back and threatening the hegemony of the BJP.
It had re-emerged strongly before the 2019 parliamentary elections when Delhi had witnessed a massive kisan rally, which, in turn, had followed a march by peasants in Maharashtra. But the Pulwama terrorist attack, followed by the Balakot air-strikes, brought back into vogue the discourse propounded by Hindutva, which played a major role in handing the Modi government a second term in office.
This second term has seen even more systematic, brutal, and concerted attacks on democratic rights, civil liberties, and lives of the people at large, of which the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, the denial of promised GST compensation to the states, the enactment of the patently discriminatory Citizenship Amendment Act, the three Agriculture Laws, and the snatching away of workers’ rights to a point where the gains made almost a century ago are being reversed, are some glaring instances.
The lockdown, announced at a mere four hours’ notice in March, which left lakhs of migrant workers completely stranded without any shelter or income, and the complete niggardliness of the government in providing succour in this period to the working people who had lost their livelihoods, a niggardliness that was in striking contrast to what virtually every other bourgeois government in the world was providing, are further proof of the utter callousness and inhumanity of the Modi government. In fact, this government has used the pandemic to carry out mass arrests and intimidation of all those who had protested peacefully against the Citizenship Amendment Act and whose protests had to be terminated because of the outbreak of the pandemic itself.
All these actions are sought to be justified by the government by foregrounding, even more emphatically, the discourse on which Hindutva thrives, a discourse of unreason, a discourse filled with narratives of conspiracies, treason and the need for vigilantism. In fact, we have a vicious cycle here. The more the government is unable to reverse the intensification of suffering that the crisis is bringing to the people, the more urgent becomes its need to distract them, to prevent them from getting back to the discourse of material life. For this, it has to emphasise the Hindutva discourse even further; it has to manufacture even more outlandish and fantastic tales to embellish this discourse. Ever more far-fetched, even more weird myths have to be invented to keep the people distracted.
Amartya Sen has talked of the need of the Modi government to keep doing spectacular things, which do not help the people, but which keep them distracted. But even more than what it does, it has to keep inventing stories; and the worse the people’s material life becomes under its watch, the more fanciful the stories have to become to keep the Hindutva discourse going, the greater has to be the recourse to unreason.
The anti-democratic and anti-secular nature of the Hindutva forces has been widely noted. In fact democracy, secularism, and all the other Constitutional values upon which independent India is founded, presuppose a discourse of reason, whose fundamental hallmark is that it is pre-occupied with the “this sidedness” of life, that it perceives the public domain as being concerned with practical questions of material life. Hence, no matter how loudly the Hindutva leaders profess their fidelity to the Constitution, the very discourse they propagate precludes any concern for democracy or secularism or the Constitution.
Ironically however, notwithstanding all their efforts, a discourse around practical issues keeps coming back, as it must, which only underscores the temporariness of Hindutva ascendancy. The Bihar elections once again saw a resurgence of concern over unemployment, and it is not surprising that notwithstanding the huge resources deployed by the NDA, the opposition alliance did so well (in fact it got a larger popular vote than the NDA). A positive achievement of the Bihar election has been the displacement of the discourse of unreason.
The proposed strike on November 26 carries this process forward. It is the boldest attempt so far to bring back the discourse of reason centrestage. And since the revival of democracy, of secularism, and Constitutional values, hinges upon the revival of a discourse of reason that is necessarily centred on issues of practical life, the November 26 strike is also simultaneously a strike for the defence of democracy and secularism.
"discourse" - Google News
November 28, 2020 at 09:29AM
https://ift.tt/2Vacwjp
A Strike Against the Discourse of Unreason - NewsClick
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4
Implications of Ankara’s reforms in election surveys | Daily Sabah - Daily Sabah
The electoral support of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) remains close to the voting rate it gained during the last general elections, according to the recently published election survey of the GENAR research institute. The voting rate of the AK Party, which has remained in power for 18 years, is double that of the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP).
