Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Cass Sunstein has a lovely New York Times essay that tries to give us back the word "Liberal." I hope it works. "Liberal" from "Libertas" means, at bottom, freedom. In the 19th century, "liberals" were devoted to personal, economic, and increasing social freedom from government restraint. "Conservatives" wanted to maintain aristocratic privileges, and government interventions in the traditional way of doing things. The debate was not so obvious. Conservatives defended their view of aristocratic power in a noblesse-oblige concern for little people that the unfettered free market might leave behind, in a way quite reminiscent of today's elites who think they should run the government in the name of the downtrodden (or "nudge" them, if I can poke a little fun at Sunstein's earlier work). But by the 1970s, the labels had flipped. "Liberals" were advocates of big-state interventionism, in a big tent that included communists and marxists. It became a synonym of "left." "Conservatives" became a strange alliance of free market economics and social conservatism. The word "classical liberal" or "libertarian" started to be used to refer to heirs of the enlightenment "liberal" tradition, broadly emphasizing individual liberty and limited rule of law government in both economic and social spheres. But broadly, "liberal" came to mean more government intervention and Democrat, while "conservative" came to mean less state intervention and Republican, at least in rhetoric. But a new force has come to the fore. The heirs of the far-left marxists and communists are now, .. what shall we call them.. perhaps "censorious totalitarian progressives." Sunstein calls them "post liberals." The old alliance between center-left and far left is tearing apart, and Oct 7 was a wake up call for many who had skated over the division. Largely, then, I read Sunstein's article as a declaration of divorce. They are not us, they are not "liberals." And many of you who call yourselves "conservatives," "free marketers" or even "libertarians" should join us to fight the forces of illiberalism left and right, even if by now you probably completely gave up on the New York Times and read the Free Press instead. Rhetoric: Sunstein is brilliantly misleading. He writes what liberalism "is" or what liberals "believe," as if the word were already defined his way. It is not, and the second part of this post quotes another NYT essay with a quite different conception of "liberal." This is an essay about what liberal should mean. I salute that. It's interesting that Sunstein wants to rescue the traditional meaning of "liberal," rather than shade words in current use. "Classical liberal," is mostly the same thing, but currently shades a bit more free market than he'd like. "Neoliberal" is an insult but really describes most of his views. People have turned insults around to proud self-identifiers before. "Libertarian," probably has less room for the state and conservativism than Sunstein, and most people confuse "libertarian" with "anarchist." It's interesting he never mentions the word. Well, let's rescue "liberal." Here are some excerpts of Sunstein's 37 theses. I reorganized into topics. What is "liberalism"? 1. Liberals believe in six things: freedom, human rights, pluralism, security, the rule of law and democracy....6. The rule of law is central to liberalism. ...It calls for law that is prospective, allowing people to plan, rather than retroactive, defeating people's expectations. It requires conformity between law on the books and law in the world. It calls for rights to a hearing (due process of law)....Liberalism requires law evenly applied, not "show me the man, and I'll find the crime." It requires a legal system in which each of us is not guilty of "Three Felonies a Day," unprotected unless we are trouble to those in power. 10. Liberals believe that freedom of speech is essential to self-government....11. Liberals connect their opposition to censorship to their commitment to free and fair elections, which cannot exist if people are unable to speak as they wish. ...They agree with ... "the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." It's freedom, individual dignity, equality before the law and the state. Economics On economic matters, "liberalism" starts with the basic values of the laissez-faire tradition, because the right to transact freely is one of the most basic freedoms there is:15. Liberals prize free markets, insisting that they provide an important means by which people exercise their agency. Liberals abhor monopolies, public or private, on the ground that they are highly likely to compromise freedom and reduce economic growth. At the same time, liberals know that unregulated markets can fail, such as when workers or consumers lack information or when consumption of energy produces environmental harm.On the latter point, Sunstein later acknowledges room for a variety of opinion on just how effective government remedies are for such "failures" of "unregulated markets." I'm a free marketer not because markets are perfect but because governments are usually worse. A point we can respectfully debate with fact and logic.16. Liberals believe in the right to private property. But nothing in liberalism forbids a progressive income tax or is inconsistent with large-scale redistribution from rich to poor. Liberals can and do disagree about the progressive income tax and on whether and when redistribution is a good idea. Many liberals admire Lyndon Johnson's Great Society; many liberals do not.I endorse this as well, which you may find surprising. Economics really has nothing to say about non-distorting transfers. Economists can only point out incentives, and disincentives. Redistribution tends to come with bad incentives. "Liberals" can and do argue about how bad the disincentives are, and if the purported benefits of redistribution are worth it. Cass allows liberals (formerly "conservatives") who "do not" admire extensive federal government social programs, because of their disincentives. Me.17. Many liberals are enthusiastic about the contemporary administrative state; many liberals reject itI also agree. I'm one of those who largely rejects it, but it's a matter of degree on disincentives, government competence, and the severity of the problems being addressed. "Liberals" can productively debate this matter of degree. Liberalism is a framework for debate, not an answer to these economic questions. Integrating ConservativismIntegrating "conservative" into "liberal" is one of Sunstein's charms, and I agree. He is also trying to find a common ground in the "center," that tussles gently on the size of government while respecting America's founding enlightenment values, and unites many across the current partisan divide. 2...Those who consider themselves to be leftists may or may not qualify as liberals. You can be, at once, a liberal, as understood here, and a conservative; you can be a leftist and illiberal. 22. A liberal might think that Ronald Reagan was a great president and that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an abomination; a liberal might think that Roosevelt was a great president and that Reagan was an abomination. "Conserativism" properly means conserving many of the traditions of our society, rather than burning it down once a generation striving for utopia, and having it dissolve into tyranny. Sunstein's "liberalism" is conservative 24. Liberals favor and recognize the need for a robust civil society, including a wide range of private associations that may include people who do not embrace liberalism. They believe in the importance of social norms, including norms of civility, considerateness, charity and self-restraint. They do not want to censor any antiliberals or postliberals, even though some antiliberals or postliberals would not return the favor. On this count, they turn the other cheek. Liberals have antiliberal and postliberal friends.26. .. if people want the government to act in illiberal ways — by, for example, censoring speech, violating the rights of religious believers, preventing certain people from voting, entrenching racial inequality, taking private property without just compensation, mandating a particular kind of prayer in schools or endorsing a particular set of religious convictions — liberals will stand in opposition.The latter includes, finally, a bit of trends on the right that "liberals" do not approve of, and they don't. 28. Some people (mostly on the right) think that liberals oppose traditions or treat traditions cavalierly and that liberalism should be rejected for that reason. In their view, liberals are disrespectful of traditions and want to destroy them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Consider just a few inherited ideals, norms and concepts that liberals have defended, often successfully, in the face of focused attack for decades: republican self-government; checks and balances; freedom of speech; freedom of religion; freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; due process of law; equal protection; private property.29. Liberals do not think it adequate to say that an ideal has been in place for a long time. As Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. put it: "It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past." Still, liberals agree that if an ideal has been with us for a long time, there might be a lot to say in its favor.A lover of freedom can also admire rule of law, tradition, and custom. Why do we have private property? A illiberal, like many college students fresh to the world, might start from basic philosophical principles, and state that all of the earth's bounty should be shared equally, and head out to the ramparts to seize power. As a philosophical principle, it can sound reasonable. But our society and its laws, traditions, and customs, has thousands of years of experience built up. A village had common fields. People over-grazed them. Putting up fences and allocating rights led to a more prosperous village. The tradition of property rights, and their quite detailed specification and limitation that evolved in our common law, responding to this experience, along with well-educated citizens' conception of right and virtue, the moral sense of property right that they learn from their forebears, can summarize thousands of years of history, without us needing to remember each case. This thought is what led me in the past to characterize myself as an empirical, conservative, rule-of-law, constitutional and pax-Americana (save that one for later) libertarian, back when the word "liberal" meant something else. But, as Holmes points out, a vibrant society must see that some of this laws and traditions are wrong, or ineffective, and thoughtfully reform them. Property rights once extended to people, after all. Most of all, the 1970s "liberal" but now "illiberal" view has been that government defines the purpose and meaning of life and society, be it religious purity, socialist utopia, or now the vanguard of the elite ruling on behalf of the pyramid of intersectional victimization. The role of the government is to mold society to that quest. "Conservatives" have thought that the purpose of life and society is defined by individuals, families, churches, communities, scholars, arts, culture, private institutions of civil society, via lively reasoned debate; society can accommodate great variety in these views, and the government's purpose is just to enforce simple rules, and keep the debate peaceful, not to define and lead us to the promised land. I read Sunstein, correctly, to restore the word "liberal" to this later view, though it had largely drifted to the former. Who isn't liberal? The progressive leftWho isn't a "liberal," to Sunstein? If you've been around university campuses lately, you know how much today's "progressives" ("post-liberals") have turned politics into a tribal, warlike affair. This is who Sunstein is really unhappy with, and to whom this essay is a declaration of divorce: 5. ...liberals ... do not like tribalism. ... They are uncomfortable with discussions that start, "I am an X, and you are a Y,"... Skeptical of identity politics, liberals insist that each of us has many different identities and that it is usually best to focus on the merits of issues, not on one or another identity.I would add, liberals evaluate arguments by logic and evidence, not who makes the argument. Liberals accept an enlightenment idea that anything true can be discovered and understood by anyone. Truth is not just listening to "lived experience." 18. Liberals abhor the idea that life or politics is a conflict between friends and enemies.23. Liberals think that those on the left are illiberal if they are not (for example) committed to freedom of speech and viewpoint diversity. They do not like the idea of orthodoxy, including on university campuses or social media platforms. Ad of course, 30. Liberals like laughter. They are anti-anti-laughter.Old joke from my graduate school days: "How many Berkeley marxist progressives does it take to screw in a light bulb?" Answer: "I don't think that kind of humor is appropriate." ****In case you think everyone agrees on this new definition of "liberal," the essay has a link below it to another one by Pamela Paul, "Progressives aren't liberal." Paul's essay also covers some of the history of how the word was used, but in the end uses it in a quite different way from Sunstein. In the 1960s and 70s, the left proudly used the word in self-description. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan, who often prefaced [liberal] with a damning "tax and spend," may have been the most effective of bashers. ...Newt Gingrich's political organization GOPAC sent out a memo, "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control," urging fellow Republicans to use the word as a slur.It worked. Even Democrats began avoiding the dread label. In a presidential primary debate in 2007, Hillary Clinton called herself instead a "modern progressive." She avoided the term "liberal" again in 2016.I think Clinton was trying to position herself to the right of what "liberal" had become by 2016. "Progressive" has come to mean something else. But I may be wrong. Never Trump conservatives tout their bona fides as liberals in the classical, 19th century sense of the word, in part to distinguish themselves from hard-right Trumpists. Others use "liberal" and "progressive" interchangeably, even as what progressivism means in practice today is often anything but liberal — or even progressive, for that matter.In the last sentence she is right. Sunstein is not, as he appears, describing a word as it is widely used today, but a word as it is slowly becoming used, and as he would like it to be used. liberal values, many of them products of the Enlightenment, include individual liberty, freedom of speech, scientific inquiry, separation of church and state, due process, racial equality, women's rights, human rights and democracy.Here you start to think she's got the same basic big tent as Sunstein. But not so -- this essay is testament to the enduring sense of the "liberal" word as describing the big-government left, just please not quite so insane as the campus progressives: Unlike "classical liberals" (i.e., usually conservatives), liberals do not see government as the problem, but rather as a means to help the people it serves. Liberals fiercely defend Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, the Voting Rights Act and the National Labor Relations Act. They believe government has a duty to regulate commerce for the benefit of its citizens. They tend to be suspicious of large corporations and their tendency to thwart the interests of workers and consumers.Sunstein had room for disagreement on these "fierce" defenses, or at least room for reasoned argument rather than profession of essential belief before you can enter the debate. "Tout their bona fides" above also does not have quite the reach-across-the aisle non partisan flair of Sunstein's essay. I don't think Paul welcomes never-Trump classical liberals in her tent. For Paul, the divorce between "liberal" and "progressive" is real, as for many other "liberals" since the October 7 wake up: Whereas liberals hold to a vision of racial integration, progressives have increasingly supported forms of racial distinction and separation, and demanded equity in outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Whereas most liberals want to advance equality between the sexes, many progressives seem fixated on reframing gender stereotypes as "gender identity" and denying sex differences wherever they confer rights or protections expressly for women. And whereas liberals tend to aspire toward a universalist ideal, in which diverse people come together across shared interests, progressives seem increasingly wedded to an identitarian approach that emphasizes tribalism over the attainment of common ground.It is progressives — not liberals — who argue that "speech is violence" and that words cause harm. These values are the driving force behind progressive efforts to shut down public discourse, disrupt speeches, tear down posters, censor students and deplatform those with whom they disagree.Divisions became sharper after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, when many progressives did not just express support for the Palestinian cause but, in some cases, even defended the attacks as a response to colonialism, and opposed retaliation as a form of genocide. This brings us to the most troubling characteristic of contemporary progressivism. Whereas liberals tend to pride themselves on acceptance, many progressives have applied various purity tests to others on the left, and according to one recent study on the schism between progressives and liberals, are more likely than liberals to apply public censure to divergent views. This intolerance manifests as a professed preference for avoiding others with different values, a stance entirely antithetical to liberal values.Yes. But no Republicans, please. Unlike Sunstein, Paul's "Liberalism" remains unabashedly partisan. I hope Sunstein's version of the word prevails. In any case, it is nice to see the division between the Woodstock Liberals, previously fellow travelers, from the extreme progressive left, and it is nice to see this word drift back to where it belongs. This is an optimistic post for the future of our country. Happy Thanksgiving. Update: I just ran across Tyler Cowen's Classical Liberals vs. The New Right. Excellent. And I forgot to plug my own "Understanding the Left," which I still think is a great essay though nobody seems to have read it.
