The Nick Lezard controversy... new developments
6 minutes ago
It is in this way that hanging out takes on its symbolic value as a ritual. Rather than displacing masculinity onto a set of actions, hanging out frees men from purpose and allows them to experience an elementary and fundamental sense of togetherness. Hanging out converts a profound sense of absence into a pure connection, without any obligation to move to action, words, or “feelings,” and that takes pleasure simply by existing in shared space.
It should be well understood that federalist and anti-federalist alike favored limited government that acted according to the will of the people. The difference between these parties (although they would not have described themselves as partisans) was one of degree: The federalist favored a stronger, more dynamic national government while the anti-federalists desired a union where the states would be the dominant force in the federal configuration. Curiously, these differences became more marked in the years that followed the ratification of the Constitution and the resulting fissure that appeared eventually ripped the fabric of the union in two pieces: North and South.
But serving and retired Chinese officers make no secret of their country's aspiration to develop up to four larger, indigenous carriers by around 2020.Do they really need 4 aircraft carriers to carry out their "foreign policy goals"? Aren't there cheaper ways to counter the US Navy? And Taiwan is close enough that airstrikes can be launched from the Mainland, no? It might be more worrisome if they increased the size of their submarine fleet.
The future of Project Guadalupe is in jeopardy, isn’t it? How could that be, and how can there be a solution? Peace talks between the fund and the administration?
I am so glad you came to Notre Dame to see just part of our overall Project Guadalupe. You came to the very successful Notre Dame Vita Institute, which is an intensive two-week summer academic program dedicated to educating participants about fundamental human-life issues. The 25 initial participants were terrific, as you saw, and we trust that what they gained at the Vita Institute will aid them in their respective and important work. The Vita Institute is a key stage of the overall project, but it is linked to pro-life curriculum development and (we hope) an interdisciplinary master’s program.
These efforts aim to ensure that Notre Dame plays a crucial role in forming the next generation of pro-life leaders. This endeavor is off and running, and yet the administration seems determined to choke it in infancy by forcing out the person who has designed it and brought it into being — namely David Solomon.
You ask, “How can there be a solution?” The answer is rather simple. There is no need for “peace talks.” Instead, the administration should give this effort its enthusiastic support, including allowing the employment of appropriate staff. That is what an “unambiguously pro-life institution” should and must do. How the administration acts on this matter over the coming year will reveal much about the kind of institution Notre Dame is and plans to be.
Has David Solomon been the victim of retaliation? Can that be fixed?
David Solomon had the courage to speak in opposition to Notre Dame’s honoring of President Obama. This stance certainly seems to have led to recriminations against him. Already, one effort was made to oust him from his directorship of the Center for Ethics and Culture (CEC), but this was foiled because of fear of bad publicity for Notre Dame. But the administration seems determined to move him on without any concern for the damage that would do to the important work of the CEC. In doing so, the administration is removing the person whose great pro-life work was recently recognized by the national University Faculty for Life organization with its annual Smith Award. The administration seems to want to neuter the person who has been the leader of our pro-life efforts at Notre Dame. It is little short of a disgrace.
We need a firm statement from the administration that David Solomon will continue in his duties until all stages of Project Guadalupe are up and running. Notre Dame should be a place that appreciates and celebrates all that he has done and is doing.
You know what real socialism would be? A genuinely freed market without the state-enforced artificial scarcities, subsidies and privileges that big business currently enjoys. In a freed market, all the benefits of increased productivity from technological progress would be socialized through market competition. In a freed market, competition would flush the embedded rents on artificial property and artificial scarcity out of the price of goods, and drive price down to production cost. In a freed market, labor would receive its full product instead of paying tribute to the rentier classes. In other words, socialism.
As a market anarchist, I want both totally free markets and genuine socialism — not a choice between fake “socialism” and fake “free markets.”
