Monthly Archives: April 2021

Salman Rushdie on Midnight’s Children at 40: ‘India is no longer the country of this novel’

Posted on by
Reply

Salman Rushdie on Midnight’s Children at 40: ‘India is no longer the country of this novel’

Four decades after his Booker-winner was published, Rushdie reflects on the Bombay of his childhood – and his despair at the sectarianism he sees in India today

Salman Rushdie

Longevity is the real prize for which writers strive, and it isn’t awarded by any jury. For a book to stand the test of time, to pass successfully down the generations, is uncommon enough to be worth a small celebration. For a writer in his mid-70s, the continued health of a book published in his mid-30s is, quite simply, a delight. This is why we do what we do: to make works of art that, if we are very lucky, will endure.

As a reader, I have always been attracted to capacious, large hearted fictions, books that try to gather up large armfuls of the world. When I started to think about the work that would grow into Midnight’s Children, I looked again at the great Russian novels of the 19th century, Crime and Punishment, Anna Karenina, Dead Souls, books of the type that Henry James had called “loose, baggy monsters”, large-scale realist novels – though, in the case of Dead Souls, on the very edge of surrealism. And at the great English novels of the 18th and 19th centuries, Tristram Shandy (wildly innovative and by no means realist), Vanity Fair (bristling with sharp knives of satire), Little Dorrit (in which the Circumlocution Office, a government department whose purpose is to do nothing, comes close to magic realism), and Bleak House (in which the interminable court case Jarndyce v Jarndyce comes even closer). And at their great French precursor, Gargantua and Pantagruel, which is completely fabulist.

I also had in mind the modern counterparts of these masterpieces, The Tin Drum and One Hundred Years of Solitude, The Adventures of Augie March and Catch-22, and the rich, expansive worlds of Iris Murdoch and Doris Lessing (both too prolific to be defined by any single title, but Murdoch’s The Black Prince and Lessing’s The Making of the Representative from Planet 8 have stayed with me). But I was also thinking about another kind of capaciousness, the immense epics of India, the Mahabharata and Ramayana, and the fabulist traditions of the Panchatantra, the Thousand and One Nights and the Kashmiri Sanskrit compendium called Katha-sarit-sagar (Ocean of the Streams of Story). I was thinking of India’s oral narrative traditions, too, which were a form of storytelling in which digression was almost the basic principle; the storyteller could tell, in a sort of whirling cycle, a fictional tale, a mythological tale, a political story and an autobiographical story; he – because it was always a he – could intersperse his multiple narratives with songs and keep large audiences entranced.

To read the full article, please click at the hyperlink below:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/03/salman-rushdie-on-midnights-children-at-40-india-is-no-longer-the-country-of-this-novel?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR0jk7sisBWFlMKy_ch1nrCVce0dZD_L7HUn2AtGF7s64J0oLsT1YVzzcto

An Interview with Richard Ebright: How Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins “systematically thwarted” the US Gain-of-Function Research Pause

Posted on by
Reply

Published on (Wednesday, March 24th, 2021) by Independent Science News
An Interview with Richard Ebright: How Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins “systematically thwarted” the US Gain-of-Function Research Pause

Interviewed by Jorge Casesmeiro Roger
https://www.independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/an-interview-with-richard-ebright-anthony-fauci-francis-collins-systematically-thwarted/
Synopsis: In this exclusive and wide-ranging interview with Prof. Richard Ebright, the long-time critic of risky pathogen research is asked about the merits of the WHO investigation, its personnel, and its forthcoming report.

The interview also asks about Gain-of-Function (GoF) research and the surprising silence of the Cambridge Working Group. In the interview Dr Ebright describes how US scientific leaders deliberately circumvented the GoF research pause placed on them. The directors of NIAID and NIH even stymied risk benefit assessment of such research.
Please share if you find this to be useful.

Yours sincerely,

Jonathan Latham, PhD
Executive DirectorThe Bioscience Resource Project, Ithaca, NY 14850 USA

NINE WAYS DRAWING DOWN OVERSEAS BASES WILL IMPROVE US SECURITY

Posted on by
Reply

NINE WAYS DRAWING DOWN OVERSEAS BASES WILL IMPROVE US SECURITY

By Andrew J. Bacevich and David Vine, Responsible Statecraft.March 11, 2021 | EDUCATE!

Shared by Dr. Syed A. Ehtisham

For every State Department embassy, consulate, and mission there are nearly three U.S. military bases overseas. The disparity between the 277 U.S. diplomatic installations and the estimated 800 U.S. military bases abroad symbolizes how dangerously militarized U.S. foreign policy has become.

Thankfully, across the political spectrum — and even within the U.S. military — there is growing recognition of the problem. Last month the Biden administration announced the Pentagon will conduct an urgently needed “Global Posture Review” to ensure the deployment of U.S. military forces around the world is, as President Joe Biden said, “appropriately aligned with our foreign policy and national security priorities.”

This review offers a historic opportunity to close hundreds of unnecessary military bases abroad and improve national and international security in the process. In contrast to former President Donald Trump’s hasty attempt to withdraw bases and troops from Syria and his attempt to punish Germany by removing installations there, the Global Posture Review provides a chance to close bases carefully and responsibly, save money, and build back U.S. alliances and diplomatic presence worldwide.

“I think we have too much infrastructure overseas,” the highest-ranking officer in the U.S. military, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Mark Milley, admitted in December. “Is every one of those [bases] absolutely positively necessary for the defense of the United States?”