Transcript of an oral history interview with Robert D. Forger conducted by Joseph Cates at Forger's home in Newtown, Connecticut, on 16 March 2016 as part of the Norwich Voices oral history project of the Sullivan Museum and History Center. Robert D. Forger was a member of the Norwich University Class of 1949. The bulk of his interview focuses on the history and development of his relationship with Norwich University, including as a student, alumnus, and trustee. ; 1 Robert Forger, NU '49, Oral History Interview March 16, 2016 At His Home in Newtown, Connecticut Interviewed by Joseph Cates, of the Norwich Oral History Project JOSEPH CATES: Mr. Forger, Bob, can you please state your full name and date and place of your birth? ROBERT FORGER: Robert D. Forger, May 24, 1928, in Norwalk, Connecticut. JC: Talk a little bit about growing up in Norwalk. RF: I grew up in Westport. Westport did not have a hospital. And for years we could get our birth certificates in Westport but then they stopped. If you were born in Norwalk, you can't do it. (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) RF: That was a wonderful place to grow up in. It was a town of about 5,000 people. I went to a high school that took in students from two other towns and had a graduating class of about 96, almost 100. And 11 were from one other town and 13 were from the other town, so the other 75 were from Westport. I got a wonderful preparation there. We had a very, very good faculty. If you can believe this, I learned all my English from the Latin teacher. I took four years of Latin. We had to diagram the sentences. Latin sentences. And I had an English teacher whom I had for three years who was hung up on the classics, so we learned very little English, but we sure know all of Shakespeare and everybody else. (Laughs) And I got a good preparation because when I went off to Norwich, the curriculum as a chemist, I had to take trigonometry. And I said, "But I've had trigonometry." Oh, no, you haven't had trigonometry like this. This is really …, so you have to take it. So, I took it and got a 98 and the instructor said to me when it was all over, he said, "You know, I think you've had this subject before." And I said, "I certainly have." (Laughs) JC: What made you decide to go to Norwich? RF: I went to the physical – I wanted to go to West Point and I have a military bend and nobody in the family knows from whence it came. And I wanted to go to West Point and as a junior in high school I flunked the physical because of astigmatism in one of the eyes in which they would not give a waiver. And it was very difficult to get into it at that time because the war was on and everybody wanted to get in and be protected for four years or maybe the three-year curriculum they were doing at the time. So, our local dentist said, "Why don't 2 you go up the Norwich?" I knew nothing about Norwich but his nephew, who practiced not very far from where we are now, had gone there, Class of '39, and had become a dentist and he said, "You ought to go there." So, I applied. We went up to take a look at the place and I got accepted. JC: Okay. This is a question for you. Tell me a little bit about your rook year, about being a rook. RF: I think it was pretty darn easy. JC: (Laughs) RF: I don't think it was bad. A lot of people complained about it but I had read some stories about what went on at West Point, I had a book West Point Today about what they had to go through. As long as you didn't try to think as an individual, and not do what they wanted you to do, you were fine. One of my experiences was, they came in, and I doubt they do this today, came into our room. My roommate, myself, they turned the heat up on high and said, "At 9:30 we're going to have everybody in here." And they had everybody in our room and you had to bring your blankets, you had to wear your mackinaw, wear your blanket – wrapped in a blanket and it was so darn hot in that room and then you had to jump up and down, singing "God Bless America." At 10:00 (inaudible) [0:05:08], everybody left. They left our room in shambles. And we had to get up at 4:30 in the morning to straighten it out for inspection. (Laughs) But that was – and that was not a bad experience, it wasn't bad at all. JC: You were also in a fraternity. Tell me about that. RF: Sigma Phi Epsilon, Sig Ep. In the building where the president now lives. That wasn't as plush as it is now. They've added to it since those days. And it was interesting because nobody was around fraternities in my freshman year and they rushed the new pledges in October of my sophomore year. And the house president got up, I understand, later. He said – now you have to remember, they were all civilians, because Norwich took in anyone who had been there before. To come back in civilian clothes and finish up his education. Didn't have to wear a uniform. Didn't have to participate in the military. Really a very good decision, I think. And, he said, told them, "You have to remember, we're a military school and our future is military. And you guys shouldn't be voting in people who are civilians now, just because they're your friends. You've got to stick with the military." Sig Ep took in five cadets and we were the most cadets, we were down there with cadets with 45 other civilians. (Laughs) And, we developed from there. But it was a really wise thing to say, because some of the fraternities took in only two and that was, I think, a mistake on their part. JC: Well, how did you feel about when they did away with the fraternities? 3 RF: Mixed emotions. It was sort of a second-class citizenship, particularly athletically because we had a troop league and when I left there were six troops. A headquarters troop, which was the band, and five line troops. And we had an athletic league with the troops and an athletic league with the fraternities. And it ended up that the guys who were left behind in the troops, they just felt like second class citizens. They didn't play with the big boys. And I think that was one divisive effect that the fraternities had. But it was a great place to go and to relax. When you went through the front door, why military was out the window. But when you went out the front door, your tie better be straight and your cap on right and in everything else, the military prevailed. JC: Now, you said there was an incident that happened that caused the fraternities to be done away with. RF: Yes, this was what – I left in June of '49 and early '50 when General Harmon came on board as the president. And I believe it was Winter Carnival that year and one of the fraternities, a guy in a drunken stupor went headlong down the stairs and did damage to his neck and his back and everything else and lost a semester of school because of the injuries. And that was the catalyst for Harmon getting rid of the fraternities. He – it took him a while, but he usually gets his way. (Laughs) JC: What is your – what do you remember most about your years at Norwich? RF: I think the camaraderie. I think it was a wonderful small school. I made so many friends. It was the type I liked and could live with and getting up at 6 or 6:15, that kind of thing, it – the rules and regulations never bothered me. I may have been an exception but I never walked a tour in my life. When it was O.D. (?) [0:10:05] my senior year, I can remember the temperature – 10 degrees in the middle of winter, starting a tour line with a hundred guys in it. (Laughs) JC: (Chuckles) RF: And they had a system, which I overlooked at the time, I knew what was happening. The first three guys in the line would peel off and go into Alumni Hall. Now when the line came around again, the next three or five or whatever number they had decided on, would peel off and the other ones would come back out, get at the end of the line. Because it was so darn cold. JC: (Laughs) Now, Homer Dodge was president when you were a student. RF: Yes. JC: Tell me about that. 4 RF: I don't think he was – in retrospect, I didn't have that much of an insight. I don't think he was a very effective president. He was – he wore a uniform, but that was about it. He didn't know how to wear it. He was an eminent physicist and – well we had Fuzzy Woodbury. We had a good physics department. He was the wrong guy for the job. And we finally got to him and he realized he wasn't doing anything. Fortunately, we had a guy, in fact two of them, that were commandants and assistant commandants that really kept the Norwich activity going. And some of the guys that returned, some of the veterans, I can remember the veterans getting after it. They got dressed up in their uniforms and they got all the sophomores together and they said, "We see that you're violating some of the traditions and these are what they are." And one of them was Jack O'Neil. "These are what they are and you've got to start living by them." JC: Tell me about when Eisenhower came to the commencement and gave the commencement address. RF: I don't remember anything about the commencement address, but it was allegedly his first or maybe only one of his first appearances in 1946. In my freshman year, we had three graduates. Who – how they did it – but finished up their last year and their last semester. And Eisenhower came, both senators were with him. JC: (Laughs) RF: As you might expect. And the one thing I do remember is the pushing match he got into with President Dodge. In the military, the lowest ranking guys get in the car first. And the highest ranking last, so he can be the first one out of the car. And Homer Dodge would not let – he would not precede Eisenhower. And Eisenhower solved the issue by putting the palm of his hand in the back of Dodge's back and propelling him into the car. And it worked pretty well. But that's the only thing I really remember about the commencement. JC: Tell me about some of the professors that really had an influence on your life. RF: Well, I think there were probably two. Both junior chemistry professors. They were probably only instructors at the time. And one was Bill Nichols, who taught most of the advanced organic and inorganic. He was only here the one year I was there, in my senior year. He taught most of the organic and inorganic advanced classes. Whereas, the other professors taught the physical chemistry, the more difficult courses. He was a great guy and the other was Jack O'Neil who was a senior when I was a junior and a senior only because he came back. He was the Class of '44 and returned after the war. He ran most of the labs down in the bottom of Dodge Hall. He was a true Norwich guy. And one of the things I think that proved it was when our son, Gary, went up to Norwich, he was the Class of '75. When he went up in '71, we were in the orientation line and Jack O'Neil comes up and said "hi" to me and shook hands with Gary and he said, "Things get pretty rough up there. If you need some relief any time, here's my telephone 5 number. I live right down the street. Give me a call and come on over and get away from it all." And that was really a very nice thing to do. JC: What does the idea of the citizen soldier mean to you? RF: This is a put-up question, because this is something I answered on the questionnaire that your predecessor sent out. JC: Yes. It's on the first page. RF: Read it. "Citizen soldier" by my definition is an individual with a strong interest in the military, who is willing to act in the secondary line of military preparedness, rather than full-time service. Now, that was true in my day. And up until the second Gulf War started. It really isn't true anymore because anyone who is in the national guard or the reserves is going to get called one way or another. JC: Now, you served in the reserves from 1949 to '72, correct? RF: '72, yes. JC: Can you talk a little bit about that? About being in the reserves. RF: It was a nice experience, a great experience. I got some fairly good jobs out of it. I was with a tank battalion in Stamford and the C.O. was a 1934 graduate from the University of Massachusetts. I went to my first meeting and a guy sidles up to me and he says, "You know, that isn't an army uniform. That's a Norwich uniform." I didn't have any uniforms. I graduated in June and this was a September meeting and who was this guy but Phil Marsilius. JC: Oh. (Laughs) RF: (Laughs) Who was the emeritus chairman of the board. He was the S2 of the battalion. And the next day when he brings up another guy and introduces him to me, he's the S3 and it's Tommy, they called him in those days, Andy I always knew him as, Andy Boggs, who was the Class of '44 and who was the S3. (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) RF: And I got this C.O. that I had, I got some good jobs out of it that proved to be good because I could do them. And, he went to summer camp with the Norwich guys. And he was ROTC, not military. ROTC such as Norwich. And he told me later, he gave me these jobs because those Norwich guys could do anything. And he observed it at camp, at his summer camp, they could do anything. And we had 6 two Norwich guys. We had a bunch of lieutenants who had just come in when I left the tank battalion. And he – so I got some pretty good jobs out of it. JC: Where did you go to summer camp? RF: Ft. Meade, Maryland. And we spent a week down at A.P. Hill in Virginia, living in tents in rain storms and everything, because they didn't have a range big enough. That was the closest range large enough to fire the tank guns. Now I guess they all go out to Washington some place, Ft. Lewis, I think. JC: Oh, yes. RF: And of course, we were at, in those days, I got a commission at Armored Cavalry Reserve. Now I think you get branch and material and you sort of get your branch when you graduate, but I'm not sure. JC: I know if they're in ROTC, they pick which branch for ROTC now. If they want to go navy ROTC – RF: Oh, yes. See, we didn't have any navy or any air force. And when our son was there a year and with us paying the money for him, he got offered an air force ROTC scholarship for the last three years. Which we spoke to him and said, "You've got to serve five or six years or whatever," and he turned it down. JC: Now, one thing I wanted to ask you was – you were at Norwich when they still had the horse cavalry, correct? RF: Correct. JC: Can you talk a little bit about that? RF: (Laughs) Well, I was a stellar horseman. They brought back the horses at the end of our sophomore year, the summer between sophomore and junior. As the graduate, you had to take equitation. So, I took equitation in my junior year and my claim to fame was I led the class in being thrown. JC: (Laughs) RF: (Laughs) My roommate at the time was about 5'4" and every day – every Thursday when we went down for equitation, he got assigned the biggest horse, Burma. And he couldn't get up on the darn horse, because he fixed the stirrups the way you had to and they watched over you and made sure you did this, and he couldn't get up on the horse. And they had to boost him up. It was an interesting experience and something I really didn't want to continue. And they took the horses away at the end of our junior year. So, it was over. 7 JC: They came and they went within about a year. RF: Yes. JC: Now, how did Norwich prepare you for life? RF: I think it brought out the – my leadership aspects. I think I had some during elementary and junior high school. I think perhaps they faded in high school but they sure brought them out in being willing to step in and do something and to take charge when you had to. And I'm really quite proud of – when the organization of Society of Plastics Engineers that I was executive director for the last 22 years of my civilian career, I had a president whom I was not close and some you get very close to and others you don't. At the annual meeting, after I retired, he asked me to make sure I was at the annual meeting, he had a poem that he did that went on and on and on, citing really my whole life. And at the end, he said he left us with many attributes. He represented us well in the plastics industry, he did this, he did that. But most of all, was his leadership that we value. And that was brought out later on by a couple of people that I was not particularly close to. (Laughs) They told my son, who ended up with the same organization, they told my son, "We really miss your father, because he always did what he said he would do and he did it on time and we knew exactly where we stood on every issue." JC: Another question that we ask everybody in these oral histories is what does the Norwich motto "I Will Try" mean to you? RF: I really don't know. I think it means you'll do the very best you can under any circumstances, whatever circumstances may confront you. And we use it here every day. I go out in the car and I leave Eleanor behind and she says to me, she says, "Drive safely," and I always reply with, "I will try." (Laughs) JC: So, what did you do after you left Norwich? RF: I only worked for two companies in my life. One was Dorr-Oliver, which was involved in the separation of liquids and solids, starting with ores but later got into sewage and water treatment and things such as that. And then for 33 years with the Society of Plastics Engineers. Which I got aimed into with the only two electives I ever had in my life at Norwich. I was ordered with 84 or 86 credits in chemistry and so much in math and physics and all this stuff and I took a course from Peter Dow Webster; a semester of advertising and a semester of public relations. And I enjoyed it. And I ended up doing this with Dorr-Oliver after I left the lab. And I applied for some way to do this kind of thing, with the Society of Plastics Engineers and got the job at SPE. And I did virtually every job – the meetings manager, and the local sections and divisions coordinator, the publisher of four magazines, associate executive director and then, finally, executive director. 