Proclaimed the time was neither wrong nor right. I have been one acquainted with the night.
This final stanza is so beautiful-sounding. Plus, I love the ambiguity: Is it that time itself has no right or wrong but just is, or are the lines referencing the speaker's life and whether or not the time is right or wrong for something personal that's undisclosed?
the sheer scale of the universe
Or, again, what about the possibility of worm holes, or ... make it so ... warp speed!
70,000 warheads to below 14,000; the halting of the once-growing hole in Earth's ozone layer by banning chlorofluorocarbon emissions; and the 1982 international whaling moratorium.
Kind of a pathetic track record when you think of how far we have to go. I love whales, but...come on—the researchers are stretching hard.
While such civilizations may not completely abandon space exploration, they would not expand on scales great enough to make contact with Earth likely.
Hmm. I would like to know from which societal framework this assumption is coming, e.g., is this from a framework of capitalism, and therefore making the assumption of a bottomless consumption of resources? Could there be, say, a global socialist-humanist planet that also explores space, not to claim territory or conquer sentient beings but for admirable purposes? It is true that aliens are not visiting us, though, and that absence is a very striking absence when you think about it. Damn it, Jim, it's making me think!
The scientists stress, however, that their suggestion is simply a hypothesis, taken from the observation of laws that seem to govern life on Earth, and is designed to "provoke discussion, introspection and future work."
Damn it, Jim, you ARE making me think!
across the stars
Worm holes, though. What if there were worm holes? Or even time travel? But not the woo-woo idea of time travel. It could be that our linear construct of time is all we can currently understand about the way time works; that there are other ways time might be bent or even just better understood in a fundamental way.
The only alternative path is to reject a model of "unyielding growth" in favor of maintaining equilibrium
Such a paradigm shift could also save us from certain extinction—due to, say, climate change, or water shortages, or loss of top soil, or mass bee die off, or a nuclear winter, or toxic hold music, etc.
The Con- stitution makes no reference to abortion,
Nor does it mention when "life" begins!
Historical inquiries of this nature are essential when- ever we are asked to recognize a new component of the “lib- erty” protected by the Due Process Clause because the term “liberty” alone provides little guidance. “Liberty” is a capa- cious term. As Lincoln once said: “We all declare for Lib- erty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing.”20 In a well-known essay, Isaiah Berlin re- ported that “[h]Jistorians of ideas” had catalogued more than 200 different senses in which the terms had been used.”" In interpreting what is meant by the Fourteenth Amend- ment’s reference to “liberty,” we must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what that Amendment protects with our own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy. That is why the Court has long been “reluctant” to recognize rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution.
These two graphs on "liberty" are walking straight into meaninglessness. For one thing, surely the framers of the Constitution (most of whom held others in human bondage--and enjoyed every cruel act that comes with that--and were considered to be in charge of their wives) would have anticipated that in the future "liberty" could mean something different than it did then and be applied to others besides white males of the upper class. Or they didn't think that, but that is the reality nonetheless.
And in this case, 26 States have expressly asked this Court to over- rule Roe and Casey and allow the States to regulate or pro- hibit pre-viability abortions.
Yes, but WHO is doing the asking? The people are not doing the asking; legislators, politicians and special interest groups maybe, but definitely not the people.
demeaning
Nope. What's demeaning is taking away our bodily autonomy.
unborn human being’s heart begins beating;” at eight weeks the “unborn human being begins to move in the womb;” at nine weeks “all basic physiological functions are present,” at ten weeks “vital organs begin to function,” and “fhjair, fingernails, and toenails begin to form;” at eleven weeks “an unborn human being’s diaphragm is developing,” and he or she “may move about freely in the womb;” and at twelve weeks the “unborn human being” has “taken on the human form in all relevant respects.”
And after her menstrual period begins, a female, or anyone with a womb, has a fully developed MIND and should be able to make it up for herself/themself. It's called a person's right to self-determination, and THAT needs to be protected.
