Suchergebnisse

The party may escalate on the southern border with Israel, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will reach the level of bombing cities.

In an industry that thrives on innovation, we must be cautious of holding successful companies back in the name of competition.
The post In Attacking Apple, the Department of Justice Fails to Grasp the Essence of Progress appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

The Arab world 'has too much history and not enough geography'. Savour that vivid phrase as the essence of Bob Bowker's fine memoir of life as an Australian entranced by a Middle East that is ...

Today, economic sanctions are generally regarded as an alternative to war. But for most people in the interwar period, the economic weapon was the very essence of total war. The... READ MORE
The post The History of Economic Sanctions as a Tool of War appeared first on Yale University Press.

The Warren‐​Marshall crypto anti‐​money laundering bill that's being shopped as a response to Hamas's October 7th pogrom is bad public policy that would, in essence, grant terrorists veto power over the lawful use of technology. U.S. policy should not give terrorists the right to deny technology to those using it to lawfully and constructively build.

A region's competitiveness is manifested in the commercial success or failure of its companies. In essence, improving competitiveness means increasing productivity. European competitiveness and productivity growth have been deeply linked to the ability to promote innovation and use new technologies that are capable of transforming productive sectors and companies. In recent years, however, European investments […]
La entrada Why the D9+ Group should provide stronger leadership in European digital policy se publicó primero en Elcano Royal Institute.

Can the act of assigning a score to someone constitute a decision? This, in essence, is the question the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had to answer in Case C-634/21. And the Court's answer is yes, following in the footsteps of the Advocate General's opinion on the case. Rendered on 7 December, this ruling was eagerly awaited as it was the first time the Court had the opportunity to interpret the notorious Article 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) prohibiting decisions "based solely on automated processing".

One of the key promises made during this election by both the NDP and the UCP has been to get Alberta off the resource revenue roller coaster, reduce volatility, and bring fiscal stability to the province. In essence, what the parties are promising is that, under their watch, adequate funding for the services and infrastructure Albertans rely upon will no longer depend on the global price of oil and gas. This is an important and laudable goal. The question is whether the suite of policy planks being put forward by either of the two contenders will actually help achieve the promised stability.

Earlier this month, the Indian Supreme Court delivered a judgment in a reference pertaining to the law and scope of legislative privileges under the Indian Constitution. The primary question before the court was whether legislative privileges extend to the protection from prosecution of a legislator who receives a bribe to speak or vote in a certain manner in the legislature. In the following sections of this post, I'll first discuss the existing law on legislative privileges in India, which is unique in its origination and formulation. I'll then argue that there is a need to reconceptualize the understanding of legislative privileges in order to support the legislative systems in performing their roles and functions in their true essence.

On 15 December 2023, the Swiss Federal Council (Government) announced that it intended to start formal negotiations with the EU on the conclusion of a Framework Agreement (FA) 2.0. Five existing and two new treaties between the EU and Switzerland are to be subject to dynamic alignment and institutionalised, i.e. provided with a monitoring and judicial mechanism. The project, which is practically fixed in the decisive questions by a "Common Understanding" ("CU") between the two parties, is based on a triple B approach: in substance, it consists of unsuccessful bricolage, the foundations were laid by bullshit, and because elections and a change of the Commission are imminent in the EU, bustle is supposedly of the essence. The CU summarizes what the Parties have informally agreed on.

We have an awful lot of people trying to insist that climate change simply should not be a political issue. John Harris is just one of them:In the UK, unfortunately, the past 48 hours has seen a political story whose parochialist absurdity is off the scale: Conservative voices undermining the fragile cross-party consensus on reaching net zero by 2050 and calling for many of the UK's tilts at climate action to be either slowed or stopped. The reason? The results of three parliamentary byelections – and, in particular, the views of 13,965 Conservative voters in the outer London suburbs.But climate change is the very essence of a political issue, something that has to be decided by politics. No, leave aside the question of whether it is happening, even that of whether anything should be done about it. Stick with just the one point - if we're to do something what is it that we should do? Net Zero? A carbon tax at the social cost of carbon? As it happens the science prefers the second rather than the first there. So no one can use "but the science" to decide on the first. But very much more importantly there's a big political question here. Britons are being told to carry the cost of lower emissions so that others may gain the benefits of lower emissions. This is something that can only be done with the acquiescence of Britons. Elections are how we decide those things. What we do about climate change is the very essence of what a political issue is. Therefore rather than no politics about climate change we must have lots and lots more.This is before a rather more sarcastic observation we'd like to make. The same people - largely that is - who argue against this democracy about climate change are those who shout for a "more democratic economy". Surely that couldn't be because they think the demos would vote for their economic policies but against their climate ones now, could it?