8 JC: So, you didn't go to Korea right after – you ended up with deferment, correct? RF: Correct. (Laughs) JC: Now, how did that happen? RF: I was with Dorr-Oliver in the labs and I got called into active duty. And they said this kind of thing could happen and the personnel director put up a statement that if any of you are called to active duty, let us know immediately. And I got called to be a filler second lieutenant in a Tennessee tank battalion. And down south, your country. (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) RF: And so, they put in, or I had to put in for it but they backed it up through the Department of Mines or the Department of the Interior. And I got strictly a political deferment. And I was the first one to get the deferment and they never lost anybody in the Korean War. And interestingly enough, the deferment was signed by I.D. White, who was the chief of staff for the second army, a major general in Governors Island. And he put a handwritten note on it. "I certainly don't enjoy giving a deferment to a Norwich man." (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) I can understand that. Now, talk a little bit about what you did at Dorr-Oliver. RF: I was – as a result of the courses I took with advertising and public relations and getting back to my high school chemistry teacher, I wasn't – chemistry was not my bag and how he recognized it, I don't know. I said I would like to get into advertising or public relations and they discouraged me. They said, "Well, we just hired a second guy for the ad department. So, chances are you're not going to do it." And four years later when the deferment was no longer necessary, they had an opening and I went down there as the third person in the ad department. After a merger, I went with my boss who was the ad director, who became the ad director of public relations at the revised corporation, and got involved in being the liaison for the technical and engineering societies and the technical publications. And that's what I gravitated into and then applied to SPE for a somewhat similar type of job, and got that job. JC: And, so you continued doing that type of work for SPE and then became the executive director. RF: For a short time. And then with changes and everything, why I ended up doing meetings when the meetings manager left. I ended up doing division when they had nobody to do the technical divisions, only because I had a technical 9 background. And I ended up as an associate executive director and then when my boss got fired, I got the job. JC: Let me see – RF: Can I interject something here? JC: Yes. Absolutely. RF: I believe I was at Norwich in a very transitional time. In fact, as I look back on it, it was – you'd never know what was coming next. When I went there, we had one dormitory, Hawkins, filled with cadets. And we took in, in the summer of '49, about 50 cadets who started in July and then about 50 others who started in September. And, I made a count of this, as it might be of interest. The ones that came in July, only 16 graduated. And in my class, the September class, only 11 graduated. JC: Oh, really? RF: We were losing guys like crazy to the draft. And I was young enough so I didn't get drafted until the war was – I didn't get – I didn't have to sign up for the draft until after V.E. Day and then V.J. Day came and they were drafting people – they evidently didn't need me. The mistake the other guys made was going up to Montpelier to register for the draft. And in two weeks they might pick them off because they came from Long Island City or Aurora, New York or someplace they weren't locals. And seeing this, I went home to Westport to register for the draft. Where they knew me. (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) RF: For some reason, I never came up or they never had the quotas to fill or whatever. But, we had, at one dorm full of Norwich cadets. We had two dorms, I don't know what they call it now, it's Cabot, the one right next to it at the time. It might be Goodyear or something. With – in Alumni Hall, we had four companies of fast tracks, army reserves specialized training guys who they sent to college for a year or so and then when they needed infantry troops they pulled them right out. They were -- at the end of my first year, they were gone. And we had enough when the Class of '50 came in, to fill two dormitories, Cabot and Hawkins. And in Cabot – in Hawkins, pardon me, in Hawkins they had a veteran troop; some guys that wanted to take ROTC but came back – but they had to wear a uniform if they took ROTC. And we had the veterans living in Alumni and fill/Phil/Bill (?) [0:31:02] Jackman Hall. And in my third year, why the cadets took over Alumni Hall. And, we had the veterans just in Jackman. And my fourth year, we had a few of the overflow senior bucks living in Jackman with the veterans because we didn't have enough room with the three existing dormitories. But it was – I went 10 through my yearbook and made a count. I had a hundred thirty-six in the class. And we had 27 that started that went through for four years and graduated – JC: And graduated. RF: -- as you would normally expect. And it was very, very transitional and very unusual. You'd never know what was coming next. In my sophomore year, we were loaded with veterans. They could wear their uniforms if they wanted to, if they didn't have civilian clothes. We had five lieutenant colonels walking around the campus. (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) RF: Which was unusual. JC: You were also involved a lot in the Alumni Association. RF: Yes. JC: Can we talk about that a little bit? RF: Yes. I – somebody put my name in to run for the alumni board. This was like 1983. No, '81. And at that time, they had an election. They nominated three reasonably recent graduates and two were elected and two of the old timers, in which classification I fit in. And two of the three in both classes were elected. But, the problem was, the guy who was the oldest class, always lost, because nobody knew him. And, so, I was on the alumni board for three years and the system was, it may still be, that at the end of three years and four years, those eight guys were eligible and we have girls on there now, were eligible to be elected president of the alumni board. And we knew who was going to be elected. A fourth-year guy who had seemed to be in line forever. And, a third-year guy came up to me and asked me if he was going to run for alumni president and would I support him? And I made an immediate decision. He'd been on the board and never done a darn thing in my estimation and I had done a number of things. When I said, no, I couldn't support him because I was going to run. And, fortunately, we had every preponderance of Boston people and the rest from around the country, although not many outside New England. And I ended up splitting the Boston vote and I had three people in the Boston group whom I knew, who were my contemporaries, and I'm sure they voted for me. And it ended up we had 19 that voted and I got 10 so I got the majority in the first ballot. That was it. I also got hell from my wife when I told her. She said, "You never mentioned it." I said, "No, not until last night was I even thinking about running for office." (Laughs) And she didn't have the right clothes. (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) 11 RF: And then from there, usually the outgoing alumni president is elected the alumni trustee for that year. And in the other year, when there's an outgoing president, it's somebody else who the alumni board recognizes is worth being an alumni trustee. JC: So, you were on the board of trustees? RF: For a five-year term. JC: Five-year term. RF: Yes. JC: And what was that like being on the board of trustees? RF: Oh, it was very interesting. There had to be the five alumni trustees but of the 30 of them, even the board, there were 22 of them that were alumni to begin with. And they supported the president very fairly, particularly when you had a take charge guy like Russ Todd, and I would guess, Harmon and Hart, President Hart. He was there between Harmon and Russ Todd. But it was interesting and I think this is where we were interrupted, that I tangled with Russ three times when I was on the board of trustees. I look upon it as I won one, I lost one and we tied one. (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) RF: The first was when he had the bright idea that we should form a Norwich University savings and loan association. And it could be a bank and put out loans to parents who wanted to bankroll their kids to go to Norwich. And I think I tied that one. Fred Haynes and myself of the Haynes Stadium were the only two that voted against it. But, within a year, they had the savings and loan association in crisis and they ended up selling of -- giving the very infantile savings and loan association they had to the bank which is now ensconced down there by – was down there by the alumni center. I think that one I won decisively. When I was chairman of the alumni board we did a survey of eight colleges that we had considered our equals, our size, Middlebury, Babson, I can't think of any of the others, St. Lawrence. We had two people on the board go to each school and ask certain questions as to how what they did – (break in audio) RF: We did this survey and compared how we stacked up with other schools in a number of different things that the Alumni Association did. And I was only on the board for one year. I was only a trustee for one year. And Russ came up with the idea that we would get a – we would subscribe to some kind of alumni magazine where we had a four page insert, all the rest would be "pat" material. 12 And a number of previously prepared and published that a number of schools did. And I called to his attention that we had done this survey and he had seen it and we stacked up very well with our alumni communications, in other areas we did not. But the communications – and they like the Alumni Record the way it was. And I said, "I think we're going to do this." His only comment was, "I hear you," and he dropped it. We never had anymore – Of course, the third thing I tangled with him on was when President Schneider came. And what they did was, they kept Russ on the board of trustees. And the Alumni Affairs Committee of the board the trustees felt this was wrong. The alumni association thought this was wrong. And that he should not be on the board when the new president arrived. I guess I didn't do a very good job with my point earlier with remaining Norwich graduates around, Russ insisted on leaving the room and I said, "I don't want you to because I'm not going to say anything I wouldn't say to your face." We ended up starting to discuss it and somebody made a motion that we elect him to the board of trustees and have somebody resign so it would be a vacancy. I said, "I resign everything." And I said, "This is the wrong way to do it." And I moved to table the motion until the next meeting. And the chairman at the time didn't even hear my motion. And I said, "This is a parliamentary motion and it supersedes all others." Which is does. And he just didn't even listen to me and he called for the vote and he was elected to the board of trustees. (Laughs) And he was on it until he was 70. And it was interesting because shortly thereafter we played our last game with Middlebury, football game, which was a very disappointing thing that we should give up or have to give up that rivalry which was over one hundred years and only because the conference that Middlebury was in, the Little Ivy League, said that you can only play within your own conference. And, my gosh, we get a call from Carol Todd – were we coming up for the game. And we said, "Yes." And she said, "Will you stay with us." (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) RF: And this was a month after my tangling with him. (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) RF: And all my son could say was, "Who is going to taste your food." (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) RF: But we've come along very, very well with the Todds. And he was, he was a good president, a very good president. JC: Now, you were also a proponent of merging with Vermont College, correct? RF: Yes. 13 JC: Can you talk about that a little bit? RF: (Laughs) It was very difficult to enact. I ended up, and I kept my secretary at SPE busy for a week, writing letters. And I wrote to the class agent of all the five-year classes and we substituted the name of VC class agent in the Norwich letters and the Norwich class agent in the VC letters trying to get them to coalesce. And this was, I think my last year on the alumni board. The only person I was successful in getting to march with our class was my lady. (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) RF: And she marched with the Class of '50. And some guy says, "Where did you come from? I never knew any girls in my class." JC: (Laughs) RF: And we got to our reunion and he wasn't having a reunion and he got there and at the start, he got up before we started the program, and he said, "Bob, I would" -- in front of everybody, -- he said, "Bob, I wouldn't have said what I did if I realized she was your wife." And he says, "I apologize." And Eleanor jumped up and she said, "You don't apologize to him, you apologize to me!" (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) RF: His wife got up and laughed at him and said, "That's wonderful!" (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) Let me think, what else do I want to ask you about. Life milestones. What are your major milestones in life? Can you talk about those? RF: Well, (Laughs) I was among the first to advocate a VC/Norwich union. And did so by marrying a gal who was the Class of 1950 from Vermont College. If I got the wrong year there, she'd kill me for that. (Laughs) JC: I'll fix it on mine. RF: And we had – a number of other people did. And I think it was just very natural that you had a boy's school and essentially a girl's school 10 miles away. And it worked out very well. And the girl's school were willing to relax their rules whenever we had a dance or a big weekend or something such as that. But, let me tell you, it was difficult enough having to ring a quarter of ten every Saturday night. (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) RF: Of course, I dated her only during her freshman year. During her second year, I was gone. (Laughs) 14 I think another milestone was having our son, Gary go to Norwich. Although he was not necessarily in accord with us. (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) RF: He was, unfortunately, he was a very good student, but he tested poorly in the SATs. And he applied for college when they were integrating some of the men's colleges, such as Bowden or Middlebury where he wanted to go. And they were also – with females and they were also integrating them with as far as the Afro-Americans go and diverse Americans. So, he said, when a gal got accepted to Middlebury, he ranked something like eighth in his class out of 250. And a gal who was way down in the ratings got accepted at Middlebury and all he could say was, "She took my place." And it was probably true. And Norwich was a safety school. And he went there and went through. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the love for the place that I do. And I think part of that is because of his wife. And she just doesn't have anything to do with the military and that kind of thing. And the reunion, when I was at his reunion. It falls the same five years as Eleanor's and it was – he was up there for a reunion and it was when I was the alumni president and placed the wreathes on the graves and gave some of the awards and everything. And it was Eleanor's reunion year. And he was there and he drifts in after the alumni parade was over and after everything is over, with his buddy. And said, "We just didn't get up early enough." Which to me was crazy. And I don't think he's ever been back. I think that's the only reunion he was ever back for. And Dave Whaley, he's having a hell of a job getting any money out of him! (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) I'm sure. And you have another son, Jeffrey, correct? RF: Another son, Jeffrey and he said, "You don't think I'm going to go to Norwich and be a rook, when my brother is the regimental supply officer." (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) RF: He said, "It's just not going to happen." He loved Norwich. He went four years to the summer camp so he says that's his alumni. And he loved the athletic department. He learned to play soccer there and he was a star of the Wilton High School soccer team, as the goalie. He – Joe Sable and Wally Baines were just his ideals. They were the ones that ran the summer camp. And another thing that I could mention, the Norwich camaraderie. This flyer came for summer camp and I said, "Well, maybe the boys would like to go." And at the dinner table, I brought it up. I said, "There's a camp at Norwich. You may like to go. I'll drop it on your bed." And they said, "No way." And a week later, they came to me and said, "You know, we think we'd like to do it." So, they did it. And the first week they were up there, it shows how soft-hearted they are, the first week they were up there, they called home on Sunday and reversed the charges, of course. Called home on Sunday and they 15 were both in tears. First time they'd ever been away from home, and (inaudible) [0:11:14], and who walks by but (inaudible) Wally Baines. He says, "What's your problem?" And they said, "Well, we're talking to him at home." He took the phone, he says, "They're finished talking with you. We're going to put them to work." (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) RF: My son, Gary went back another year and Jeffrey went back three years they enjoyed it so much. And Gary called at the start of his sophomore year, and he said, "I can't believe what they're doing to these rooks." He was almost in tears. He said, "They shouldn't be doing this." I said, "Well, Gary, you went through this and it makes them better people." He said, "Yes, but I don't like to see them do it." He was just soft-hearted. (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) Now, he graduated in '75. RF: '75, yes. JC: And Bob Hope was the commencement speaker. RF: Yes. JC: Do you want to talk about that a little bit? RF: Well, that was – Gary told us, for almost a year in advance, Hope was going to be their commencement speaker. And I said, "That's crazy. Bob Hope is not going to Norwich-- (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) RF: -- to be the commencement speaker." And, sure enough, he was. And came strutting in, typical Bob Hope. (Laughs) Making remarks to the audience and everything and it was just a wonderful occasion. The great disappointment was you could get up front and take a picture of your graduate getting their diploma from Hope. Which I did. And the development company that took – we had them developed – lost the negative. So, he doesn't have that. JC: Oh, goodness! Tell me about some of the places that you've traveled. You said you traveled to England, France, Switzerland, Germany, Portugal, Ireland, Canada and Mexico. RF: Some of these were vacation. Some were business. And all of them, Eleanor went along. I think the greatest trip we ever had, I was involved in an organization, The Council of Engineering and Scientific Society Executives – who were guys who were executive directors like myself. About 130 in the U.S. 16 and Canada. I ended up as president of the organization in about 1987, I guess it was. And, they had their annual meeting in San Francisco. And it was the year I came in a vice president. And we left home and went out to San Francisco for the annual meeting on Monday. We went out and it was over on Thursday night. And on Friday, we flew home. On Saturday – it takes all day to get back from the West coast. On Saturday, Eleanor did the laundry, I did the lawn. And on Sunday, we left for my counterpart in Great Britain, the British Isles, his retirement party. We went over on the Concorde. Went to his retirement party and came back on the QE2. So, that was the most eventful two weeks we ever had. JC: I bet it was something flying on the Concorde. RF: Yes. Well, we left at noon from Kennedy and we got over there in time to have dinner. Which, otherwise, it's an overnight flight. JC: Oh, yes. I've done that one a couple of times. RF: And, the other countries -- we were bitten on cruises, both with our close friends and our closest friends over the years, have always been (inaudible) [0:15:24] alumni, the guys that I was associated with and their wives. One time, there were 18 of us, there are only four of us left now. And well two others that moved a long distance away. And we went on a cruise with them. And then we went on a cruise with Bro Park who used to be the alumni – used to be the PR director at Norwich. Organized after he left Norwich. And there was the Mediterranean and we went to Alaska. And for our 50th anniversary, we took a cruise from the Hawaii Islands through the Hawaiian Islands and up to Victoria, British Columbia. And that's the way we got to a lot of these places. Mexico, we went to because we had two sections down there that we visited. And never were we so glad to get back to this country and be able to have a salad and some good water in New Orleans. (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) Well, there's always good food in New Orleans. RF: Oh, yes. JC: What is your favorite memory of Norwich? RF: I don't think I could pick it out. JC: (Laughs) RF: I have – no really, I have so many good memories that I couldn't have one above the other. JC: Well, is there one of those memories that we haven't talked about? 