As the coronavirus pandemic has turned the global economy upside down, each state strives to overcome the crisis with financial backing. Even though Turkey’s economic size is not as great as the advanced economies of Western countries, it has succeeded to manage the ongoing crisis through economic measures such as short-term working allowances, direct social aid and bank loans for workers and businesses.
Despite the economic difficulties the crisis has brought, Turkey’s strong health sector with its considerable number of intensive care units has been able to handle the pandemic thanks to the dynamic role of the Health Ministry.
Turkey’s social welfare system has come to the forefront by covering all the health expenses of coronavirus patients. Nonetheless, the pandemic is still on the rise.
During the last five years, Turkey has faced a series of political crises, from attempted coups to terrorist attacks and regional problems. After overcoming these crises by strengthening its military and consolidating its status as a regional power, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan called for a transition to structural reforms in the economy, administration and judiciary.
In addition to his reform discourse, Erdoğan underlined that Turkey’s place is in Europe. Coming right before the European Union summit, this discourse gave a strong message of cooperation for the political leaders of Europe while also terminating the ongoing debates about Turkey’s so-called axis shift.
As the AK Party is essentially a reformist political party, Erdoğan’s reform discourse continues to generate excitement among the Turkish electorate. As the president of GENAR, one of the most well-established research institutes in Turkey, I would like to share the findings of our most recent survey regarding elections: The AK Party: 42.1%, the CHP: 22.8%, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP): 10.3%, the Good Party (IP): 10% and the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP): 9.8%
These results suggest that Erdoğan’s recent discourses strengthen the AK Party’s electoral support, while the sum of the voting rates of the AK Party and MHP remains close to the voting rates that the People’s Alliance gained in the last general elections.
Regarding the coronavirus outbreak, our research suggests that 70% of the public is hopeful about the resolution of the pandemic through the development of new COVID-19 vaccines.
The Turkish electorate in general supports Erdoğan’s reform discourses, while opposition political parties cannot attract new votes through their critical discourses about the government’s new reform process.
Turkey has recently emerged as a regional power. Despite its conflict of interests with a number of European countries, Turkey as a member of NATO sustains its ability to negotiate through diplomatic channels.
While the Turkish electorate appears enthusiastic about the new reform process, Western powers should support Turkey’s reform policies to pave the way for a new phase of economic and political solidarity with Turkey.
"discourse" - Google News
November 28, 2020 at 04:08AM
https://ift.tt/3mdVoW5
Implications of Ankara’s reforms in election surveys | Daily Sabah - Daily Sabah
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4
Opinion: What I'm thankful for and what I'm not • Brooklyn Paper - Brooklyn Paper
Sign up for our COVID-19 newsletter to stay up-to-date on the latest coronavirus news throughout New York City
This was certainly a different Thanksgiving than normal, with so many of us taking precautions to isolate from our families instead of joining them. Nevertheless, it’s good to practice gratitude, so I will be listing some of what I’m thankful for this year, as well as some of what I’m not thankful for.
I am mostly thankful for this year’s election results. A pretty good primary season that will bring some new blood to the state legislature was followed by a general election that featured the long-awaited defeat of Donald Trump. And I’m thankful that when all the votes were counted, Democrats made gains in the state Senate and held even in the state Assembly. I’m thankful especially that state Sen. Andrew Gounardes and Assemblywoman Mathylde Frontus were both re-elected.
I’m not thankful for the election results on Staten Island. Brooklyn voted for Congressman Max Rose, but Staten Island overwhelmingly voted to replace him with Nicole Malliotakis. Yikes.
I’m thankful for the resilience of New Yorkers. We got hit harder than anywhere else in America at the beginning of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, but we’ve handled the resurgent second and third waves as well as pretty much anywhere in America.
I’m not thankful for New York exceptionalism: this belief that we are totally different — and better — than anywhere else in America or the world. That exceptionalism caused us to be unprepared for the coronavirus when it came to us, because we thought we were better than it.