I participated in the "8th Global Communication Summit", sponsored by Emerson College and Blanquerna School, at the Watergate Hotel in Washington. The keynote speech was given by legendary journalist Bob Woodward (in the picture), the one who, together with Carl Bernstein, launched fifty tears ago the Watergate scandal that led to president Richard Nixon's resignation.My panel was titled "The Ukraine War - A West European perspective". My presentation was updated from several posts in this blog linking to published articles. In essence:- After the US Cold War victory thirty years ago, following more closely Winston Churchill's advice at the end of World War II, '"In victory, magnanimity", would have promoted a more peaceful and cooperative world.- The Ukraine War is mainly the result of a sustained conflict around unstable borders between two empires: the democratic European Union and the autocratic Russian Federation, both of which, in contrast to more stable nation-states, expand and contract. Therefore, any solution should include not only financial transfers and military aid, but agreement over territories.- Diplomacy, including secret negotiations, would be very welcome.

After unveiling a monument to the genocide denier Peter Handke a few years ago, local authorities in Banja Luka – the largest city of Bosnia's Serb-dominated Republika Srpska entity – are now building a massive monument to the soldiers of the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) who died in the war of 1992–95. The memorial site in Banja Luka is not the first dedicated to the VRS. On the contrary, it follows the example of other towns and municipalities in the Serb-dominated areas. Together, they form an illiberal politics of remembrance developed by Bosnia, and especially Republika Srpska, since the end of the war in the 1990s. This memory politics is marked by the denial of war atrocities and the glorification of war criminals. The ongoing construction of the monument in Banja Luka shows that, almost thirty years after the conflict, there is a need to establish a new and comprehensive legal framework for memorialization in Bosnia. In essence, memorialization should be aligned with human rights and enable the development of a democratic culture. To achieve this twofold goal, constitutional and legislative reforms are needed.

 There are many different answers to the question of what Marx and Spinoza have in common, theories of ideology, materialism, naturalism, and so on, to name a few that have been discussed on this blog. To this list Margherita Pascucci adds that perhaps what Spinoza and Marx have in common is the common itself. This is is claim put forward in Potentia of Poverty: Marx Reads Spinoza (part of the Historical Materialism series, currently it is only out as a hardcover, but it will be out from Haymarket in the Spring). In making such a claim Pascucci focuses on the intersection of not just Marx and Spinoza, but the way in which they both assert in different ways, the primacy of the epistemology and ontology of relation. As Pascucci writes, "The commodity in Marx and the common notion in Spinoza are both defined through an other. This 'other' which defines them is the common among two or more things. In the case of the commodity, this common has a character of abstraction--it disappears at a certain point; in the case of common notions, this common is something material, that which, common to a body and other bodies, brings the trace of relation and allows for knowledge."As they used to say in graduate school, lets unpack this claim. First, we have the common notion in Spinoza, the second kind of knowledge, beyond the imagination. As Spinoza writes in Proposition 37 and 38 of Part Two of the Ethics:P37. What is common to all things, and is equally in the part and in the whole, does not constitute he essence of any singular thing.P38 Those things which are common to all, and which are equally in the part and the whole, can only be conceived adequately. Common notions are understood in terms of both their genesis and their logic. In terms of their genesis let us begin with the simple and most basic encounter, walking around in the house in the dark I bang my shin against something, I do not know what. This is an encounter marked by pain and confusion, by the affects of sadness and hate. Those affects give shape to what could be called the inadequate ideas in which how something affects me and what something is are confusedly muddled in my scream of "ow, shit! what the fuck?" In that encounter there is still something in common, something that can be conceived adequately, I know something about my body, its materiality, and about whatever I ran into in the dark. I know that it is matter too, it has density and hardness. This commonality is incredibly general, but it is the basis for the construction of other common notions. Later, in Proposition 40, Spinoza contrasts common notions, which do not define the essence of any singular things, with the universal. The universal is attempt to define the essence of a singular thing, to understand what quality defines humanity, as rational or political animal, or even featherless biped. However, the problem with this particular essence is precisely the variability of particulars. As Spinoza writes, "But it should be noted that these notions are not formed by all in same way, but very from one to another, in accordance with what the body has been more often affected by, and what the mind imagines or recollects more easily. For example, those who have more often regarded men's stature with wonder will understand by the word man an animal of erect stature. But those who been accustomed to consider something else will form another common image of men--for example that man is an animal capable of laughter, or a featherless biped, or a rational animal."In contrast with a universal burdened with an often unstated particularity we have the common as that which is common to all and particular to none.Okay, what does this has to do with the commodity? Here one only has to think of Part One of Capital.  Value can only be expressed in relation. This is the point of all those formulations about linen and coats. As Marx writes, "The value of linen as a congealed mass of human labour can be expressed only as an 'objectivity' [Geganständlichkeit], a thing which is materially different from linen itself and yet common to the linen and other commodities." There are a lot of jokes, and memes, about the laborious process Marx goes through to show two things: first, that the value of a commodity cannot be shown through itself, a coat is worth a coat is tautology, and that the value any commodity can be expressed through any other commodity. As much as this section seems to go on a bit too long, and with unnecessary precision, its fundamental point, a point that comes out in relation to Spinoza, is worth stressing, and that is that the common, the relational is there even at the heart of capitalism. In capitalism commodities relate even if we remain isolated as subjects of freedom, equality, and Bentham.This brings us back to Pascucci's point, that the difference between the commodity and the common notion is that while the common notion is common to all and in the part and the whole, both my shin and the end table (or whatever I ran into) have extension and mass, value of the commodity is not common to all materially, but is abstracted from it. This abstraction underscores the brief, all too brief discussion of money that takes place in Capital between the general form of value and the famous section of commodity fetishism. Money is of course the general equivalent, it is why we do not go around expressing the value coats, tea, and corn, in the form of linen. Money is the materialization of the abstract idea. As Balibar writes in his little book on Marx, "Money is then constantly reproduced and preserved by its different economic uses (unit of account, means of payment, being hoarded or held in 'reserve' etc.) The other side of this materialization is, then, a process of constant idealization of the monetary material, since it serves immediately to express a universal form or an 'idea."Here is the difference this difference makes. I often think of the opening section of Capital as Marx asking a question that we do not ask in daily life: how are two disparate and different commodities equivalent? We do not ask this question because it presents itself as already answered. Money is the answer. Money is the condition of the equivalence of the disparate and distinct. This is another reason as to why I think that Marx's commodity fetishism section covers the same problem as the Appendix to Part One of the Ethics. In other words, the common, the commonality of labor is obscured in the fetish of the money form. This is not a consideration, much less a review, of the entirety of Pascucci's book. I have not even gotten into the discussion of poverty and subjectivity, parts that I have some serious questions about, but her reflections on the common in Spinoza and Marx not only sheds light on a different commonality between the two, one that ultimately sheds light on the common itself. 