17 RF: I don't know. No, I don't think so. I think maybe this time we didn't – well, it's not a favorite memory, it's a humorous memory. I don't think we talked about it. Some of the veterans, in either – I think it was the beginning of my junior year, pulled out by the roots, the parking meter in Montpelier. And they came and installed it in President Dodge's private parking spot. Dug it into the ground and everything. And we got up in the morning for reveille and here's the parking meter. (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) RF: Which the Montpelier Police came over and traded it at a later date. JC: Well, let me ask you this. What was it like being a teenager during World War II? RF: Well, (Laughs) I was too young to get my driver's license until my senior year. But I think the biggest thing was the lack of transportation. And I was on the football team in my senior year, and we had to take a common carrier, a bus that -- had to get dressed, walk up to the bus route, then get on the bus, common carrier, to go to Fairfield. And get off the bus and walk to their field because you couldn't get enough parents that had enough gas coupons and or you couldn't hire a bus because they couldn't get the gas for a football game. So, -- (Laughs) JC: Was there anything else that you'd like to add, that we haven't talked about? RF: I'll think of all of them after you leave. JC: (Laughs) RF: That will happen you know. JC: That will happen. Let me see if there's anything I haven't – we haven't discussed. RF: I enjoyed my days in the Army Reserve. The tank battalion I was in, we had a great bunch of officers. But the enlisted men we had were out of the bowels of Bridgeport. And these guys, you never knew what kind of a scrape they were going to get into or anything, but they were the best damn enlisted men. I was a supply officer for the battalion. We got ready to turn in our equipment and (Laughs) we were short something like 40 gas cans. Where would 40 gas cans go? The resupply sergeant said, "Don't worry. Me and the boys will have them by morning." And I go over at 6:30 in the morning and here's the 40 gas cans. Lined up. And you know where they got them. (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) 18 RF: I've seen them – I've seen them stop a jeep, two of them, stop a jeep and ask directions. And in the confusion and everything, the first one is talking to the driver and the other one unhitches that gas tank off the back and that's the way they got them. (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) RF: They could do anything, really. And the battalion commander thought I could get anything done. (Laughs) And it was only because of these guys – JC: Yes. RF: -- that did it. JC: Well, can you think of anything else? RF: No. I'm very pleased of graduating from the general's staff school. After I'd been in the reserves maybe two or three years. I said, "I'm going to do 20 years." I said, "I'm going to go to the command and general staff school, and, I'm going to make lieutenant colonel." And I made all three of those. JC: So, you retired a lieutenant colonel. RF: And, as you might say, I'm on the dole now, because I did 20 years and it wasn't until about 19 – no 2002 that Senator Warner from Virginia said, "You have to treat retired reservists the same as the regular army reservists." And up until that time, I was on my own for health care and everything else. That action by the congress -- I got Tricare and prescriptions paid for and every other darn thing. So, what was so – and I think, now deceased Senator Warner, who was Elizabeth Taylor's last husband I think. (Laughs) JC: (Laughs) RF: I think that's about it. JC: Okay. Well, I thank you very much for this interview. It will be a great addition to our collection. And I will --
Foreword by Professor Stathis Kalyvas, Oxford -- SECTION A: Technologies of Violence in Africa -- 1. Systemic and Epistemic Violence in Africa; Patricia Pinky Ndlovu: Chair of Sociology and Sabelo J. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, Professor and Chair of Epistemologies of the Global South with Emphasis on Africa and Vice-Dean of Research in the "Africa Multiple Cluster of Excellence" -- 2. Theoretical underpinnings of violence in Africa; Clive Tendai Zimunya: Lecturer of Philosophy and Obert Bernard Mlambo, Associate Professor of Classical Studies and History -- 3. Technologies of Violence in Africa; Obert Bernard Mlambo, Associate Professor of Classical Studies and History and Wesley Mwatwara, Historian -- 4. Of Exile as Violence in Lewis Nkosi's Thought; Tendayi Sithole, Department of Political Sciences -- 5. Africa and violence: the metamorphosis and the participation of Child soldiers in conflict zones; Toyin Cotties Adetiba, Department of Political and International Studies -- 6. Structural violence and resource curse in Angola -- 7. Violence against nature in Africa: a historical assessment; Marlino Eugénio Mubai, History, Environmental and Political Ecology -- SECTION B: The State and Violence in Africa -- 8. Understanding Electoral Violence in Africa; Matlosa Khabele, African Union Commission Director for Political Affairs -- 9. Understanding violence from an interpersonal perspective: The case of Zimbabwe and state sponsored violence; Chenai G. Matshaka, Centre for Mediation in Africa and Ruth Murambadoro, the Centre for Feminist Research -- 10. 'Dirge to Slit Bodies': EndSARS, Police Brutality and Nigerian Dystopia in Jumoke Verissimo and James Yéku's Soro Soke: When Poetry Speaks Up; Ayokunmi O. Ojebode, the Institute for Name-Studies (INS) -- 11. The Silent Violence in Africa- Manifestations of Political Violence; Annie Barbara Chikwanha, Politics and International Relations -- 12. Beyond ethnicity: Reflections on the history and politics of violence in Uganda; Evarist Ngabirano, the Makerere Institute of Social Research (MISR) -- 13. Ungoverned Space and National Security in Nigeria; Arinze Ngwube, Department of Political Science -- 14. Bound to violence? Interrogating violence in Francophone African literatures; G. Ncube, Stellenbosch University -- SECTION C: Children, Youth and Violence -- 15. Child Soldiers, Conflict and Cultures of Violence in Contemporary Africa, c.1980-2000s; Stacey Hynd, African History and Co-Director of the Centre for Imperial & Global History -- 16. Youth, Proliferation of Small Arms and Light Weapons and Conflicts in 21st Century Africa; Babayo Sule, Department of Political Science and Ibrahim Kawuley, Department of Political Science -- 17. Youth, Violence and Political Accumulation: Urban militias in Harare; Simbarashe Gukurume, Sociology and Social Anthropology and Godfrey Maringira, Sol Plaatje University -- 18. "Even the Holy Book Recommends it"? Corporal Punishment, the Bible and Sacred Violence in Southern Africa; Ezra Chitando, Phenomenology and History of Religion -- 19. "Even the Holy Book Recommends it"? Corporal Punishment, the Bible and Sacred Violence in Southern Africa; Ezra Chitando, Phenomenology and History of Religion -- SECTION D: Violence, Memory and the Law in Africa -- 20. Discourses on Political Violence and State Legitimation in Official Commissions of Inquiry in Africa; Claire-Anne Lester, Stellenbosch University (Legal Sociology, Political Transitions, Transitional Justice); 21. Remembrance as a confrontation of violence? A religio-ethical consideration of the role of memory in a Zimbabwe established and ruled by violence; Collium Banda, Theology; 22. Geographies of Violence and Informalization: The Case of Mathare Slums in Nairobi, Kenya; Maurice Omollo, Maasai Mara Universit and Solomon Waliaula, Maasai Mara University -- 23. Piracy and Violence off the Coast of Nigeria: A Theoretical Analysis; Kalu Kingsley, the Cultural Heritage Preservation Research Institute -- 24. Incest as Dismissal: Anthropology and Clinics of Silence; Parfait D. Akana, Sociologist & Anthropologist -- 25. Violence and post-coloniality in contemporary Zimbabwean literature: the works of Chenjerai Hove; Oliver Nyambi, University of the Free State -- SECTION E: Religion and Cultural Violence in Africa -- 26. In God's Name: Drivers of Violent Extremism in the Northeast Nigeria; Jacinta Chiamaka Nwaka, Peace and Conflict History -- 27. The Epistemic Scaffolding of Religious Violence; Kizito Kiyimba, SJ -- 28. Life transforming Intercultural Pastoral Care and Counseling with transgender and intersex communities in Botswana; Tshenolo Madigele: Theology Lecturer and Oabona Sepora: Institute of Development Management -IDM -- 29. Enchanted Worldviews and Violence Against Persons with Albinism in Sub-Saharan Africa; Francis Benyah, The Study of Religions -- 30. Violence against persons with albinism in Malawi; Jones Hamburu Mawerenga, Systematic Theology, Christian Ethics, and African Theology -- SECTION F: Gender and Violence in Africa; 31. Sexual Violence Against Girls and Women in African Conflict; Veronica Fynn Bruey, Legal Studies -- 32. Persisting inequalities: An intersectional view of climate change, gender and violence; Mary Nyasimi, Inclusive Climate Change Adaptation for a Sustainable Africa and Veronica Nonhlanhla Jakarasi -- 33. Violence against Women in Egypt: A Closer Look at Female Genital Mutilation and Intimate Partner Violence; Yasmin Khodary -- 34. Gender based violence in Ghana:experiences of persons with disabilities in two selected areas; Mantey Efua Esaaba, Social Work -- 35. African Diaspora Women Perpetuating Violence Against Men in the United Kingdom; Nomatter Sande -- 36. Adolescent Boys, Young Men and Mental Health in Southern Africa; Mutsawashe Chitando: Public Health, Health Economics Unit and Division -- SECTION G: Preventing Violent Conflict in Africa -- 37. Developing a Framework for Ending Violence in Africa; David Kaulemu, Philosophy -- 38. Confronting dysfunctional military violence in Africa's electoral spaces: A call for specialised civilian oversight institutions; James Tsabora, Law in the Faculty of Law -- 39. Managing electoral violence through constructive use of social media: Transforming and empowering vulnerable urban youth in Kenya; Joyce W. Gikandi: Christine W. Njuguna, Joan Kabaria- Muriithi, Lucy Kathuri-Ogola -- 40. Managing Conflict in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities for the African Union;Victor H Mlambo: University of Johannesburg School of Public Management, Governance and Public Policy, Ernest Toochi Aniche, Department of Political Science, and Mandla Mfundo Masuku, School of Built Environment and Development Studies -- 41. Through the Afrocentricity Lens: Terror and Insurgency and Implications for Regional Integration in Southern Africa: Reference from Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique; Daniel N. Mlambo, Tshwane University of Technology -- 42. Insurgency in Mozambique: Incorporating NATO's Article 5 to the Region's Quest for Collective Defence;Victor H Mlambo: University of Johannesburg School of Public Management, Governance and Public Policy, and Mfundo Mandla Masuku: School of Built Environment and Development Studies, and Daniel N. Mlambo: Department of Public Management.
Verfügbarkeit an Ihrem Standort wird überprüft
Dieses Buch ist auch in Ihrer Bibliothek verfügbar:
This is the first monograph about the Austro-American Composer Max Steiner (1888-1971), one of the great pioneers of film music in the so-called Golden Age of Hollywood. In the early 1930ies with his visionary energy he helped to establish symphonic film music as an integrated part in the film production process. In contrary to many of his colleagues, Mr. Steiner had devoted himself completely to film music. Therefore the preoccupation with Max Steiner's music gives a very valuable insight into the craft of film composing. Supported by many quotes and music examples, the first part of this monograph shows how Mr. Steiner wrote his film music. From the first viewing and the spotting session to the final exact timing of the cues, the whole creative and technical process of his film composing is demonstrated. The music of Max Steiner has a couple of quasi formulaic elements: the regular use of leitmotifs, quotations from his own music and the accurate synchronisation of screen action and music cues (with its extreme form, the so-called mickey mousing). The principles of the subjective use of harmonies as well as the technique of instrumentation are shown. The reader will also learn about the special relationship between composer and orchestrator. This distinctive form of collaboration was typical for the Hollywood cinema of the 30ies and 40ies of the 20th century, the so called Golden Age and still is today. Because the studios wanted to save the precious time of their employed composers, they wanted them to write their music on sketch paper with two to four staves, with the themes, voice leadings, harmonies and basic requirements of instrumentation. Then the orchestrator had to transform this into a complete score. Throughout his whole career, Mr. Steiner had been working with three orchestrators. This collaboration reached such an intuitive level, that is was sufficient that Max Steiner wrote only rudimentary musical information. When these sketches had been transformed into scores, Steiner conducted the studio orchestra, where he normally used the click. The second part of the book is based to a big extent on Steiner's yet unpublished autobiography. Born at the end of the 19th century in Vienna, Max Steiner was considered a musical wunderkind. His father as well as his grandfather before him was a famous theatre impresario. One of his teachers was Gustav Mahler. Steiner's first career as composer, arranger and conductor of operettas and musicals led him from Vienna to London and New York and lasted about 30 years. Then, in 1929, he got a call from Hollywood where he fulfilled his determination as dean of film music (Bette Davis). In the 50ies, when the symphonic film music lost its acceptance also Max Steiner's amount of work decreased. In 1965 he wrote his last of more than 300 scores. With the help of original documents from the archive of Warner Bros., such as memos, letters or billings the reader will get a three dimensional insight not only about how the movie Casablanca was made but on the mechanisms of the movie industry as a whole. Parts of the original sketches and the score of the music for Casablanca have been carefully transformed into a piano reduction to demonstrate even more clearly the efficient use of his skills and the yet highly artistic approach of Mr. Steiner Furthermore an example of this film music is compared to an excerpt of Richard Wagner's Ring des Nibelungen. There the reader will see how film music was not only inspired by but precisely obtained musical tools from the late romantic music theatre. Or, in Max Steiner's own words: "If Wagner would have lived in this century, he would be the number one film composer". Max Steiner is an outstanding protagonist of a generation of European immigrants who formed the cultural life in the USA. He is an important link between his native city Vienna and his new homeland America and through composers such as Steiner the tradition of the late European romantic m - Dies ist die erste Monographie über den austro-amerikanischen Komponisten Max Steiner (1888-1971), einen der großen Pioniere der Filmmusik des so genannten Goldenen Zeitalters Hollywoods. Es ist Max Steiners Verdienst, in den frühen 1930ern die sinfonische Filmmusik als gleichberechtigten und dramaturgisch unerlässlichen Bestandteil im Produktionsprozess der Filmindustrie Hollywoods durchgesetzt und etabliert zu haben. Steiner hat sich, im Gegensatz zu vielen seiner Kollegen, gänzlich der Filmmusik verschrieben. Daher verschafft einem die Beschäftigung mit Max Steiner einen guten Einblick, wie Filmmusik wirklich funktioniert. Unterstützt von vielen Zitaten und Notenbeispielen wird im ersten Teil der Monographie gezeigt, wie Max Steiner seine Filmmusik geschrieben hat. Dies beginnt bei der ersten Annäherung an den fertig geschnittenen Film, der schrittweisen Einteilung des Filmes und dem Festsetzen der cues. Max Steiners Musik beinhaltet verschiedene gleichsam formulaische Gestaltungsmerkmale: umfassender Gebrauch von Leitmotiven, häufiges Zitieren eigener Musik, punktgenaues Synchronisieren von Leinwandaktion und Musik, bis hin zum so genannten Mickey Mousing. Der subjektive Gebrauch der Harmonien und die Grundprinzipien der Instrumentierung werden erläutert, sowie die für die Filmmusik auch heute noch typische Kooperation zwischen Komponist und Orchestrator, bei welcher die Komponisten nur die wichtigsten musikalischen Informationen in zwei- bis vierzeilige Notensysteme schreiben, und die Orchestrator dies dann in fertige Partituren ausarbeiten. Während seiner gesamten Karriere arbeitete Steiner lediglich mit drei Orchestrierern. Diese Zusammenarbeit erreichte ein sehr hohes intuitives Niveau, so dass Steiner oftmals nur noch rudimentäre Angaben in seinen Skizzen gemacht hat. Seine Filmmusiken dirigierte er stets selbst, wobei er nach eigenen Angaben fast immer mit Klick arbeitete. Der biographische Teil stützt sich im Wesentlichen auf die bisher unveröffentlichte Autobiographie Max Steiners. Steiner, geboren im Wien des ausgehenden 19. Jahrhunderts, war nach heutigen Vorstellungen ein musikalisches Wunderkind. Sein Vater war, ebenso wie bereits sein Großvater, ein wichtiger Theaterimpresario. Einer seiner Lehrer war Gustav Mahler. Steiners erste Karriere als Komponist, Arrangeur und Dirigent von Operetten und Musicals dauerte an die dreißig Jahre und umfasste die Stationen Wien, London und New York, bevor ihn 1929 der Ruf nach Hollywood ereilte, wo sich seine Bestimmung als Dean of Film Music (Bette Davis) erfüllen sollte. In den fünfziger Jahren, als die Bedeutung der sinfonischen Filmmusik im Allgemeinen abzunehmen begann, verblasste auch langsam Steiners Stern. 1965 schrieb er die letzte von über 300 Filmmusiken. Im dritten Teil wird zum einen mit Hilfe von Originaldokumenten wie Memos oder Briefen und Abrechnungen die genaue Entstehungsgeschichte des Filmes Casablanca nachgezeichnet. Der Leser bekommt zudem aus erster Hand einen Einblick in die Mechanismen der Filmindustrie. Zum anderen wurden Teile der Originalskizzen Steiners sowie der fertigen Partitur zu dieser Filmmusik vom Autor dieses Buches in Klavierauszüge umgewandelt, um so anschaulich zu dokumentieren, wie ökonomisch und dennoch musikalisch stimmig und kunstvoll Max Steiner gearbeitet hat. Darüber hinaus wird durch einen Vergleich einer Passage dieser Filmmusik mit Auszügen aus Wagners Ring des Nibelungen dem Leser veranschaulicht, wie sehr die Filmmusik nicht nur ihre Inspiration, sondern ganz konkrete kompositorische Prinzipien vom spätromantischen Musiktheater übernommen hat. Oder, wie Steiner es einmal ausdrückte: "If Wagner would have lived in this century, he would be the number one film composer". Max Steiner ist einer der herausragenden Protagonisten einer Generation von europäischen Einwanderern, die das kulturelle Leben der USA nachhaltig geprägt haben. Er ist ein wichtiges Bindeglied zwischen seiner Geburtsstadt Wien und seiner neuen Heimat Amerika
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
House of Representatives debate over a bill to call a limited constitutional convention in Louisiana exposed the shoddy, illogical, and evidence-free arguments against it, hopefully propelling it to Senate passage and enactment.
