Check out this article that I saw in USA TODAY’s iPhone application.
Surveys: Catholics want birth control coverage
To view the story, click the link or paste it into your browser.
To learn more about USA TODAY for iPhone and download, visit: http://usatoday.com/iphone/
Sent from my iPhone
First let’s be clear that dogs can talk, though not all can equally manage diphthongs. (See Chihuahua: glottal anomalies, under “the canine pallet” and in particular the work of the great Wigglesworth).
That dogs may talk, but choose not to, is a matter of 20th century philosophy, for prior to the Edwardian era dogs were loquacious and some were known to recite whole books aloud (See “Lady Chatterley’s Lover”). While the exact moment dogs stopped speaking is hard to pin down, it’s clear that the movement to silence was started by Bertrand Russell’s dog. Despite Russell’s own attainments and subsequent reputation as an analytical philosopher, a vocation marked by exactness, his dog was given to vocal extravagances and sentimentality. The observation: No matter how eloquently a dog may bark, he cannot tell you that his parents were poor but honest (which has long been attributed to Russell) was most likely uttered by his dog. (See “Irish wolf hounds of philosophers, drunkenness, ca, 1912).
According to Dabney Sty, an amateur historian from East Anglia, Russell’s dog (See “Great dogs of conscience, anonymous”) was troubled by his master’s belief that Hegelian dialectical thinking had ceased to be relevant in the 20th century. Anticipating the “Renaissance” of Marxism, the great man’s dog saw that it was wholly advisable to keep your mouth shut. After the first world war, Carl Jung’s discovery of the “universal unconscious” allowed dogs worldwide to boycott human speech.
Yes, Alan Bates was terrific as Burgess the spy, exiled and taking his comeuppance in the Soviet Union. But for me, the last minute of the film remains unparalleled. Dressed in his new, imported suit, a suit no Russian could ever own, a gift from home, Burgess/Bates takes a proud and unambifuously happy stroll. As my son Ross says, "it's the beauty of a high thread count!"
I made a mistake this morning and turned on the Joe Scarborough “Morning Joe” program. I was treated to Scarborough’s howling insistence that the rights of Catholics in America are being suborned by the vicious carrot and stick of Obama’s health care act. Scarborough sneered at the liberal blogs–his assertion, poorly framed, was that “liberals” are shoving their immoral agenda down the throats of sincere religious people who simply do not believe in abortion. A guest on the show tried to argue that the health care act doesn’t say you have to have an abortion, it just makes it available as an option. But Scarborough wasn’t having any of it. You see, Obama and his ilk are interfering with the moral consciences of Catholics who, presumably, like small children, will get “cooties” if they receive health care under Obama’s initiative. One could call this argument the “pox Romana”–if a religious person stands next to a free thinker on the bus he will inevitably be morally infected. And in this way, Scarborough partook of the the very thing he accuses liberals of doing: not trusting the people. BTW, you can always tell when Scarborough is in over his head–he yells at Mika Brezinski who is the smartest person on the show.
Suppose you became a philosophical dog with a penchant for Spinoza. We will leave aside how you may have undergone your conversion for moral attainments seldom survive autobiographical scrutiny, though if any man could explain it, it would be Jeffrey Masson. All I can say with any certainty is that like all sharp dogs, you will like your freedom, though in a companionable way. I was put in mind of this by a chance encounter with a stranger who admired my guide dog and suggested (while scratching her ears) that the world would be a better place if it was run by dogs.
Steven Nadler’s “Spinoza” piece in today’s NY Times (link above) speaks sweetly of the utilitarian benefits of freedom, a kind of “Spinoza meets Bentham” argument which Philosophy must invariably revisit every ten minutes, but leaving aside the freedom to invent or produce, Nadler is wonderful when summarizing the necessity for toleration as an a priori condition for freedom:
“Well before John Stuart Mill, Spinoza had the acuity to recognize that the unfettered freedom of expression is in the state’s own best interest. In this post-9/11 world, there is a temptation to believe that “homeland security” is better secured by the suppression of certain liberties than their free exercise. This includes a tendency by justices to interpret existing laws in restrictive ways and efforts by lawmakers to create new limitations, as well as a willingness among the populace, “for the sake of peace and security,” to acquiesce in this. We seem ready not only to engage in a higher degree of self-censorship, but also to accept a loosening of legal protections against prior restraint (whether in print publications or the dissemination of information via the Internet), unwarranted surveillance, unreasonable search and seizure, and other intrusive measures. [2]Spinoza, long ago, recognized the danger in such thinking, both for individuals and for the polity at large. He saw that there was no need to make a trade-off between political and social well-being and the freedom of expression; on the contrary, the former depends on the latter.”
That we’ve given away essential freedoms in the post 9-11 decade is obvious. Less obvious is the way in which these sacrifices of liberty will play out. A dog, of course, would give away nothing, for her affection is only pack-like to the extent the pack is worth a damn. As any philosopher dog can tell you.