That exceptionalism also makes us put up with a lot of crappy quality-of-life and government issues that nowhere else in America would tolerate. We’re a special place and a special city, but let’s not let it go to our heads.
I’m thankful for the thousands of activists, and the several dozen politicians, who are trying to push our city and state in a progressive and compassionate direction even during difficult times.
I’m not thankful for how Mayor Bill de Blasio has handled any of this year’s challenges. He’s slow-to-react, inflexible, and self-righteous. It’s pretty clear that no one who works for him is able to get through to him. That’s probably why so many of them have quit this year.
I’m thankful for my health, my friends, my loved ones, and my general good fortune.
I’m saddened it has been such a difficult year for so many people. In addition to those who got sick, so many have lost their business and jobs. Crime is up across the country, many people are unemployed, and more people are hungry this year than in a long, long time in America.
I’m thankful for a free press and the privilege of writing my column somewhere people can read it. Remember to support your local news organizations!
Nick Rizzo is a former Democratic District Leader and a political consultant who lives in Greenpoint. Follow him on Twitter @NickRizzo.
"Opinion" - Google News
November 27, 2020 at 10:00PM
https://ift.tt/39kzJrB
Opinion: What I'm thankful for and what I'm not • Brooklyn Paper - Brooklyn Paper
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
Thursday, November 26, 2020
Midnight Ruling Exposes Rifts at a Supreme Court Transformed by Trump - The New York Times
WASHINGTON — A few minutes before midnight on Wednesday, the nation got its first glimpse of how profoundly President Trump had transformed the Supreme Court.
Just months ago, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was at the peak of his power, holding the controlling vote in closely divided cases and almost never finding himself in dissent. But the arrival of Justice Amy Coney Barrett late last month, which put a staunch conservative in the seat formerly held by the liberal mainstay, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, meant that it was only a matter of time before the chief justice’s leadership would be tested.
On Wednesday, Justice Barrett dealt the chief justice a body blow. She cast the decisive vote in a 5-to-4 ruling that rejected restrictions on religious services in New York imposed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo to combat the coronavirus, shoving the chief justice into dissent with the court’s three remaining liberals. It was one of six opinions the court issued on Wednesday, spanning 33 pages and opening a window on a court in turmoil.
The ruling was at odds with earlier ones in cases from California and Nevada issued before Justice Ginsburg’s death in September. Those decisions upheld restrictions on church services by 5-to-4 votes, with Chief Justice Roberts in the majority. The New York decision said that Mr. Cuomo’s strict virus limits — capping attendance at religious services at 10 people in “red zones” where risk was highest, and at 25 in slightly less dangerous “orange zones” — violated the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion.
Wednesday’s ruling was almost certainly a taste of things to come. While Justice Ginsburg was alive, Chief Justice Roberts voted with the court’s four-member liberal wing in cases striking down a restrictive Louisiana abortion law, blocking a Trump administration initiative that would have rolled back protections for young immigrants known as Dreamers, refusing to allow a question on citizenship to be added to the census and saving the Affordable Care Act.
Had Justice Barrett rather than Justice Ginsburg been on the court when those cases were decided, the results might well have flipped. In coming cases, too, Justice Barrett will almost certainly play a decisive role. Her support for claims of religious freedom, a subject of questioning at her confirmation hearings and a theme in her appellate decisions, will almost certainly play a prominent role.
Democrats had feared, and Mr. Trump had predicted, that Justice Barrett’s vote might be crucial in a case arising from the presidential election. But there is no case on the court’s docket or on the horizon that has a realistic potential to alter the outcome.
It is not clear how Justice Barrett will vote in the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act, which was argued this month. But, judging from the questioning, the act is quite likely to survive however she votes.
Chief Justice Roberts is fundamentally conservative, and his liberal votes have been rare. But they reinforced his frequent statements that the court is not a political body. The court’s new and solid conservative majority may send a different message.