HB 800 by Republican state Rep. Beau Beaullieu, in its current form, would convene legislators plus 27 gubernatorial appointees to meet in committees or as one starting as early as May 30 to review what eligible portions of the constitution should be converted into statute. No later than Aug. 1 the entire convention would begin review of the committees' recommendations with any of these sent forth as a proposition for voter approval accepted by the convention no later than Aug. 15. Separate majorities of representatives, senators, and gubernatorial appointees would have to coalesce for this forwarding. Articles dealing with citizen rights, power distribution, the legislative branch, the executive branch, judges, district attorneys, sheriffs, tax collection, bond funding, the Budget Stabilization Fund, the homestead exemption, state employee rights, retirement matters, and existence of the Southern University System would be off limits to transfer out.
It passed the House 75-27, surpassing the two-thirds supermajority required, with the only GOP member present state Rep. Joe Stagni in opposition but with Democrat state Reps. Roy Daryl Adams, Chad Brown, Robby Carter, and Dustin Miller in favor, with Miller being the only black male among them while all other black Democrats plus the two white Democrat females were against, among those present. Even if badly outnumbered, the opposition went down spewing a lot of hot air.
Basically, they threw out three objections to the bill. First, they claimed legally the convention couldn't be limited. Second, they said the matter was too rushed, leaving insufficient time for deliberation among delegates and within the public. Third, they argued few in the public wanted this.
All such objections, when exposed to scrutiny, are nonsense. There is a question about whether a convention can be limited, as the constitution itself on the matter is silent. But that's irrelevant particularly when each chamber has a veto power over anything that would come out of a convention. If the enabling legislation contains guardrails enacted by two-thirds and more majorities, its reasonable that they would adhere to those at the convention itself.
Nor is the matter rushed at all. Keep in mind that whatever a convention would come up with, it doesn't change anything about how the state is run. Whatever product if approved by voters merely becomes a bookkeeping exercise of transferring constitutional provisions into statute at the end of 2024, and nothing more. That makes it all a very simple question: does the voter support transforming a specified list of constitutional provisions into statute. Nothing is being changed and nothing is going away. And two months of public input during the committee phase, two weeks of public deliberation at the convention, and nearly three months of public discussion prior to the national election date on any end product would be more than adequate for gauging the wisdom of engaging in such a simplified procedural move.
Finally, anybody who thinks elected officials must act solely as mouthpieces for the public, articulating whatever they think the public wants and if they don't think the public cares then ignoring the issue, has no clue as to how to perform their job. Politicians by design are invited to inject their judgment into their governance, as presumably by their positions and successful elections they have demonstrated such aptitude. If they spot something about which the public may seem to be apathetic but that they realize is important to lead the polity to better living, they must pursue it. And even if the public cares and solidly expresses a preference contrary to the better judgment of a politician, that official should act to follow his own conscience even if unpopular. That's what it means to lead, and any elected official that can't do that shouldn't be in office, much less argue for inaction (for the record, a recent news organization poll noted that out of a menu of items only one percent of the public argued having a convention was the most important issue and only just over half even had an opinion about a new constitution, slightly negative).
And even if any of these excuses not to have a convention were valid, opponents ignore the most crucial point of all: any changes must meet with popular approval at the polls. If a majority of the people don't like the product, if they think it was rushed, if they don't see a need for a change, or all of the above, they'll vote it down. There's no reason not to see what a convention comes up with, since the people will have the final say and if approving will signal they agreed with the subject matter, they felt they had enough information about it, and they thought a change was needed.
Senators can't let specious argumentation derail their understanding that, in the short run, to address looming fiscal concerns and, over the long term, to improve the state's economic development fortunes and the life prospects of its citizens they need to start down the road of reform of a state government that wastes too much as a part of spending too much that the straitjacket of a constitution written under a very different political ethos of a half-century ago prevents fixing. Laying out such bad argumentation against this betrays the real goal of those in opposition: maintenance of big government to slake their own thirst for power and privilege and that of the special interests backing them. Don't be fooled by their whining.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
For the umpteenth time, the U.S. and Iran have come close to an open war neither side wants. The Israelis strike a building within the Iranian embassy compound in Damascus, killing senior officers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Iranians, with unintended irony, protest this violation of diplomatic premises, and almost start a war with Israel by launching hundreds of drones and missiles that the U.S., given ample warning, helps to intercept. The Israelis launch a counterstrike to demonstrate its ability to evade Iran's defenses. That appears to end the exchange until the next round.Sooner or later, if the U.S. and the Islamic Republic are going to avoid such a lose-lose conflict, the two sides will need to stop shouting and start talking. Forty-five years of exchanging empty slogans, accusations, threats, and denunciations have accomplished little beyond furthering a few political careers and feeding a sense of self-righteousness. For successive U.S. administrations, Iran remains a problem that will not go away.To paraphrase Trotsky, "You may have no business with Iran; but Iran has business with you." For Iran, the U.S. remains an obsession. The more Iran's hated rulers denounce it, the more attractive it becomes — as both a role model and a destination — to a savvy population suffering from inflation, unemployment, and the stern, misogynistic dictates of an aging and ossified ruling elite.The Islamic Republic, despite the wishes of many Iranians and their friends, is probably not going away soon. In the first months after the fall of the monarchy, the most-asked question in Tehran was, "When are THEY leaving?" (Inhaa key mirand?). Forty-five years later THEY are still in charge and show no signs of packing their bags.Why should we talk to the Islamic Republic, when it has the appalling history that it does? Why should we talk when its overriding policy principle is, in the words of one Iranian official, "opposition to you"? We need to talk because talking (and listening) to an adversary means serving our national interests by communicating. Talking never means either approval of or affection for the Islamic Republic.Talking to the Islamic Republic is not going to bring down that government, persuade the ruling clerics to step aside, or persuade them to stop repressing its women, musicians, journalists, lawyers, students and academics. Talking is not going to end the ruling clerics' bizarre obsessions with controlling every trivial detail of Iranians' private lives. What talking does is allow each side to present its point of view and to correct the dangerous "mythperceptions" that have prevented the U.S. and Iran from breaking out of a 45-year downward spiral of futility.For what has happened when the two sides have not talked? What has happened, for example, when the Islamic Republic's representatives at meetings refuse face-to-face meetings with their American counterparts? What has happened when one side ignores, or rejects outright, proposals from the other to meet in at setting of mutual respect?Whenever two sides — neighbors, relatives, countries — for whatever reason, cannot talk, each side becomes, to the other, simultaneously sub-human and super-human. "Superhuman" means the other is capable of anything. In this case, a superhuman Iran can build and deliver a nuclear weapon in weeks, manipulate proxies to do its will anywhere, and rebuild the mighty Persian Empires of Greek and Roman times. On the other side, a superhuman United States can guide events in Iran and subvert its young people through a powerful, hidden network of agents – journalists, intellectuals, writers, etc. – ready to obey instructions from Washington.As for being "subhuman," in this view neither side is constrained by any sense of morality or humanity. It will do (and since it is also superhuman, can do) anything. In such a case, the superhuman we fear and the subhuman we despise. When such a powerful and evil adversary threatens us, we feel justified in taking any action against it, because that adversary will stop at nothing and has only one goal: to destroy us by any means possible.At one level, leaders in both Tehran and Washington seek to avoid an Iran-U.S. war. Although Tehran's ruling clerics care little for the lives of ordinary Iranians – who would be the victims of such a war – they do care about staying in power and continuing to enjoy their villas and foreign currency accounts. A war with the U.S. would threaten their good life. In Washington, both Democratic and Republican presidents have known that "another stupid war" in the Middle East is a political loser. In 2016, Trump ran against such wars, and his message was powerful. Although he foolishly abandoned the Iran nuclear deal and made a bizarre threat to blow up "52 historical sites" in Iran, he clearly had no stomach for a war. He summarily fired his national security adviser, a paid shill for the cultists of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), when he pushed the president toward confrontation.Does Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu want to drag the U.S. into a war with Iran? To all appearances he does, not only to rid Israel of a declared enemy, but, more important, to keep himself in power. The Israeli premier has used Iran to manipulate the U.S. and even to intervene directly in American domestic politics. The more extreme the rhetoric and actions from Tehran, the better for Netanyahu. It is said he went into mourning when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — notorious for his curious anti-Israeli rhetoric — left office in 2013. But he can usually depend on the Islamic Republic to help him both by overplaying its weak hand and by raising the volume on its tired slogans.Wars often begin with both sides saying they want peace. But miscalculations, underestimating or overestimating the other side, and third-party actions can push a country down a path it knows is self-destructive. Talking to the Islamic Republic will be hard, but it is worth doing if it can keep both sides off a road to disaster.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
In a Sunday interview on MSNBC, President Biden warned the Israeli government that an assault on Rafah would cross a red line, but then immediately undermined that message with contradictory statements. The president stressed that the "defense of Israel is still crucial, so there's no red lines [where] I'm going to cut off all weapons" and he said, "I'm never going to leave Israel." Biden did not spell out what consequences, if any, the Israeli government would face if it crossed the red line and actually launched an assault on Rafah, and the president sapped his warning of any force it might have had by adding so many qualifications of what he would not do. The president's interview remarks reflect the failure of administration policy in which the U.S. uses strong rhetoric to signal its displeasure without making the necessary policy changes to give their warnings teeth. Having failed to take serious measures to challenge or rein in the Israeli military campaign for five months, Biden is in a weak position of his own making. It will be difficult for him to issue demands and warnings that the Israeli government takes seriously because the Israelis have ignored so many warnings before now without paying any penalty. Biden did say that "they cannot have 30,000 more Palestinian dead," but the president wouldn't say what he would do if the assault went ahead and the civilian death toll keeps shooting up. He gave Netanyahu's government no reason to fear that an assault on Rafah would damage the relationship with Washington or affect U.S. support for the war in any way. That makes Biden's warning look like a bad bluff that Netanyahu is only too willing to call. In fact, the prime minister is already calling the president's bluff by saying that the invasion of Rafah is going forward. The president's interview comments were consistent with last week's State of the Union address in which he made several declarations about what Israel "must" do without connecting them to any specific measures he would take if Netanyahu ignored him. The announcement on Thursday that the U.S. would be setting up a temporary pier off the coast of Gaza to bring in more aid was a tacit admission that Biden's "bear hug" approach to Israel had utterly failed to buy the U.S. influence with Netanyahu. If Biden's approach were working, he would not have to resort to absurd and impractical workarounds like the pier and the ill-advised airdrops to avoid confronting Israeli's blocking of aid. When Netanyahu sees the administration tying itself in knots to avoid clashing with him, that is much more likely to encourage the prime minister to press his luck and see how much he can get away with. The U.S. has a serious problem when it comes to restraining its clients because American leaders fear alienating these states and possibly "losing" them to other patrons. The Biden administration is hardly alone in this bad practice, but it is demonstrating how dangerous it can be for the U.S. to enable its clients in their most destructive behavior and then to refuse to impose any costs on them when they go too far. American politicians and policymakers convince themselves that the U.S. needs these clients so much that they surrender all the leverage that Washington has up front and instead obsess over how to "reassure" them that the U.S. will always support them. The president says that he will never "leave" Israel, but that has to be a viable option in any relationship with a client state. The administration needs to bring its policy in line with its rhetoric, and it needs to do it at once. If an assault on Rafah is truly unacceptable to the president, it isn't enough to say that this is a red line for the U.S. The administration needs to show that this isn't an empty threat by spelling out to the Israeli government the specific benefits they stand to lose if they proceed. That should include, but not be limited to, no longer receiving U.S. protection at the Security Council and an indefinite suspension of all military aid. To prove that they are serious, the administration will need to start following our own laws regarding weapons supplies to governments that are committing grave human rights abuses and violations of international law. As long as the "flood" of weapons to Israel continues, nothing that the president and other U.S. officials say about Israel's conduct of the war means anything. Netanyahu will not be easily dissuaded from ordering an assault on Rafah. Last week, he said, "Whoever tells us not to act in Rafah is telling us to lose the war and that will not happen." That makes it essential that the U.S. apply intense pressure now while there is still time to prevent an even greater catastrophe. An assault on Rafah would drive the starving people of Gaza into a major famine. There are already severe famine-like conditions throughout the territory because of Israel's deliberate use of starvation as a weapon. An assault on Rafah would also likely have destabilizing effects elsewhere in the region. The low-level war between Israel and Hezbollah is already threatening to explode into a major conflict, and a Rafah offensive could be the spark that ignites a larger conflagration. There are reports that Iran has given the green light to Hezbollah to escalate in response to such an offensive. The Israeli government has been hinting at its own plans for escalation for months. If there is escalation in the north, it will be a disaster for both Israel and Lebanon.The Biden administration has done a great deal to stoke the war in Gaza and it shares responsibility for the current disaster, but there is still an opportunity to slam on the brakes and prevent even greater loss of life.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Von "degradierten Pussys" und "ehrenhafte Typen": Wie toxische Vorstellungen von Männlichkeit über die sozialen Medien die gesamte junge Generation erreichen – und was das für Schulen, Hochschulen und die Zivilgesellschaft bedeutet. Ein Gastbeitrag zum Internationalen Frauentag von Nina Kolleck und Johanna Maria Pangritz.
Nina Kolleck ist Professorin für Erziehungs- und Sozialisationstheorie an der Universität Potsdam. Johanna Maria Pangritz ist Postdoktorandin am dortigen Arbeitsbereich. Fotos: Thomas Roese, Uni Potsdam/privat.
FEMINISMUS ERSCHEINT OMNIPRÄSENT. Influencerinnen wie Nancy Basile und Kinofilme wie "Barbie" oder "Poor things" setzen neue Standards für weibliche Figuren, brechen mit traditionellen Rollenklischees und tragen dazu bei, die Debatte über Feminismus auch in der Popkultur voranzutreiben.
Doch hinter den Leinwänden florieren die traditionellen Vorstellungen von Männlichkeit. Repräsentative Studien zeigen einen Anstieg sexistischer und antifeministischer Meinungen, besonders bei jungen Menschen. So ergab die Mitte-Studie der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, dass rund zwölf Prozent der Befragten (Frauen und Männer) glauben, Gleichberechtigung bedeute eine Machtübernahme der Frauen. Der Anteil derjenigen, die der Aussage zustimmten, dass Frauen sich mehr auf die Rolle der Ehefrau und Mutter besinnen sollten, stieg von 7,6 Prozent im Jahr 2020/21 auf 10,6 Prozent im Jahr 2022/23.
Aktuelle Forschungsarbeiten belegen zugleich, dass die gesellschaftlichen Vorstellungen von Männlichkeit in Deutschland stark variieren. Eine Untersuchung des Bundesforums Männer ergab, dass mittlerweile 84 Prozent der Männer die Gleichstellung der Geschlechter als wichtig für den gesellschaftlichen Zusammenhalt erachten. Im Jahr 2015 waren es noch 79 Prozent. Umfragen des Survey Centers on American Life in Deutschland wiederum zeigen, dass sich die politischen Ansichten von jungen Männern und Frauen zunehmend unterscheiden. Während junge Frauen in den vergangenen Jahren liberaler wurden, halten junge Männer oft an konservativen Werten fest oder bewegen sich politisch nach rechts.