” With the closing of the Oak Room—a serenely elegant hostel for the American songbook in the one-time home of the Algonquin Roundtable—New York will have a great deal less of what the venue presented: that is, not just refined music, but symbolism of the durability of refinement.”
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-famous-door/100336/oak-room-new-york-algonquin-cabaret-jazz
Institutionalization of children…
Sent from my iPhone
Having trouble viewing this email?
Click here
Worldwide Campaign to End the
Institutionalization of Children
We need to let the world know that children are suffering needlessly in institutions. DRI has seen the faces of these children who are locked away in institutions and left to die.
DRI's
Worldwide Campaign to End the Institutionalization of Children is working to change the widely-held perception that institutions are safe places for children with disabilities. Children with disabilities, like all children, need the love and support of
families and caregivers so that they can thrive. We need your help to establish a worldwide consensus that institutionalization of children with disabilities can and should be brought to an end. We need to fight to protect those children enduring abuse and
to stop the next generation of children with disabilities from ever being locked away and forgotten.
Please
support the campaign so that no other children have to suffer in silence.
Forward
email
This email was sent to kantera@law.syr.edu by
info@disabilityrightsintl.org |
Update Profile/Email Address
| Instant removal with
SafeUnsubscribe™ |
Privacy Policy.
Disability Rights International |
1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW | Suite 325 |
Washington | DC |
20009
"Conditions on the island, even for the time, were considered deplorable. The mortality rate for patients there was high, and it appeared in many cases to be more of a place one was sent to rot and die than recover and re-enter society."
See full story here.
In an article in the New Republic by Jonathan Cohn entitled "The Two Year Window" the following paragraph caught my eye:
"Nelson had traveled to Romania to take part in a cutting-edge experiment. It was ten years after the fall of the Communist dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu, whose scheme for increasing the country's population through bans on birth control and abortion had filled state-run institutions with children their parents couldn't support. Images from the orphanages had prompted an outpouring of international aid and a rush from parents around the world to adopt the children. But ten years later, the new government remained convinced that the institutions were a good idea and was still warehousing at least 60,000 kids, some of them born after the old regime's fall, in facilities where many received almost no meaningful human interaction. With backing from the MacArthur Foundation, and help from a sympathetic Romanian official, Nelson and colleagues from Harvard, Tulane, and the University of Maryland prevailed upon the government to allow them to remove some of the children from the orphanages and place them with foster families. Then, the researchers would observe how they fared over time in comparison with the children still in the orphanages. They would also track a third set of children, who were with their original parents, as a control group."
We are living in the global age of warehoused and neglected children–from the refugee camps of the middle east to Africa to the juvee halls of the United States, children are being held and poorly housed in conditions that would make Charles Dickens throw up. Yes, it matters what you call them. How about calling them an "underserved population" as the University of Washington's institute on medical ethics proposes?
Accordingly the underserved are "individuals or populations who are disadvantaged because of inability to pay, lack of access to comprehensive health care, or other disparities for reasons of race, religion, language group, or social status."
At the website of the School for Life, Romania and the Scoala Pentru Viata, you can read the following:
"We are based in the town of Siret in northern Romania on the border of Ukraine in the county of Suceava. It is an area of high unemployment with a diverse ethnic community, and a population of approx. 9,300. School For Life work with orphaned young adults, who previously lived in the neuropsychiatric hospital for 510 children in Siret, at its height in 1984 housing 1310 children.
Due to their childhood experiences of privation, neglect and abuse, lack of parental nurturing, inadequate nutrition and stimulation many have developed severe developmental deficits and delays. Many failed to thrive in these conditions inhibiting their healthy development and ability to communicate, socialise and survive outside of institution life in the wider community. The majority will now need support for the rest of their lives.
120 of these now young adults are living in an adult psychiatric hospital in Siret. School For Life and Scoala Pentru Viata aim to support these young adults by providing new experiences and opportunities, in their relations with others and in their wider environment. This is through special needs education / activity, trips in the community, life skill and employment support and supported housing."
Or this:
"I love my work here, teaching the lads and working around the house. I love teaching them sport and how to look after animals, and the colour games and how to draw. I am very happy to help the students from the hospital, they are just like me, there is very little difference. I feel confident about the future and what I'm doing and feel that I'll be able to do whatever I choose to."Lenuta, aged 26
"I like the girls and enjoy talking with them and helping them. If they are unable to come one day they will stay in their rooms and cry. I am teaching myself to look after myself. I have taught the students how to look after the garden and they love it… when they grow up they will have their own house and will need to look after themselves. I like everything here, I can't lie, I like it all!"Rodika, aged 25
"Lenuta and Rodika both grew up in the neuropsychiatric hospital for 510 children in Siret. They now live in School For Life supported housing and work as teaching assistants at the school."
Dr. Charles Nelson's work (the subject of the New Republic piece referenced above) has promoted the idea that foster care is not only possible but preferable–an idea we take for granted in the U.S. but which until recently has been all too often dismissed among Romanians. You can learn more about his work here.
Planet of the Blind 