That said, the court’s dynamics can be complicated, and not all decisions break along predictable lines. For instance, while Chief Justice Roberts has lost his place at the court’s ideological center, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who was the second of Mr. Trump’s three court appointments, values consensus and may turn out to be an occasional ally.
On Wednesday, Justice Kavanaugh issued a conciliatory concurring opinion emphasizing that he agreed with much of what Chief Justice Roberts had written in dissent.
“I part ways with the chief justice,” he wrote, “on a narrow procedural point.” That point — whether the court should act immediately, notwithstanding Mr. Cuomo’s decision to lift the challenged restrictions for the time being — was, however, enough to decide the case.
The majority opinion was unsigned, but Ross Guberman, an authority on legal writing and the author of “Point Taken: How to Write Like the World’s Best Judges,” said he suspected that its principal author was the newest justice.
“My money is on Justice Barrett,” Mr. Guberman said, pointing to word choices that echoed her opinions on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Among them, he said, was “the concession that justices ‘are not public health experts,’” and “the taste for ‘And,’ ‘But,’ and ‘show.’”
The unsigned opinion was mild and measured, which is also characteristic of Justice Barrett’s judicial work. It took issue with what it said were Mr. Cuomo’s unduly harsh restrictions, which had been challenged by, among others, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and two synagogues, the latter of which had argued that Mr. Cuomo had “singled out a particular religion for blame and retribution for an uptick in a societywide pandemic.”
The majority opinion said less restrictive measures would work.
“Among other things, the maximum attendance at a religious service could be tied to the size of the church or synagogue,” the opinion said. “It is hard to believe that admitting more than 10 people to a 1,000-seat church or 400-seat synagogue would create a more serious health risk than the many other activities that the state allows.”
The opinion said the state had treated secular businesses more favorably than houses of worship.
“The list of ‘essential’ businesses includes things such as acupuncture facilities, camp grounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities,” the opinion said.
The most notable signed opinion came from Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Mr. Trump’s first appointee. His concurrence was bitter, slashing and triumphant, and it took aim at Chief Justice Roberts, whose concurring opinion in the California case in May had been relied on by courts around the nation to assess the constitutionality of restrictions prompted by the pandemic.
The chief justice’s basic point was that government officials, in consultation with scientific experts, were better positioned than judges to make determinations about public health. But Justice Gorsuch wrote that the opinion, in South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, was worthless.
“Even if the Constitution has taken a holiday during this pandemic, it cannot become a sabbatical,” he wrote. “Rather than apply a nonbinding and expired concurrence from South Bay, courts must resume applying the Free Exercise Clause. Today, a majority of the court makes this plain.”
“We may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. “Things never go well when we do.”
Chief Justice Roberts responded, in a tone suggesting that his patience was being tested, that there was no need to act because Mr. Cuomo had, for the time being, lifted the restrictions.
“Numerical capacity limits of 10 and 25 people, depending on the applicable zone, do seem unduly restrictive,” he wrote. “And it may well be that such restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause. It is not necessary, however, for us to rule on that serious and difficult question at this time.”
The court’s three liberal members were to varying degrees prepared to support the restrictions. Chief Justice Roberts made a point of defending his colleagues from Justice Gorsuch’s attacks, saying they were operating in good faith.
“To be clear,” the chief justice wrote, quoting from Justice Gorsuch’s concurring opinion, “I do not regard my dissenting colleagues as ‘cutting the Constitution loose during a pandemic,’ yielding to ‘a particular judicial impulse to stay out of the way in times of crisis,’ or ‘sheltering in place when the Constitution is under attack.’ They simply view the matter differently after careful study and analysis reflecting their best efforts to fulfill their responsibility under the Constitution.”
In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, said the majority was being reckless. “Justices of this court play a deadly game,” she wrote, “in second-guessing the expert judgment of health officials about the environments in which a contagious virus, now infecting a million Americans each week, spreads most easily.”