Die Vorstellungen von Männlichkeit schwanken zwischen modernen Ansätzen (beispielsweise fürsorgliche, sich aktiv an der Kinderbetreuung beteiligende Väter) und traditionellen, bis ins rechte Spektrum reichenden Vorstellungen, die Gleichstellung ablehnen. Auf Social-Media-Plattformen wie TikTok oder Instagram finden letztere viele Anhänger. Einige Kanäle propagieren die Rückkehr zu einer patriarchalen Männlichkeit, erkennen Frauen und queere Menschen nicht als gleichgestellt an. Onlinetrends wie "#TradWife" oder "#cottagecore" stellen Frauen als unterlegen dar oder betonen ihre traditionellen Aufgaben als Hausfrauen – ein Leben allein zu den Diensten des Mannes.
Immer wieder auf Platz 1 der Spotify Podcast Charts
Einige mögen denken: Solche Einflüsse betreffen nur einen kleinen Teil unserer Gesellschaft. Leider ist das falsch. Toxische Vorstellungen von Männlichkeit erreichen die gesamte junge Generation. Influencer wie die Podcaster Hoss und Hopf haben mit ausgefeilten Social-Media-Strategien das Vertrauen der jungen Generation gewonnen und verbreiten erfolgreich ihre frauenfeindlichen Botschaften. Der Podcast befand sich immer wieder auf Platz 1 der Spotify Podcast Charts.
Auf TikTok nutzen Hoss und Hopf eine besonders ausgefeilte Vorgehensweise: Wer ihre Video weiterverbreitet und dafür die meisten "Likes" erhält, dem versprechen die beiden Podcaster regelmäßig einen hohen Gewinn. Wahrscheinlich kennen mittlerweile alle Jugendlichen Personen im Umfeld, die durch die Verbreitung der Videos bereits Geld von Hoss und Hopf erhalten haben. Die Videos werden selbst von TikTok-Nutzer:innen geteilt, die sich sonst kritisch gegenüber Verschwörungstheorien äußern und demokratiefreundliche Ansichten vertreten. Trotz behaupteter Löschung ihrer Videos durch TikTok sind die meisten immer noch online. Das zeigt: Kanäle wie TikTok haben die Verbreitung von Falschinformationen nicht mehr im Griff.
Hoss und Hopf behaupten, dass die Geschlechterrollen evolutionsbiologisch begründet und festgefahren sind. Frauen sollen demnach in Höhlen für den Nachwuchs sorgen, während Männer als Jäger draußen ihre Rolle als Versorger übernehmen. Sie vertreten die Ansicht, dass Kinder auch heute möglichst lange in dieser traditionellen Struktur verbleiben sollten, um nicht zu früh in Kita oder Schule zur Frühsexualisierung verführt zu werden. Männer, die diesen Rollen nicht entsprechen, werden von Hopf als "degradierte Pussys" bezeichnet, da sie nicht eindeutig männlich seien. Im Gegensatz dazu stehen die "ehrenhaften Typen", die den Respekt der Frauen verdienten.
Ein anderer einflussreicher Influencer ist der ehemalige Kickbox-Weltmeister und heutige Unternehmer Andrew Tate. Tate bezeichnet sich selbst als "Frauenhasser" und verbreitet seine frauenverachtenden Botschaften über Plattformen wie TikTok und YouTube. Er wird von Bildungsforschenden als eine der einflussreichsten Personen in Fragen der Erziehung, Sozialisation und Persönlichkeitsentwicklung betrachtet. Hoss und Hopf widmen Tate zwei Folgen ihres Podcasts und beschreiben ihn als bedeutenden Einfluss auf die heutige Jugend.
Tate steht derzeit in Rumänien vor Gericht wegen Vorwürfen wie Menschenhandel, der Bildung einer kriminellen Organisation und Vergewaltigung. Seine Strategie, Frauen zu verführen und sie als „Webgirls“ arbeiten zu lassen, war lange Zeit öffentlich auf seiner Homepage und in YouTube-Videos zu sehen. Viele dieser Inhalte wurden mittlerweile gelöscht, vermutlich aufgrund des laufenden Gerichtsverfahrens. Seine Männlichkeit, die Frauen unterwirft, ist geprägt von finanziellem Erfolg, physischer und mentaler Stärke sowie der Ansicht, dass er und seine Männlichkeit in der heutigen Gesellschaft benachteiligt sind.
Schulen spielen eine Schlüsselrolle im Kampf gegen diese gesellschaftliche Spaltung
Obwohl Tates Kanal teils ebenfalls auf verschiedenen Plattformen gesperrt wurde, verbreiten sich seine Botschaften weiterhin. Für viele Menschen weltweit ist Tate eine Ikone und ein Orientierungspunkt im Leben. Die Diskussion über diese Person ist in Schulen, Familien, Hochschulen und der Bildungsforschung weltweit präsent und nicht mehr wegzudenken. So zeigen Studien etwa von Wissenschaftler:innen der Monash University, dass Lehrerinnen in Australien vermehrt Misogynie erfahren, da Jungen durch Tates Ideen beeinflusst und radikalisiert werden. Ebenso konnten Wissenschaftler:innen von der University Liverpool und dem University College London den Einfluss von Tate auf männliche Jugendliche feststellen.
Hinter der Weltanschauung, die Tate, Hoss und Hopf und andere vertreten, liegt die Annahme, dass die westliche Männlichkeit bedroht ist und in der Krise steckt. Diese Veränderung der Geschlechterverhältnisse wird mit dem Verlust patriarchaler Männlichkeit gleichgesetzt und die wahre Männlichkeit als benachteiligt dargestellt.
Es ist höchste Zeit, dieser gesellschaftlichen Spaltung aktiv entgegenzutreten. Bildungspolitik, Schulen und Hochschulen spielen dabei eine Schlüsselrolle. Sie sollten den Mut haben, einen offenen Dialog über Geschlechterbilder und die Spaltungen in unserer Gesellschaft zu führen. Schulen müssen zu diesem Zweck die Medienbildung, die digitale und politische Bildung stärken, um den Schüler:innen zu helfen, Informationen kritisch zu hinterfragen, Quellen zu überprüfen und verschiedene Perspektiven zu berücksichtigen. Gleichzeitig müssen Schulen Medienkompetenz vermitteln, damit Schüler:innen manipulative Inhalte in sozialen Medien erkennen und für Geschlechtergleichstellung eintreten können. Dafür müssen auch die Lehrkräfte entsprechend aus- und fortgebildet werden, wichtig sind zudem gezielte Programme zur Förderung von Geschlechtergleichstellung und -diversität für Lehrkräfte sowie Schüler:innen.
Es braucht aber noch mehr. Wer sich für Gleichstellung und Menschenrechte einsetzt, muss deren Gegner:innen dort schlagen, wo sie besonders erfolgreich sind: in den sozialen Medien. Parteien, Zivilgesellschaft, soziale Bewegungen, NGOs, Vereine und Bildungseinrichtungen müssen daher dringend ihrerseits aktiver und kreativer bei TikTok, Instagram und YouTube werden und ansprechende Videos produzieren. Es darf keine Alternative sein, diese Plattformen den Gegner:innen von Demokratie und Aufklärung zu überlassen. Der Trend zu Falschinformationen und Menschenfeindlichkeit lässt sich nicht nur mit dem Zeigefinger bekämpfen, sondern mit Rollenvorbildern, die zeigen, was wirklich cool ist: eine gerechte und inklusivere Gesellschaft.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
MUNICH, GERMANY – The Munich Security Conference came to an end today but not before EU leaders warned that international "winds" might be blowing against the West on the issue of Israel's war in GazaWhile the international meeting this weekend entertained manifold topics — from the role of the Global South to the importance of AI and food security — the Ukraine war dominated the conference, with Gaza coming in second at a considerable distance. But the focus on Israel's military operations grew more intense as the confab drew to a close, between yesterday afternoon and Sunday morning. In the press center, for example, the current situation in Gaza vied for attention with the death of Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's speech on Saturday.Indeed, Rafah was an often-repeated word Sunday in the Bavarian capital. The day before in a televised news conference, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that "total victory" against Hamas would require an offensive against Rafah once people living there evacuate to safe areas. It is difficult to see how the concept of a "safe area" can apply to any place in the Gaza Strip today. At least 28,985 people have been killed and 68,883 injured (mostly civilians) in the Gaza Strip since October 7, when 1,200 Israelis were killed and over 250 hostages taken during a Hamas attack against Israel. In a side event Sunday organized by the Consulate General of Israel in Munich, the press was shown a video, about 10 minutes long, documenting Hamas atrocities on October 7.According to the United Nations, over 75% of the Gazan population has been displaced, many multiple times. There is also a severe lack of food, medicine, and other essential items because of Israel's decision to let only a trickle of the aid trucks into Gaza needed to maintain basic conditions of life. Addressing the audience in Munich, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell stated that peace in the Middle East requires "a prospect for the Palestinian people" and that "the security of Israel will not be ensured just by military means." In a reference to the war in Gaza, he noted that "Russia is taking good advantage of our mistakes. The blame about double standards is something that we need to address and not only with nice words. It is clear that the wind is blowing against the West." Borrell appears to share a worry openly expressed by some of the European leaders — such as Spanish president Pedro Sánchez and Irish prime minister Leo Varadkar — who have been even more critical of Israel. The concern is that Europe's failure to rein in Israel will undermine global support for Ukraine and discredit the European discourse on the importance of international law.Borrell, in sharp contrast with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, has represented the most vocal position within the EU on the growing death toll and humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza after October 7. Earlier this week, the EU top diplomat replied to Biden's recent description of Israel's military conduct in Gaza as being "over the top." Borrell noted that "if you believe that too many people are being killed, maybe you should provide less arms in order to prevent so many people being killed." Borrell has long supported a ceasefire but any EU decision on the matter requires unanimity, and countries like Germany, Austria, and Hungary are not on board.American ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield said yesterday that the U.S. will veto an Algerian proposal for a ceasefire in Gaza to be taken up at the UN Security Council on Tuesday. According to Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. is working hard for "a sustainable resolution of the Gaza conflict," and the Algerian resolution would endanger this. In an oft-repeated dynamic over the last months, the U.S. is basically asking the international community to trust that Washington's diplomatic pressure will force Netanyahu to change course. Such an approach has failed once and again, and there is no clear reason to believe this time will be different. Yesterday afternoon, Qatar's Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani noted that the efforts to reach an agreement between Israel and Hamas have been dominated by a pattern that "is not really very promising."Part of the U.S. approach to the current conflict has also been to demand that the Palestinian Authority (PA) reforms itself. Washington hopes the PA can govern the Gaza Strip after the war ends, but Netanyahu has been adamant it does not envisage any role for the PA in the Gaza Strip in the future. The Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh was in Munich on Sunday, remarking in an interview that the PA — which has grown even more unpopular in the West Bank after October 7 — is already working on introducing reforms. Shtayyeh said that the recent insistence on the topic only seeks to divert attention from the Israeli military operation in Gaza, however. In his view, Netanyahu's interest today is "to keep the war going" and argued that "Netanyahu's war is going to continue until the end of the year." The Palestinian leader was supposed to be present at a press briefing around midday, but the event was canceled on short notice due to "scheduling reasons." In a panel with his Spanish and Canadian counterparts, Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi was one of the last Arab leaders to speak in Munich. He used the opportunity to note that "Israel cannot have security unless Palestinians have security."This afternoon, the Munich city center was returning to its normal state after an intense weekend of both open and closed-door meetings featuring top leaders from Europe and beyond. As security barriers were being removed and the 5,000 police officers deployed for the event, many of them from other parts of Germany, returned home, it wasn't hard to note that beyond all the talk, the world's thorniest problems, including two major conflicts, are left unresolved.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Today, I had one of my favorite ski days of my life: my sister is a great ski buddy, the conditions here were quite good, and skiing my fifth day in a row (never have I ever done that before) meant I am skiing about as well as I ever have and challenged myself pretty well. So, to celebrate, I thought I would rank my fave ski days, which is distinct from my fave ski places (there is some overlap, of course). The highest we could go without hiking--there was a long line of folks hiking from a nearby liftto get to the top, but we were not so compulsive. Today with my sister Susan. Recency bias? Maybe. We had great snow here a few days ago, but a bad experience with a ski instructor put a damper on that day. Today? My sister who is a bit less confident and much less experienced was quite willing to travel far and wide across the mountain today. Willing to go in the trees--as long as they met my preferences of being wide apart and not on a steep slope. Plus many of them were more like shrubbery, and I have always been wanting to meet the Knights who say Ni! We played in a gully that had fun stuff on both sides, we went down some steeps, we went to the top of the mountain which was finally opened after several windy days. My skiing is peaking after so many days in a row plus three days at Alta last month.My only medical interactionwith the ski patrol was receiving an off the record bandaid.Oran and Arthur are super fun toski with. JC? Hmmm. :) Last year with JC and his family at Lake Louise. JC and his family are also great ski buddies. I love Lake Louise, and was able to show them around the mountain. The only bump in the road ended up being a bump on my face as I face planted on a flat part, leading to more blood loss than any other Steve ski experience I have had some amazing bluebird days.At this time, Susan really hated traverses, so this ridge run was notmuch fun for her. It was for me, one of myvery favorite trails'A couple of years ago at Whistler with Susan. Each time at Whistler seems to be better than the last. This one led to my exploring the Blackcomb side, which, yes, may be better than the Whistler side. We had super blue skies and good conditions on the ground.Cullen isn't there anymore, but to quote Jackfrom Lost: "We need to go back!!!"A pre-book promotion trip to Copper with Cullen Hendrix. Cullen was a great host, directing us all around the mountain, avoiding moguls neatly. I loved the place, and then he took me into the back bowls, which were awesome. So many times with my daughter, it is hard to figure out which one but probably one of our trips to Sutton or Orford in the Eastern Townships or Tremblant. It was great watching her improve and then seeking out small bumps so that she could get a few inches of air.Honorable mentions: my two hours at Whistler due to my daughter having sore legs; skiing in Chile during a research trip, Alta this winter with my sister and one of her pals, Smugs/Jay Peak with my family and my wife's pals, various Lake Louise trips on my own, a half day with Roland Paris at Sunshine. Least favorite ski days: Hunter Mountain with my brother as I slid for 100s of meters after falling on a very icy trail, Hunter Mountain during the senior class trip as it rained on us and I had to waste time waiting to be tested to see if I could ski on my own, the day my wife and I hurt our knees in separate accidents at Mount Sutton (one of my fave places near Montreal).How is my skiing better? Partly I am less fussed about the snow--I am less concerned with skiing the snow immediately in front of me (maybe a function of how great the snow is, east coast skiing means trying to avoid ice and ice nodules). I am more pointed downhill with my upper body thanks to a lesson a few years ago. The first lesson of the week at Rusutsku emphasized going up and down to unweight the skis, and that is working nicely. Oh, and thanks to skiing with my generous sister, I have gotten more lessons the past few years than in the previous 20. Even the subpotimal lesson here at Niseko (she took us immediately into deep powder on the first run rather than building up to it and took a while to provide some specific suggestions, some that conflicted with other lessons) had some useful info. I have also been trying to reverse an old age trend--getting nervous about speed. I have had some thrilling runs this week. Oh, and my fave ski places are now:Whistler and it remains not so closeNiseko---just so much fun terrain including widely spaced trees and shrubs and a great gully and fun steeps.Lake LouiseCopperAlta SunshineRusutsuJay Peak TremblantSutton I may be changing this listing as I hope to hit the Austrian Alps this winter during my time in Europe. I am very lucky, as my body has held up for this sport, unlike for ultimate. Good thing I don't need to cut hard in this sport.So lucky to have these opportunities, so very grateful.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