Except in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall not inten- tionally or knowingly perform or induce an abortion of an unborn human being if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being has been determined to be greater than fifteen (15) weeks.”
No concern at all for victims of rape and/or incest. This is egregiously cruel.
resolved like most important questions in our democ- racy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.”
Oh really? Then how come the people never got to vote on whether corporations are people? That's a decision that materially benefits elected officials supposedly representing us. That ruling fails to benefit the people in a fundamental way: e.g., if you can't raise enough funds from corporate donors, you can't run a successful political campaign in this country. SCOTUS makes it sound like this is a "for the people, by the people" democracy. When, in fact, that has never been the case, especially when you take a view across color lines and when you take into account the Electoral College.
Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.
Fast forward in history and this flimflam SCOTUS decision too will be looked at as egregiously wrong. And it will set a president for taking away things like trans rights...because why? Because, as indicated above, the constitution says nothing about trans rights? Please.
Americans continue to hold passionate and widely divergent views on abortion, and state legislatures have acted accordingly.
This is an assumption and/or outright deliberate falsehood: States often do not act according to the wishes of their citizens. That's plain to see with regard to abortion rights, war, policing, healthcare, student loan debt, and etc.
Abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Amer- icans hold sharply conflicting views.
Right out of the gate the language is misleading: Polls show that approximately 70% of Americans are pro-choice.
Unilever
Unilever is perhaps not the best example here, since Unilever has a long and disturbing history in Africa that reveals, at best, zero compassion; at worst, major exploitation.
we must become the museum archivists of our digital work
Yes! Like preserving one's personal intellectual history.
Part of our task as educators who are asking students to produce, comment upon, and store their readings is to grow increasingly aware of what steps we all may need to take to preserve and move our documents across different spaces rather than simply expect our digital files to stay the same over time.
I love the implicit student agency here: like, you have important thoughts, ideas, thought processes, etc., that are worth preserving.
However, even if the specifics of how we handle and dis-tinguish between different forms of digital infrastructure may change, the goal of this chapter remains to raise some questions and concerns about what it means to archive ev-idence of reading long-term and to provide some strategies for guiding students through understanding how they can maintain or destroy archives of their learning.
Just learning the basics of archiving, and the importance of it, regardless of storage options, seem valuable. In recent years I explored the archiving process for a friend's recently deceased parent. There were some surprising things about the process, but this is a bit off-topic.
ends with a picture of Einstein having sex with a mythological beast.
I mean, yeah, this proves that sex sells ... even when there's nothing to buy.
Probably It Will Be Summer Again
"Probably" could mean a lot of things in the poem. To me, the first thing that comes to mind, sadly, is climate change.
Kathleen Ebbitt offers practical advice on talking to privileged people about their privilege.
Need more articles like this!
hooks
Rest in power, bell hooks!
the humanities are at risk
The arts have never gotten their full due, but it seems like they are very much needed right now. And it further appears that people are finding their inner artist during this global pandemic time. Maybe this is part of shifting personal priorities—and in turn that will scale up valuing the arts. Too optimistic?? :>
This first photo says it all: Look how threatened empire is by Black people standing up for basic human rights. Fifty plus years later and peaceful protesters are getting tear gassed and threatened by militarized patrols at Black Lives Matter protests. History doesn't so much repeat as continue when it comes to Black lives.
they are endowed by their Creator
So who did they see as their "Creator," and did they see that "Creator" as the same for the people they had in chains and/or those they were wiping out through genocide? That cognitive dissonance is and continues to be inextricably woven into capitalism. Now we have legacy cognitive dissonance, which allows capitalist imperialists to do unspeakable things to people of color both here and abroad.
Evolvable: Everyone thinks differently. I would like a tool with building blocks you can remix and evolve for new ways of thinking, new use-cases. An open-ended tool you can repurpose to your creative needs.
An exploration of the different ways people think could be a really cool and positive tool for evolving toward greater compassion for one another.
Building a Second Subconscious
I feel like I could use something like this to order my thoughts! For some reason, too, I feel that this could help to understand poetry; maybe even to write it as well.