"Opinion" - Google News
November 27, 2020 at 02:23AM
https://ift.tt/2KFt4Oh
Midnight Ruling Exposes Rifts at a Supreme Court Transformed by Trump - The New York Times
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
Pope Francis: The Covid-19 Crisis Reveals What Is in Our Hearts - The New York Times
In this past year of change, my mind and heart have overflowed with people. People I think of and pray for, and sometimes cry with, people with names and faces, people who died without saying goodbye to those they loved, families in difficulty, even going hungry, because there’s no work.
Sometimes, when you think globally, you can be paralyzed: There are so many places of apparently ceaseless conflict; there’s so much suffering and need. I find it helps to focus on concrete situations: You see faces looking for life and love in the reality of each person, of each people. You see hope written in the story of every nation, glorious because it’s a story of daily struggle, of lives broken in self-sacrifice. So rather than overwhelm you, it invites you to ponder and to respond with hope.
These are moments in life that can be ripe for change and conversion. Each of us has had our own “stoppage,” or if we haven’t yet, we will someday: illness, the failure of a marriage or a business, some great disappointment or betrayal. As in the Covid-19 lockdown, those moments generate a tension, a crisis that reveals what is in our hearts.
In every personal “Covid,” so to speak, in every “stoppage,” what is revealed is what needs to change: our lack of internal freedom, the idols we have been serving, the ideologies we have tried to live by, the relationships we have neglected.
When I got really sick at the age of 21, I had my first experience of limit, of pain and loneliness. It changed the way I saw life. For months, I didn’t know who I was or whether I would live or die. The doctors had no idea whether I’d make it either. I remember hugging my mother and saying, “Just tell me if I’m going to die.” I was in the second year of training for the priesthood in the diocesan seminary of Buenos Aires.
I remember the date: Aug. 13, 1957. I got taken to a hospital by a prefect who realized mine was not the kind of flu you treat with aspirin. Straightaway they took a liter and a half of water out of my lungs, and I remained there fighting for my life. The following November they operated to take out the upper right lobe of one of the lungs. I have some sense of how people with Covid-19 feel as they struggle to breathe on a ventilator.
I remember especially two nurses from this time. One was the senior ward matron, a Dominican sister who had been a teacher in Athens before being sent to Buenos Aires. I learned later that following the first examination by the doctor, after he left she told the nurses to double the dose of medication he had prescribed — basically penicillin and streptomycin — because she knew from experience I was dying. Sister Cornelia Caraglio saved my life. Because of her regular contact with sick people, she understood better than the doctor what they needed, and she had the courage to act on her knowledge.
Another nurse, Micaela, did the same when I was in intense pain, secretly prescribing me extra doses of painkillers outside my due times. Cornelia and Micaela are in heaven now, but I’ll always owe them so much. They fought for me to the end, until my eventual recovery. They taught me what it is to use science but also to know when to go beyond it to meet particular needs. And the serious illness I lived through taught me to depend on the goodness and wisdom of others.
This theme of helping others has stayed with me these past months. In lockdown I’ve often gone in prayer to those who sought all means to save the lives of others. So many of the nurses, doctors and caregivers paid that price of love, together with priests, and religious and ordinary people whose vocations were service. We return their love by grieving for them and honoring them.
Whether or not they were conscious of it, their choice testified to a belief: that it is better to live a shorter life serving others than a longer one resisting that call. That’s why, in many countries, people stood at their windows or on their doorsteps to applaud them in gratitude and awe. They are the saints next door, who have awakened something important in our hearts, making credible once more what we desire to instill by our preaching.
They are the antibodies to the virus of indifference. They remind us that our lives are a gift and we grow by giving of ourselves, not preserving ourselves but losing ourselves in service.
With some exceptions, governments have made great efforts to put the well-being of their people first, acting decisively to protect health and to save lives. The exceptions have been some governments that shrugged off the painful evidence of mounting deaths, with inevitable, grievous consequences. But most governments acted responsibly, imposing strict measures to contain the outbreak.