The people of Gaza are facing one of the worst man-made famines in recent history.The combined effects of bombing, displacement, and blockade have driven an already vulnerable population into severe, widespread hunger. This is not some accidental byproduct of conflict. Critics like Human Rights Watch charge that it is the result of a deliberate Israeli government policy to punish the entire population of Palestinians in Gaza for the crimes of Hamas. Now we are seeing the calamitous consequences of that policy for more than two million people, 90% of whom have been displaced from their homes over the last three months.Last month, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) initiative released a report on Gaza warning that a quarter of the population is now in the worst, catastrophic phase and that the entire population is highly food insecure and at risk of famine. According to the report, this is the highest level of acute food insecurity that the IPC has ever measured in a particular territory. Case in point: everywhere else in the world, there are roughly 130,000 people in IPC 5, the catastrophic phase, and in Gaza there are more than half a million. Arif Hussain of the World Food Program told the New York Times earlier this month, "I've been to pretty much any conflict, whether Yemen, whether it was South Sudan, northeast Nigeria, Ethiopia, you name it. And I have never seen anything like this, both in terms of its scale, its magnitude, but also at the pace that this has unfolded." The WFP says that almost every Palestinian in Gaza is going more than a day without eating anything, and when there is an opportunity to eat, there is only a tiny amount to be split among extended families. According to reliable news reports, food is so scarce that people resort to eating whatever spoiled and rancid food they are able to find. Mothers with infants are so malnourished that they cannot nurse their babies, and what little food there is has become prohibitively expensive. The blockade of commercial imports means there is no way to meet the basic needs of the population. In northern Gaza, where infrastructure has been wiped out and aid deliveries are impossible, conditions are even worse than in the rest of the Strip. The UN emergency relief coordinator, Martin Griffiths, has said, "Gaza has simply become uninhabitable. Its people are witnessing daily threats to their very existence – while the world watches on."The Israeli government's policies are creating this disaster. Based on its analysis of Israeli government actions and official statements since October 7, Human Rights Watch has concluded that the Israeli government is using starvation as a weapon of war, which is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. The New York Times quoted Omar Shakir, Human Rights Watch's Israel and Palestine director, "For over two months, Israel has been depriving Gaza's population of food and water, a policy spurred on or endorsed by high-ranking Israeli officials and reflecting an intent to starve civilians as a method of warfare." The Israeli government denies the charges that it is hindering aid, and points to the deliveries that have been let in, but this defense strains credulity. The small amount of food and fuel that is allowed in must first go through a laborious, time-consuming inspection process, and the aid that makes it through is insufficient to meet the needs of millions of uprooted people in a territory otherwise cut off from the outside world. Scholar Alex de Waal wrote in a new article that "the catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza is a deliberate act. Gaza is a starvation crime scene." He explains that "[t]he rigor, scale and speed of the destruction of OIS [objects indispensable to survival] and enforcement of the siege surpasses any other case of man-made famine in the last 75 years." De Waal has written an important history of modern famine, Mass Starvation, in which he wrote about the recent atrocity famines that have been created in this century in Yemen, South Sudan, Sudan, Uganda, Nigeria, Syria, and Somalia. The U.S. government response to what is a new "atrocity famine" in Gaza has been poor and inadequate. Secretary of State Antony Blinken was in Israel Tuesday, and acknowledged the need for aid to get in and said that there "far too many" deaths in Gaza. But he did not assign blame to Israel and like all administration rhetoric, would not put any weight behind it. Continued unconditional support for Israel's military campaign and Washington's stubborn opposition to any resolution calling for a ceasefire at the U.N. have meant that there is little or no pressure on the Israeli government to change course. As Israel's principal patron and arms supplier, the U.S. bears significant responsibility for both the campaign and the policy of collective punishment to which it belongs. The only way to avert large-scale loss of life from hunger and disease in Gaza is an immediate ceasefire and a lifting of the siege. The longer it takes to secure a ceasefire, the more innocent people in Gaza will die preventable deaths. Staving off famine in Gaza should be Washington's top priority. If the U.S. does not act in time, it will be a black mark on our national reputation and one of the greatest foreign policy failures in our history.In Biden's first year as president, the State Department made the unpopular move of reversing the previous administration's designation of Ansar Allah, a.k.a., the Houthis, as a terrorist organization. The decision to remove the Houthis from the list of terrorist organizations was done because of the threat of famine to Yemeni civilians that the designation had created. The administration made the right call then to preserve the lives of innocent civilians, and it must do so again now.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Wir leben in einer Gesellschaft, die sich nur durch Steigerung erhalten kann (siehe Vortrag von Hartmut Rosa), die also von Wachstum abhängig ist. Die steigende Produktion muss aber auch Abnehmer finden. Würden wir nur das kaufen und konsumieren, was wir benötigen, wäre das Ende der Fahnenstange schnell erreicht. Und hier kommt die Konsumgesellschaft ins Spiel. Wer diese Gesellschaftsformation, die sich in den USA etwas früher, in Westeuropa nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg herausgebildet und in den 1980er Jahren vollständig durchgesetzt hat, verstehen will, dem sei die Lektüre von Zygmunt Baumans 2007 erschienenen Buchs "Consuming Life" empfohlen, das auch in deutscher Übersetzung vorliegt: Zygmunt Bauman (2009), Leben als Konsum, Hamburger Edition. Dieses Buch und damit eine Analyse zentraler Elemente der Konsumgesellschaft wird im folgenden Text vorgestellt. Alle nicht anderweitig gekennzeichneten Zitate stammen daraus.
Kennzeichen der Konsumgesellschaft
Die in der Gesellschaft der Produzenten aufgewachsenen Älteren unter uns sind an folgendes Szenarium gewöhnt: Es gibt auf der einen Seite Objekte, die gewählt bzw. gekauft und konsumiert werden, und auf der anderen Seite Subjekte, die wählen, kaufen, konsumieren. Oder anders ausgedrückt: Waren und Käufer. Wenn man dieses Modell auf die Konsumgesellschaft überträgt, geht man an der Wirklichkeit vorbei, weil in ihr jeder Käufer (Subjekt) gleichzeitig Ware (Objekt) ist.
Wenn junge Menschen im Internet ihre persönlichen Daten, Merkmale und Gewohnheiten preisgeben, dann deshalb, weil sie (vielleicht unbewusst) verstanden haben, dass sie Ware sind. Wer unsichtbar bleibt, verschwindet als Ladenhüter in den Magazinen. Als Ware ist der Mensch z.B. potentieller Lebensgefährte oder Arbeitnehmer. Die zwischenmenschlichen Beziehungen werden somit zu Begegnungen zwischen Käufern und Waren. Dabei muss der Einzelne darauf achten, sich so zu präsentieren, dass er als Ware attraktiv ist.
Ein Arbeitsuchender z.B. ist für einen Personalchef attraktiv, wenn er so ungebunden und flexibel wie möglich ist, anpassungsfähig und immer bereit für neue Aufgaben, und den die Firma entlassen kann, ohne viel Geschrei oder gar Rechtsstreitigkeiten fürchten zu müssen.
Die Gesellschaft von Produzenten ist auf Langfristigkeit, Dauerhaftigkeit und Sicherheit angelegt. Man übt Bedürfnisverzicht in der Gegenwart, um sich in der Zukunft dafür etwas leisten zu können, das einem wichtiger ist. Man spart z.B. auf ein Haus oder ein Auto. In der Konsumgesellschaft ist das sofortige Befriedigen momentaner Bedürfnisse zum Lebensmittelpunkt geworden. Man nimmt z.B. Schulden auf, um mit einem attraktiven neuen Auto losfahren zu können. Damit einher geht ein von Wirtschaft und Werbung gefördertes Hasten zu immer neuen und größeren Wünschen.
In einer solchen Gesellschaft ändert sich die Vorstellung von Zeit. Bisher hat man sich die Zeit als eine ununterbrochene Linie vorgestellt, die aus der Vergangenheit kommt, die Gegenwart durchläuft und sich in die Zukunft hineinbegibt. Für die Zeitvorstellung der Konsumgesellschaft sind die Begriffe "pointillistische Zeit" und "gebrochene Zeit" geprägt worden. Man muss sie sich nicht als eine Linie vorstellen, sondern als unverbundene Punkte.
"Pointillistische Zeit ist zersplittert, ja geradezu pulverisiert zu einer Vielzahl von "ewigen Augenblicken" – Ereignissen, Zwischenfällen, Unfällen, Abenteuern, Episoden." (S. 46) "(Das Leben ist) eine Abfolge von Gegenwart, eine Verknüpfung von Augenblicken, die mehr oder weniger intensiv erlebt werden." (S. 47) "Würde man eine Karte des pointillistischen Lebens zeichnen, so hätte sie eine geradezu unheimliche Ähnlichkeit mit einem Friedhof für imaginäre, eingebildete oder fahrlässig vernachlässigte und unerfüllt gebliebene Möglichkeiten." (S. 47) Für das menschliche Verhalten hat das gravierende Folgen. Man lebt ausschließlich in der Gegenwart, versucht, diese so gut wie möglich zu nutzen (carpe diem), und kümmert sich weder um die Erfahrungen der Vergangenheit, noch um die Konsequenzen seiner Handlungen in der Zukunft, und schon gar nicht um die Ewigkeit (memento mori). Und man empfindet diese Handlungsweise als Ausdruck seiner individuellen Freiheit.
Bei einem Fehlschlag hätte man früher (in der Gesellschaft der Produzenten) einen neuen Anlauf genommen, sich mehr angestrengt oder konzentriert und vielleicht mit einem verbesserten Werkzeug gearbeitet. In der Konsumgesellschaft wird der Plan fallengelassen. Wenn es sich um eine Beziehung handelt, wird diese kurzerhand beendet. Der Ausruf Fausts "Könnt ich zum Augenblicke sagen: Verweile doch, du bist so schön!" stößt in der Konsumgesellschaft auf Unverständnis. Es wäre so, als wolle man einen Punkt der pointillistischen Zeit zu einer Geraden verlängern wollen.
Der Übergang von der Gesellschaft der Produzenten zur Konsumgesellschaft wird als Entwicklung hin zu persönlicher Freiheit verstanden, der den Menschen von vielfältigen Zwängen (Routine, verpflichtende Verhaltensmuster, Bindungen) befreit und ihm endlich die Wahl lässt, sich zu verhalten, wie er will. Diese angeblich freie Wahl aber ist eine Illusion. Der Mensch kommt vom Regen in die Traufe. Er kann moralische Zwänge abwerfen, unterliegt aber neuen Zwängen. Es sind die Zwänge des Konsumgütermarktes, deren Gesetze nun zu Lebensgrundsätzen werden.
Man erwartet von denen, die sich diesen Regeln unterwerfen, "dass sie sich auf dem Markt anbieten und in Konkurrenz zu den übrigen Mitgliedern einen möglichst hohen "Marktwert" anstreben." (S. 83) Sie müssen unter den angebotenen Waren "jene Werkzeuge und Rohstoffe (…) finden, die sie benutzen können (und müssen), um dafür Sorge zu tragen, dass sie selbst "für den Konsum geeignet" und damit markttauglich sind." (S .83) Wer sich diesem Spiel verweigert, wird mit Exklusion bestraft.
So wenig, wie Glück und Freiheit in der Konsumgesellschaft zugenommen haben, so wenig hat das Leid abgenommen, es ist nur anders geworden. Früher galten Moralgesetze mit einer Fülle von Verboten, deren Übertretung zu Schuldgefühlen und im schlimmsten Fall zu Neurosen führten. In der Konsumgesellschaft werden die Neurosen von den Depressionen abgelöst. Sie entstehen dadurch, dass das Übermaß an Möglichkeiten, die die Gesellschaft bietet, zu Angst vor Unzulänglichkeiten (Zeitmangel, Geldknappheit) führt und diese Angst Depressionen auslöst.
Die Konsumgesellschaft wäre nicht, was sie ist, wenn sie nicht auch dagegen ein Heilmittel anböte. Es besteht darin, die Punkte, aus der die Zeit besteht, mit Handlungen zu füllen und von einem Punkt zum nächsten zu eilen.
"Permanente Aktivität, bei der eine dringliche Aufgabe auf die andere folgt, gibt einem die Sicherheit eines erfüllten Lebens oder einer "erfolgreichen Karriere", die einzigen Beweise der Selbstverwirklichung in einer Welt, aus der alle Bezüge auf ein Jenseits verschwunden sind.(…) Allzu oft ist Handeln nur eine Flucht vor dem Selbst, ein Heilmittel gegen den Schmerz." (S.125/126). Wie "funktioniert" die Konsumgesellschaft?
Sie beruht auf einem inneren Widerspruch, den sie mit allen Mitteln kaschieren muss. Auf der einen Seite ist ihr proklamiertes Ziel das glückliche Leben, nicht irgendwann im Jenseits, sondern im Hier und Jetzt. Auf der anderen Seite muss sie danach trachten, dass ihre Mitglieder dieses Ziel nicht erreichen, weil das den Stillstand im Warenumsatz und damit den Verlust des Fundaments bedeuten würde, auf dem sie aufgebaut ist.
"Die Konsumgesellschaft floriert, solange sie erfolgreich dafür sorgt, dass die Nicht-Befriedigung ihrer Mitglieder (und damit in ihren eigenen Begriffen ihr Unglücklichsein) fortwährend ist." (S. 64) Die Wirtschaft muss um jeden Preis angekurbelt werden. "Schulden zu machen und auf Kredit zu leben, ist in Großbritannien mittlerweile Teil des vom Staat entworfenen, abgesegneten und subventionierten nationalen Lehrplans geworden" (S. 104). Der Wirtschaftskreislauf, der nicht unterbrochen werden darf, besteht darin, Umsatz und Kauflust dadurch anzukurbeln, dass immer neue und (angeblich) bessere Produkte auf den Markt kommen und die Entsorgung der ausgedienten Produkte organisiert wird.
Beispiele für diesen Prozess reichen von den schnurlosen Telefonen, die immer mehr und bessere Funktionen haben müssen, um den Konsumenten davon zu überzeugen, ihre alten Geräte zu ersetzen, bis hin zu Online-Partnervermittlungen, die den Schwerpunkt darauf legen, ihre Kunden dahingehend zu beraten, wie sie unerwünscht gewordene Partner rasch und sicher loswerden können.
Die Folge von alledem ist, dass in einer Gesellschaft mit konsumorientiertem Wirtschaftssystem "Unbehagen und Unglücklichsein, (…) Stress oder Depressionen, lange und sozialunverträgliche Arbeitszeiten, zerfallende Beziehungen, Mangel an Selbstvertrauen" (S. 63) zunehmen. Die Konsumgesellschaft verspricht Glück, macht aber die Menschen unglücklich. Damit ist der "Konsumismus (…) nicht nur eine Ökonomie des Überschusses und des Abfalls, sondern auch eine Ökonomie der Täuschung" (S. 65).
Körperkult in der Konsumgesellschaft
Mit dem Aufkommen der Konsumgesellschaft kann man eine gesteigerte Hinwendung zum Körperlichen beobachten. Sonnenstudios, Fitness-Studios und Schönheitssalons sind wie Pilze aus dem Boden geschossen. Schönheitsoperationen haben in großem Umfang zugenommen. Warum?
In der Konsumgesellschaft ist der Mensch selber zur Ware geworden. Den Vergleich mit der hohen Qualität des hergestellten Dings jedoch muss er scheuen. Der Mensch schämt sich wegen der offensichtlichen Unvollkommenheit seines Körpers (prometheische Scham). Und wähnt sich vor die Aufgabe gestellt, seinen Körper zu vervollkommnen. "Als nackt (…) gilt heute nicht mehr der unbekleidete Leib, sondern der "unbearbeitete"" ( S. 80).