The gist is that I’m building a creative oracl
So intriguing!
If that is the future we want in our classrooms, institutions, and societies, now is the time to be brave.
This post is definitely on the #RightSideOfHistory
It has invited me to focus less on critique and more on ways to make things work.
Yes! Love that!
let go of my ego and embrace discomfort by learning and unlearning, decentring myself, and re-thinking and re-designing when something isn’t working.
Personally, I can relate to this so much. This reminds me of someone in a show I follow on YouTube talking about how important it is to leave your ego at the door and be willing to be wrong about something and to say that you're wrong--and how hard that can be for all of us because we're often so invested in being right.
In fact, they have never faced serious consequences — only momentary discomfort.
Yes!!! You nailed it.
The signatories call for a refusal of “any false choice between justice and freedom.” It seems at best obtuse and inappropriate, and at worst actively racist, to mention the ongoing protests calling for policing reform and abolition and then proceed to argue that it is the signatories who are “paying the price in greater risk aversion.”
Completely! I agree on both points.
The signatories claim that “books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity.” This could be a reference to American Dirt, a book by Jeanine Cummins — a non-Mexican white woman who recently began identifying as Puerto Rican — about a Mexican bookseller, which was roundly criticized by Latinx writers and authors like Myriam Gurba and Los Angeles Times writer Esmeralda Bermudez. That book was featured as a part of Oprah’s Book Club, despite the fact that Latinx journalists like Bermudez said the story was a far cry from real-life immigrant experiences. It could also be a reference to Apropos of Nothing, Woody Allen’s book that was dropped by Hachette, a major publisher, after employees protested Allen’s history of sexual assault allegations. The book was later picked up by a different publisher.
I'm guessing also that those are the two cases, so of course the signatories would not have wanted to get specific. Just as bad, possibly worse, they could also be referencing Linda Fairstein. All three are reprehensible!!!
What gives them the right to use their platforms to harass others into silence, especially writers with smaller platforms and less institutional support, while preaching that silencing writers is a problem?
Whole thing smacks of privilege and is in keeping with the dominant white supremacist culture that gives voice to the already voiced and is in a total tizzy all the time to uphold the status quo.
The letter talks about none of this.
Yep. It's so lacking in proper context that I'm kind of embarrassed for the signatories.
The problem they are describing is for the most part a rare one for privileged writers, but it is constant for the voices that have been most often shut out of the room.
Totally right on.
Their words reflect a stubbornness to let go of the elitism that still pervades the media industry, an unwillingness to dismantle systems that keep people like them in and the rest of us out.
Yup!
But they miss the point: the irony of the piece is that nowhere in it do the signatories mention how marginalized voices have been silenced for generations in journalism, academia, and publishing.
Exactly! Thank you
J.K. Rowling
Makes sense she's a signatory.
are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms.
AP just fired a reporter for having expressed solidarity for Palestine back in her college days--we haven't really gotten to progress yet, but already the signatories of this letter are in panic mode.
But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity.
Where's the proof of this? Feels cart-before-the-horse to me, like a small non-issue compared to the VERY LARGE issues we're reckoning with.
The steps from the hill lead down into Harlem, through a park, then I cross St. Nicholas, Eighth Avenue, Seventh, and I come to the Y, the Harlem Branch Y, where I take the elevator up to my room, sit down, and write this page
I love how this journey mirrors what might be a journey down the page as you write--writing as a journey.
We call on leaders at the highest level at all types of institutions acrossthe nation (PWI, Land Grant, Private, State, R1, HBCU’s, HSI’s, MSI’s, community colleges,on-line) to document these patterns by students across institutions, so that the educational leaders have the data necessary to respond to the most at-risk students during and after this crisis in ways that substantively address and promote equity
Yes! This is such a necessary call to action, and our current situation (COVID), as awful as it is, creates the opening we need for significant, systemic change. If we do not make the necessary changes now, you're right, we are condemning generations to a future of further disenfranchisement.