Yet some groups protested, refusing to keep their distance, marching against travel restrictions — as if measures that governments must impose for the good of their people constitute some kind of political assault on autonomy or personal freedom! Looking to the common good is much more than the sum of what is good for individuals. It means having a regard for all citizens and seeking to respond effectively to the needs of the least fortunate.
It is all too easy for some to take an idea — in this case, for example, personal freedom — and turn it into an ideology, creating a prism through which they judge everything.
The coronavirus crisis may seem special because it affects most of humankind. But it is special only in how visible it is. There are a thousand other crises that are just as dire, but are just far enough from some of us that we can act as if they don’t exist. Think, for example, of the wars scattered across different parts of the world; of the production and trade in weapons; of the hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing poverty, hunger and lack of opportunity; of climate change. These tragedies may seem distant from us, as part of the daily news that, sadly, fails to move us to change our agendas and priorities. But like the Covid-19 crisis, they affect the whole of humanity.
Look at us now: We put on face masks to protect ourselves and others from a virus we can’t see. But what about all those other unseen viruses we need to protect ourselves from? How will we deal with the hidden pandemics of this world, the pandemics of hunger and violence and climate change?
If we are to come out of this crisis less selfish than when we went in, we have to let ourselves be touched by others’ pain. There’s a line in Friedrich Hölderlin’s “Hyperion” that speaks to me, about how the danger that threatens in a crisis is never total; there’s always a way out: “Where the danger is, also grows the saving power.” That’s the genius in the human story: There’s always a way to escape destruction. Where humankind has to act is precisely there, in the threat itself; that’s where the door opens.
This is a moment to dream big, to rethink our priorities — what we value, what we want, what we seek — and to commit to act in our daily life on what we have dreamed of.
God asks us to dare to create something new. We cannot return to the false securities of the political and economic systems we had before the crisis. We need economies that give to all access to the fruits of creation, to the basic needs of life: to land, lodging and labor. We need a politics that can integrate and dialogue with the poor, the excluded and the vulnerable, that gives people a say in the decisions that affect their lives. We need to slow down, take stock and design better ways of living together on this earth.
The pandemic has exposed the paradox that while we are more connected, we are also more divided. Feverish consumerism breaks the bonds of belonging. It causes us to focus on our self-preservation and makes us anxious. Our fears are exacerbated and exploited by a certain kind of populist politics that seeks power over society. It is hard to build a culture of encounter, in which we meet as people with a shared dignity, within a throwaway culture that regards the well-being of the elderly, the unemployed, the disabled and the unborn as peripheral to our own well-being.
To come out of this crisis better, we have to recover the knowledge that as a people we have a shared destination. The pandemic has reminded us that no one is saved alone. What ties us to one another is what we commonly call solidarity. Solidarity is more than acts of generosity, important as they are; it is the call to embrace the reality that we are bound by bonds of reciprocity. On this solid foundation we can build a better, different, human future.
Pope Francis is the head of the Catholic Church and the bishop of Rome. This essay has been adapted from his new book “Let Us Dream: The Path to a Better Future,” written with Austen Ivereigh.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
"Opinion" - Google News
November 26, 2020 at 05:00PM
https://ift.tt/3nWjWmP
Pope Francis: The Covid-19 Crisis Reveals What Is in Our Hearts - The New York Times
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
A Turkey Recipe for 2020 - The New York Times
Julia Rothman (@juliarothman) illustrates the Scratch feature in The Times’s Sunday Business section.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
"Opinion" - Google News
November 26, 2020 at 07:00AM
https://ift.tt/2Vg9uuh
A Turkey Recipe for 2020 - The New York Times
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
Postingan Populer
-
Reopening schools is a challenge that is not unique to the US. All over the world shutdowns in spring led to schools being cancelled or...
-
With disturbing regularity, Jews hate on Jews. The most recent example is the jaw-dropping case of Professor David Myers. Last June, the ...
-
Meals on Wheels volunteer Maria Vallejo carries bags of food to her car at the Food Basket in San Jose on March 25. (Randy Vazquez / Bay...