Wherein does the problem lie? In the same problem-wandering wasteland of most of Catholic spirituality and our interior lives: between what we perceive to be the impossible ideal and what we indiscriminately accept to be reality. Both of these poles often go unexamined, unquestioned, and either untried or unchallenged. In terms of the view of love provided by the romantic comedy genre, the ideal falls short insofar as it is wrapped up in the expectation of romantic gestures and emotional love feelings separate from the after-the-credits, stark daily beauty of the “will” to sacrifice when feelings fade. It leaves the viewer with the perception of love that stops short at the flutter of butterflies, and it incites some serious re-thinking of commitments when the concept of soulmates loses its catchy intrigue and sparkly, shiny transcendentalism. On the other hand, though, the “realistic” is also insufficient to the degree that it makes acceptable any subjective action taken to satisfy a love that expresses “who I am” and “what I need” and “what no one should tell me about how to live my life.” It is the deal-with-it mentality that leaves no room for a conversation about a productive attempt at shaping, refining, progressing, or becoming something more by means of the mutual firing of relational true love.
The Principles are as follows:
1. Health-centered Food System
The driving principle of the Farm Bill must be the relationship of food and ecologically sound agriculture to public health. Food that promotes health includes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, seeds, legumes, dairy, and lean protein. Improving the health of the nation’s residents must be a priority in developing policies, programs, and funding.
2. Sustainable Agricultural Practices
Promote farming systems and agricultural techniques that prioritize the protection of the environment so that the soil, air, and water will be able to continue producing food long into the future. Integral to both domestic and global agricultural policies should be agricultural techniques and farming practices that enhance environmental quality, build soil and soil fertility, protect natural resources and ecosystem diversity, improve food safety, and increase the quality of life of communities, farmers and farm workers.
3. Community and Regional Prosperity and Resilience
Enhance food security by strengthening the viability of small and mid-scale farms, and increasing appropriately scaled processing facilities, distribution networks, and direct marketing. Develop strategies that foster resiliency, local innovation, interdependence, and community development in both rural and urban economies. Opportunities that create fair wage jobs are key to a strong economy.
4. Equitable Access to Healthy Food
Identify opportunities and reduce barriers by developing policies and programs that increase the availability of and improve the proximity of healthy, affordable, and culturally-relevant food to urban, suburban, and rural populations. Protect the nation’s core programs that fight food insecurity and hunger while promoting vibrant, sustainable agriculture.
5. Social Justice and Equity
The policies reflected in the Farm Bill impact the lives and livelihoods of many people, both in the U.S. as well as abroad. Develop policies, programs, and strategies that support social justice, worker’s rights, equal opportunity, and promote community self-reliance.
6. Systems Approach to Policymaking
It is essential to reduce compartmentalization of policies and programs, and to approach policy decisions by assessing their impact on all aspects of the food system including production, processing, distribution, marketing, consumption, and waste management. Consider the interrelated effects of policies and align expected outcomes to meet the goal of a comprehensive healthfocused food system.
But genuine welfare for the poor, like TANF and food stamps, barely amounts to a CBO rounding error. Adding up the so-called "defense" budget, two unfunded wars, "national security" spending on DHS, CIA, DOE and NASA, and interest on debt from past wars, the bulk of the federal government's budget goes to welfare for the Military-Industrial Complex.
Indeed, the dominant feature of the American polity is welfare for big business and the rich. This welfare consists of a wide array of government interventions into the market to enforce artificial scarcities and artificial property rights.
These interventions include patents and copyrights. They include enforcement of absentee title to vacant and unimproved land, which has never been altered by human labor -- the only legitimate means of appropriating land in a free market (in fact, the government pays landowners tens of billions to hold land out of cultivation). They include enforcement of entry barriers to free competition in the supply of credit. And they include enforcement of regulatory cartels, mandated artificially high capital outlays, and all sorts of other entry barriers.
The cumulative effect is to make land and capital artificially scarce, impose overhead costs and other penalties on self-employment, and raise the price of the means of production and subsistence relative to the price of labor. As a result, government intervention shifts income from those who work to those who live off the rents of artificial property rights and artificial scarcity.