Apparently we've all got to be poorer. Well, yes, again, but this time it's because: The global extraction of raw materials is expected to increase by 60% by 2060, with calamitous consequences for the climate and the environment, according an unpublished UN analysis seen by the Guardian.Natural resource extraction has soared by almost 400% since 1970 due to industrialisation, urbanisation and population growth, according to a presentation of the five-yearly UN Global Resource Outlook made to EU ministers last week.To get a handle on the sort of size of number they're talking about: Each year, the world consumes more than 92b tonnes of materials – biomass (mostly food), metals, fossil fuels and minerals – and this figure is growing at the rate of 3.2% per year.Of course we don't, in fact, "consume", we borrow for a bit. That old phrase of dust to dust, ashes to ashes, is true at the planetary system level. Say, the use of metals - we might dig them up out of one hole, use them then stick them back in another, mine to landfill, but we've not consumed them.But OK, so 92 billion tonnes, call it 100bn. Up by 60%, let's give them an inch and call it 200 billion tonnes. Big number.Except: The lithosphere consists of sediments and crystalline rocks with a total mass of 23,000–24,000 × 10x15 metric tons.24,000,000,000 billion tonnes.200 billion is 0.0000008%In a million years we'll use under 1% of it (assuming we've got the right number of zeroes there all the way through).This is such a problem that: ""Higher figures mean higher impacts," he said. "In essence, there are no more safe spaces on Earth. We are already out of our safe operating space and if these trends continue, things will get worse. " which we think might be a bit of an exaggeration. "The report prioritises equity and human wellbeing measurements over GDP growth alone and proposes action to reduce overall demand rather than simply increasing "green" production." Ah, yes, we must be more equal and poorer as a solution. How did we guess that is what would be suggested? "Decarbonisation without decoupling economic growth and wellbeing from resource use and environmental impacts is not a convincing answer and the currently prevailing focus on cleaning the supply side needs to be complemented with demand-side measures," Potočnik said." That, again, means make everyone poorer.Yes, sure, 200 billion is a big number even when speaking about government budgets and deficits. But the size of the Earth is a really, really, big number. Against which 200 billion is a grain of a smidgeon of a smear. It's simply not an important nor relevant number nor percentage. It's a great excuse to impose perpetual poverty upon the population, of course it is. But it's not a good reason. Because a big number of a very big number is a small number.