Körperkult auf der einen Seite, eine veränderte Haltung zur Zeit auf der anderen haben zu der Überlegung geführt, die unzusammenhängenden Punkte der Zeit dafür zu nutzen, sich neue Identitäten zu schaffen, um damit das Ärgernis zeitlich begrenzten Lebens wenigstens teilweise dadurch aus der Welt zu schaffen, dass man sich mehrere Leben zulegt. Das Mittel dazu ist die körperliche Veränderung durch Schönheitsoperationen, wobei von Anfang an die Möglichkeit von Folgeoperationen ins Kalkül gezogen wird. Es gibt bereits Firmen, die Kundenkarten für Folgeoperationen anbieten. Eine entsprechende Flatrate wird nicht lange auf sich warten lassen.
Der Siegeszug des Fastfood
Wo keine dauerhaften Bindungen entstehen können und auch nicht erwünscht sind, hat die Familie einen schweren Stand. Eines der Integrationselemente ist das gemeinsame Essen meist selbst zubereiteter und manchmal sogar gemeinsam produzierter Speisen. All das schweißte die Gruppe zusammen und ließ Bindungen entstehen. Die Zunahme der Beliebtheit von Fastfood, die natürlich auch – und vielleicht vor allem – auf mangelnde Zeit und/oder Lust zurückzuführen ist, ein Essen selber zu bereiten, hat als Folge, dass Bindungen schwerer entstehen können, kann aber auch als Folge davon gesehen werden, dass Bindungen nicht gewünscht sind. "Fastfood ist dazu da, die Einsamkeit einsamer Konsumenten zu schützen" (S. 103).
Zwischenmenschliche Beziehungen
Wenn der Mensch zur Ware wird, wirkt sich das auf die zwischenmenschlichen Beziehungen aus. Aus ihnen verschwinden Fürsorge und Verantwortung für den anderen und machen radikalem Egoismus Platz. "Konsum ist alles, was für den "sozialen Wert" und das Selbstwertgefühl des Individuums von Bedeutung ist" (S. 77). In einem Ratgeber ("Der Cinderella Komplex") warnt Colette Dowling: "Im Impuls, für andere zu sorgen, und in der Sehnsucht, von anderen umsorgt zu werden, lauert die schreckliche Gefahr, abhängig zu werden, die Fähigkeit zu verlieren, die Strömung auszuwählen, die sich derzeit am besten zum Surfen eignet, und leichtfüßig von einer Welle zur anderen zu hüpfen, sobald sie die Richtung ändert."
"Der Raum, den flüchtig-moderne Konsumenten brauchen, für den sie, so der Rat von allen Seiten, kämpfen und den sie mit Zähnen und Klauen verteidigen sollen, kann nur dadurch errungen werden, dass man andere Menschen aus ihm hinausbefördert – vor allem jene Art von Menschen, die fürsorglich sind und/oder die es nötig haben könnten, dass man für sie sorgt" (S. 69). Der ideale Konsument
"(Er) lebt von einem Augenblick zum nächsten.(…) Sein Verhalten ist impulsiv, entweder, weil er nicht die Disziplin aufbringen kann, eine gegenwärtige Befriedigung einer zukünftigen zu opfern, oder weil er gar keinen Sinn für Zukunft hat. Vorausschauendes Handeln ist ihm daher völlig fremd; was er nicht sofort konsumieren kann, hat für ihn keinerlei Wert" (S. 175) (Zitat aus dem Buch von Ken Auletta: The Underclass)
Kürzer und genauer könnte man den typischen Vertreter der Konsumgesellschaft nicht charakterisieren. Bei dem Zitat handelt es sich allerdings um die Charakterisierung des Verhaltens eines typischen Vertreters der sogenannten Unterschicht.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
The ideological left and political consultants were the biggest losers in Louisiana's 2023 general election, as the state went back to the future with new heights attained in the political career of Republican Atty. Gen. Jeff Landry, who fewer than a dozen years ago looked to have little future in politics but now becomes the lodestar for genuine, far-reaching conservative policy change.
Landry assumed an additional title this past weekend: governor-elect, when he bested a field of a 15 with 52 percent of the vote, avoiding a runoff. Nobody else came close – Democrat former cabinet member Shawn Wilson (26 percent) barely got half of Landry's total and the combination of Republican former gubernatorial official Stephen Waguespack (5.9 percent), Republican Treas. John Schroder (5.3 percent), independent trial lawyer Hunter Lundy (4.9 percent), Republican state Sen. Sharon Hewitt (1.7 percent), and Republican state Rep. Richard Nelson (0.3 percent, comprised of voters who didn't get the memo that he had withdrawn about a month ago) that drew barely more than a third of Landry's haul even as collectively they spent in 2023 $9.2 million through nearly the end of September, only $400,000 fewer than did Landry.
This result reverberates on different levels. Perhaps the outright general election win, only the second by a newcomer to the Governor's Mansion after Republican Bobby Jindal's second try in 2007, was predictable. Landry's first campaign in 2007 saw him fall fewer than 600 votes short from defeating a sitting Democrat state representative for a state senate seat, and in his next in 2010 he knocked off a former speaker of the House on the way to winning a congressional seat.
His only sharp defeat came in 2012, when reapportionment put him in a district that didn't favor him geographically. He passed on a Senate run in 2014 as sitting GOP then-Rep. Bill Cassidy consolidated support while GOP then-Treas. John Kennedy deferred while patiently waiting on GOP Sen. David Vitter to run for governor the next year that, whether Vitter won, would create an open seat.
With Kennedy still serving as treasurer in 2015, which if open could have served as an easy landing spot for Landry and with his political shelf life deteriorating, he planned a bold move to keep his hoped-for career going. He took on Republican, formerly Democrat, Atty. Gen. Buddy Caldwell in that year's elections, and, again displaying prodigious campaign skills, took him down.
Fates aligned for him with this win. With Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards' surprise win over Vitter that year and the subsequent policy-making pressure he applied to expand government sometimes through unlawful, if not unconstitutional, means, Landry was presented with many chances to use the powers of his office to thwart these, giving him a natural policy megaphone and ability to demonstrate fidelity to conservatism in action. That slew of opportunities only increased when Democrat Pres. Joe Biden took office and began doing much the same.
The free publicity and ensuing consistent deliverables by his winning many legal battles against leftist overreach (one that played out the day before the election) – and even his losses confirmed his willingness to tackle without reservation the rot of leftism – combined with his formidable campaign skills made his general election win possible. Although this will disappoint political consultants, who looked to suck a few more million bucks from a gubernatorial runoff. Instead, Landry now has a considerable war chest for 2027.
That thought only will add to the heartburn suffered by the left that now must endure at least four years of policy misery, as without Edwards the trickle of conservative policy gains over the past several years will intensify into a dam burst over the next few with Landry leading on likely legislative and certainly Board of Education and Secondary supermajorities along with his appointments. And it harkens back to 2007, when Jindal came to office with similar enthusiasm behind his ascension.
Yet things back then were somewhat different that, in retrospect, should have tempered enthusiasm. While reformist sentiments were well present in that election, another major part of Jindal's win came as a buyer's remorse reaction to his narrow loss in 2003 and subsequent bungling in office by Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco. This shallowness of conservative policy-making soil translated into his not having a Republican majority in the Legislature until almost the end of his first term and on BESE only by the grace of his appointments to it.
However, insufficient conservative numbers wasn't the only problem that limited how much of a conservative agenda Jindal could achieve. After a year into his second term, Jindal began to orient his policy-making more towards a national audience that subverted progress in favor of potential electability. For example, this interference ended up sabotaging tax reform and stopping progress in educational reform.
That premature curtailment of conservative gains seems set to end in 2024 with Landry at the helm. He is every bit as ideologically committed as was Jindal but without the distraction of desiring a career past state boundaries. To the political left, that makes him even more dangerous and likelier to succeed in finally turning the ship of state away from foundering waters into smoother seas.
Jindal was the precursor needed to start an extensive demolition of the liberal populism that has held Louisiana back for so long (some minor efforts and short-lived achievement of this having occurred under Republican Gov. Buddy Roemer). The legacy Landry promises to leave, especially if having eight years to do so, would be to build a far different and much improved edifice on the rubble of Louisiana's dysfunction that the left has foisted onto it for so many decades. Maturation leading to post 20th-century politics finally may have arrived in Louisiana.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
In March, a survey about which values were important to people got a lot of attention. It seemed to show that people had shifted away from concerns with family and community and towards a concern with money. I raised some questions about the interpretation of the survey and said that I would look for other data, but forgot to follow up on it. I was reminded by a column by David Brooks the other day. It's called "To be happy, marriage matters more than career," and the summary on my phone says "Yet parents sends the opposite message to the young." Presumably Brooks didn't write those (and nobody copy-edited the summary), but they give a pretty good distillation of his column. Basically it's the same conclusion that he (and others) drew from the earlier survey: that people are turning away from personal relationships and focusing on careers and money. Before addressing that question, I'll have a digression about money, marriage and happiness. Married people definitely report being happier than unmarried people, and it's a big difference. But it's not clear that marriage makes more difference than money. Here are two tables calculated from cumulative GSS data. One compares (limited to those aged 30 and up) people or are or were married to people who have never married; the other compares people with a family income of less than 100,000 to those with an income of $100,000 and up, using a GSS variable that converts the original values to constant dollars. Both of the classifications produce roughly 90%/10% splits of the sample. Very Pretty Not tooEver married 35% 54% 11%Never married 19% 61% 21%Less than 100K 31% 56% 13%> 100K 43% 52% 5%The gaps are of similar size. The more usual way to look at it is to contrast married people with unmarried people--that produces a bigger gap. However, if you marry, you have a chance of eventually becoming divorced or widowed; if you don't marry, you don't. So in terms of how getting married will affect your chances of being happy over your lifetime, the comparison of ever married vs. never married is better.Back to the main topic. One of Brook's pieces of evidence is from Gallup surveys: "Fewer people believe that marriage is vitally important. In 2006, 50 percent of young adults said it was very important for a couple to marry if they intended to spend the rest of their lives together. But by 2020 only 29 percent of young adults said that." But the Gallup report concludes by noting that a large majority of unmarried people say that they hope to get married someday and says "their evolving attitudes about marriage may reflect increasing acceptance for how others lead their lives rather than a profound shift in their own lifestyle preferences." Brooks also cites a Pew survey in which "88 percent of parents said it was 'extremely or very' important for their kids to be financially independent, while only 21 percent said it was 'extremely or very' important for their kids to marry." But the Gallup interpretation can apply here too--with marriage, most parents will support whatever choice their children make. With work, there is a sense that it's obligatory. This is partly practical, but partly moral--if someone said that work just didn't appeal to them, and that they intended to get by on a combination of government programs and private charity, many people would be indignant. But to say that people need to have a career is not the same as saying that people should put their career ahead of everything else.The kind of question we need to choose between these interpretations is one that directly asks people to choose which is more important--personal relationships or money/careers. I found one that comes pretty close in a 2011 CBS News/60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll: "If you had to say, which one of the following things do you think is most important in determining how happy you are in life. 1. A rewarding career, 2. Being close with your family,3. Having good health, 4. Having a lot of money, or 5. The area where you live?"56% said family, 27% health, 6% where you live, 6% career, 3% money, and 3% didn't know. The standard demographic variables didn't make that much difference, except for age--younger people were more likely to choose career as important and older people were more likely to choose health. Those differences probably represent age rather than generational shifts. In any case, family was by far the leading choice in all age groups, with 50%-60%--the shifts involved the other choices. This question hasn't been repeated since 2011, and in principle there could have been a big shift in values over the past few years. But I doubt it---changes in things like that tend to be gradual. [Data from the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research]
In relation to the topic, the formal absence of a legal text called the constitution of the European Union is noticeable. Simple logic dictates the conclusion that in absence of European constitution, there is no constitutional law of the European Union. However, the reality is much more complex than it seems. The United Kingdom, for example, does not have a written act called a constitution, but instead several constitutional contents whose sources are in laws, legal practice and so-called constitutional customs. Germany also formally does not have a constitution, but a Fundamental Law that pursue a constitutional role. The term is not apparently so important but the status of the text. The constitution is a set of norms that are supreme, stable and difficult to change. It accords competences to the state bodies and guarantee essential civil rights and freedoms. The relevant question in this case is the existence of constitution and constitutional law of the European Union, not in a formal, but in an essential sense. The European Union does not have the characteristics of a unitary, but could it be considering as a federal state? In political-legal theory, opinions appeared that such a thing is impossible for the following reasons. As an example of the emergence of a federal state, the history of the United States of America is cited. According to the constitution of 1878, the US received competences in foreign affairs, defense, monetary policy, as well as in the field of protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. The European Union rested on the process of federalization in the economic area. The treaties establishing the Community and the Union have merged the national markets of the member states into one. Originally the European Communities did not have powers in foreign affairs, defense, security and justice. Only in 1993, with the Maastricht Treaty, the newly created European Union get the possibility to take decisions in the aforementioned areas, but even then federal mechanisms were not applied. The rule was unanimous decisions of represents of member states government reassemble in the Council of EU. The state sovereignty was preserved. For the obvious lack of authority at the supranational level, the European Union cannot currently be considered as a classic federal state. However, it can be observed as a sort of federal community, which was originally intended to evolves into something more than that. In a historical sense, this situation in itself is not new. It also appeared in the 19th century with the so-called emerging federal states such as the United States of America, the Swiss Confederation, Germany, Canada or Australia. However, the European Union is a permanent political-legal structure that has certain attributes of a federal state. The notion of a federal community, allows to take into account the essential role of the member states in such system of integration. The federal community as a permanent entity, rests on the contractual relationship that defines the common goals of its members. The aforementioned goals in practice change the internal conditions in the member states, but also their global political status. Several indications point to the federal nature of the European Union. The use of the term Union is not harmless. The founding fathers of the US Constitution of 1878, called their new created federal state Union in order to mark the difference with the previously existing Confederacy. The inspires of the European Union in the constitutive treaty emphasize that its main goal is to constantly create closer ties between European nations. This sentence indirectly indicates a strong, integrative, federal dynamic. In its legal practice, the Court of Justice does not ignore the initial international nature of constitutive treaties, but points to the following. The treaties establishing the Communities and the European Union represent the basis of an independent, hierarchically organized legal order, the kind that states have. As the highest legal act and source of law, they have a constitutional function. The law of the European Union is directly integrated into the law order of the member states and has primacy in relation with the national law. The legislative acts of European derivative law (regulations, directives, decisions) cannot contradict the provisions of the founding treaties. Like the Supreme Court in a federal state, the Court of Justice of the European Union control the compliance of legislative acts with constitutive treaties. The same principle applies in the field of international relations. An international agreement concluded by the European Union or its member states must be in accordance with the provisions of the founding treaties. Their constitutionality is checked by the Court of Justice. The Lisbon Treaty gave the European Union another federal distinction. It recognizes to the European Union a possession of legal personality, which means a full legal capacity to conclude international agreements with other countries and international organizations. The division of competences between the federal state and its members is for many the essence of the federalist legal order. The parallel existence of two levels of government imposes the need to clearly demarcate the fields of action of one and other authorities. In 2009 the Treaty of Lisbon established a principled delimitation of European and national competences. This is another step in the direction of federal legal regulation. The existence of European citizenship gives to the European Union one more federal characteristics. European citizens acquire rights and obligations parallel to those related to national citizenship. Opponents of such a solution were those who believed that the Union represents only an international organization. The founding treaties assign competences to the institutions of the Union, as well as guarantee basic human rights and freedoms. The legislation of the European Union determines the functioning of the member states and in many areas directly or indirectly governs the life of their citizens. Treaties establishing the European Union have in practice a constitutional role and value.