Milley called for “a hard, hard look,” acknowledging that many overseas bases are “derivative of where World War II ended.” Since that conflict and the start of the Cold War the United States has maintained thousands of military bases in foreign lands. Three decades after the Cold War’s end, there are still 119 base sites in both Germany and Japan, according to the Pentagon. In South Korea there are 80. Other bases dot the planet from Aruba to Australia, Kenya to Qatar, among more than 80 countries occupied. Ours is the largest collection of extraterritorial bases in world history. China has one overseas base today, in Djibouti.

We have worked for two years with an unusually transpartisan group of military experts who agree “We’ve got too many daggone bases,” as former Air Force General Roger Brady has said. Last week more than forty experts, including veterans, a former member of Congress, scholars, analysts, and advocates, joined the Overseas Base Realignment and Closure Coalition (OBRACC) in sending an open letter to the Biden administration calling for closures to improve national and global security.

Unsurprisingly given the political diversity of a coalition that has involved the Koch Foundation and Codepink, the Cato Institute and Noam Chomsky, the letter’s co-signers differ about how many bases to close, which to close, and how to close them. Despite our differences, we agree on nine major reasons to begin closures. (Full disclosure: We are signers on the letter, too).

1) The costs: an estimated $51.5 billion in 2017 — nearly two times the State Department’s budget. Add troops on installations abroad and the total reaches more than $150 billion. Imagine what we could do with a fraction of the billions spent to maintain this robust overseas infrastructure. Imagine how we could repair crumbling domestic infrastructure, including transportation, electric grids, and ventilator supplies.

2) Bases abroad have fueled a hyper-interventionist foreign policy. Overseas installations simply make it too easy to wage war overseas. Since 1980 U.S. presidents have used foreign bases to launch wars and other attacks at least 25 times in 15 or more countries in the greater Middle East alone. The wars have killed, wounded, and displaced tens of millions.

3) Overseas bases are technologically outdated: rapid response forces can deploy anywhere on Earth fast enough to be based in the continental United States. Increasingly accurate ballistic missiles have made foreign installations into sitting ducks for enemies.

4) Overseas bases destabilize regions and increase the likelihood of future wars: hundreds of U.S. bases surrounding Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea encourage their leaders to boost their own military spending and activity. Imagine how U.S. citizens would feel if Russia or China built a single base near our borders. The calls for a military response would be swift.

5) OBRACC experts agree that bases in the Middle East have fueled radicalization, anti-American propaganda, recruitment by militant groups like al Qaeda, and deadly attacks, such as those of September 11, 2001.

6) Rather than spreading democracy, U.S. bases are found in and support at least 40 countries led by dictators and other undemocratic regimes, including Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Niger, and Turkey. Bases in colonized U.S. territories are a major reason Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana and Virgin Islands, and American Samoa have neither gained full independence nor full U.S. citizenship rights.

7) Overseas bases are bad for the environment. Domestic installations are too, but overseas, the military often ignores domestic environmental standards, resulting in the dumping of hazardous materials, toxic leaks, and daily damage during training.

8) Bases abroad almost always generate protest against U.S. forces. Unsurprisingly, people tend not to like their countries occupied by foreign militaries. Locals also tend not to appreciate crimes committed by military personnel, deadly accidents, environmental harm, and thriving sex work industries supported by bases.

9) OBRACC experts agree that overseas deployments painfully separate U.S. military personnel from their families. Stationing whole families overseas disrupts the careers, schooling, and lives of spouses, children, and other family members.

Thankfully, closing overseas bases is politically easy compared to closing domestic installations. Unlike the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process for domestic facilities, Congress need not be involved in overseas closures. Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush closed hundreds of unnecessary bases in Europe and Asia. For parochial reasons alone, members of Congress should support closing installations overseas to return thousands of personnel and family members, and their paychecks, to their districts and states.

The Biden administration should heed growing demands across the political spectrum, from OBRACC and others, to close overseas bases. Biden should pursue a strategy of drawing down the U.S. military posture abroad, returning troops back home, and building up the country’s diplomatic posture and alliances.  Unless we want to continue our current posture of endless wars, run-away military spending, and armed forces poorly positioned to defend the United States, we must seize this historic opportunity for change.

Dr. S. Akhtar Ehtisham
Blog syedehtisham.blogspot.com
All religions try to take over the establishment and if they fail, they collaborate with it, be it feudal or capitalist.

2020 USA presidential election: Was science on the ballot?

Posted on by
Reply

[Jan] Was science on the ballot?

Message Body

An email received by Thinkers Forum USA :

{Email posted with hyper link as is}

A rare recent ray of light from Science magazine, from Sheila Jasanoff and others:
“The pandemic has seen much hand-wringing about Americans’ unwillingness to “accept science” and follow public health directives…….It is tempting to treat matters of health, safety, and environmental policy as if they are primarily about facts, because this transforms intractable social disputes into seemingly answerable technical questions. But such moves are inimical to democracy. When the key issue is who decides, acting as if disagreements are mainly about evidence is bad politics and bad social science. It turns expertise into an object of distrust and exacerbates American culture’s tendency to alienate people from the perceived elitism of science (2). This creates fertile ground for alternative facts and conspiracy theories that reframe problems and relocate the focus of blame.

Science advice thus occupies a precarious position on the boundary between asserting facts and making policy. It faces the structural problem of being authoritative without becoming authoritarian. It divides power between scientists, who are mainly accountable to their peers, and authorized political representatives, who are accountable to the citizens they serve. This allocation of authority is fundamentally political, even constitutional. We should not be surprised if expert advisers find their claims being questioned, given their consequential role in contemporary governance.”
Worth reading in full and digesting at length IMO. Its at:
https://compcore.cornell.edu/science2021/

Jonathan
Jonathan Latham, PhD
Executive DirectorThe Bioscience Resource Project, Ithaca, NY 14850 USA