“I urge Her Majesty’s Government and those responsible for European Union policy to approach the Middle East with a proper and necessary sense of humility.  We should recognise that our actions – and indeed, our inaction – have led to the wasted yeas of a so-called peace process, with no real peace and at least three brutal and devastating wars, beginning in 2003.

Our new humility should include a sympathetic understanding of both Israel and Palestine.  Israelis remember centuries of persecution, largely in European states, culminating in the Nazi attempt at genocide.

On the other side, we have to understand the pent-up anger and frustration of Palestinians over their sufferings.  The Naqba, or disaster, uprooted Palestinians, who now number millions of refugees and exiles scattered through the Middle East and beyond.

Both sides long, however, for real peace, bringing with it mutual security, recognition and legitimacy.

The religious leaders in Israel and Palestine have a distinct contribution to make towards real peace.

Unilateral measures, taken by all sides and parties, could also be helpful if they are carefully co-ordinated.  I have in mind particularly the release of captives and detainees, and the building of a transport link to connect Gaza and the West Bank.

Our Policy, as I suggested earlier, should be humble but realistic, understanding of basic needs and interests, and patiently working to include all parties in conflict resolution rather than in unsatisfying conflict management.  Time, as has been said early today, is not on anyone’s side.

The Minister for Defence, who replied for the Government, was not able to find time to say anything about the Middle East.

This is a guest post by ISHWAR DOST

ध्रुवीकरण की खासियत यह होती है कि वह बीच की जगह तेजी से खत्म करता जाता है। चाहे वह सांप्रदायिक ध्रुवीकरण हो या अस्मिता पर आधारित या किसी और मुद्दे पर। राज्य की दमनकारी हिंसा बनाम माओवादी हिंसा एक ऐसा ही ध्रुवीकरण है। इस सरलीकरण में छिपी राजनीति पर सवाल उठाना जरूरी हो गया है। युद्ध की भाषा बोलती और बंदूक को महिमामंडित करती इस राजनीति के निशाने पर क्या जनसंघर्षों की लोकतांत्रिक जगह नहीं है? माओवादियों के सबसे बड़े दल पीडब्ल्यूजी के नाम के साथ ही जनयुद्ध शब्द लगा हुआ है। छत्तीसगढ़ सरकार ने एक सरकारी जनयुद्ध को सलवा जुडूम के नाम से प्रायोजित किया हुआ है। केंद्र सरकार ने पहली बार माओवाद के खिलाफ युद्ध की शब्दावली का इस्तेमाल किया है, फिर उस पर सफाई भी दी है। अगर माओवाद लोकतंत्र के प्रति अपनी नफरत नहीं छिपाता तो उत्तर-पूर्व से लेकर गरीब आदिवासी इलाकों तक कई सरकारें भी राजनीतिक-सामाजिक गुत्थियों को महज सुरक्षा के सवाल में तब्दील कर बंदूक की नली पर टंगे विशेष सुरक्षा कानूनों के जरिए सुलझाना चाहती हैं।

अन्याय के खिलाफ जनलामबंदी, संघर्ष और प्रतिरोध की सुदीर्घ परंपरा को युद्ध के अतिरेक में ढांपने की कोशिश की जा रही है। युद्ध सीधा सवाल करता है कि तय करो किस ओर हो तुम? यह सवाल एक-दूसरे से युद्ध करता या उसके लिए पर तौलता कोई भी पक्ष किसी से भी पूछ सकता है।
जो लोग दोनों पक्षों से असहमत या किसी से कम किसी से ज्यादा असहमत होना चाहते हैं, वे स्वयं को दो पाटों के बीच पाते हैं। हरिशंकर परसाई ने लिखा था कि आज के जमाने में दोस्ती के लिए दिल मिलना जरूरी नहीं, दुश्मन का दुश्मन दोस्त हो जाता है। आज परसाई होते तो एक और नजारा देखते। जो हमारे साथ नहीं है वह दुश्मनों के साथ है! सरकारें घोषणा करती हैं कि जो आदिवासियों पर सलवा जुडूम जैसे अर्द्ध-कानूनी गिरोहों के दमन का विरोध करते हैं, वे माओवाद के हमदर्द हैं। माओवादी फरमाते हैं कि जो उनके साथ नहीं हैं वे बुर्जुआ वर्ग के दलाल, वर्ग-शत्रु और घृणित उदारवादी हैं। अहिंसा, मानवता, उदारता, सहिष्णुता जैसे शब्द सुन माओवादी को हंसी आ सकती है। इन्हें बोलने वालों को वह मूर्ख या सत्ता का एजेंट या दोनों एक साथ मान सकता है।

‘बीच का रास्ता नहीं होता’! यह किसी क्रांतिकारी कविता का पोस्टर भर नहीं है। यही बात पूरे आत्मविश्वास से अमेरिका के पूर्व राष्ट्रपति जॉर्ज बुश कह रहे थे। यह पंक्ति रोमांचित करती है और दुस्साहस के लिए तैयार करती है। इस पंक्ति पर बुश और अतिवाम विचार, दोनों मोहित हैं। क्योंकि यह पंक्ति सरलीकरण भी करती है, जो नवउदारवाद और माओवाद दोनों की राजनीतिक परियोजना के माफिक है। यह उसी तरह की अंतर्निर्भरता है, जो एक-दूसरे से टकराती दो कट्टरताओं में एक-दूसरे के लिए होती है। माओवाद को फैलने के लिए एक निरंकुश राजसत्ता चाहिए। राजसत्ताओं को नागरिक अधिकारों के अपहरण के लिए, जनविरोधी कानून बनाने के लिए माओवाद जैसे दुश्मन चाहिए। एक दमनकारी सरकार माओवाद की हिंसा को आकर्षक बनाती है। एक हिंसक छापामार युद्ध राजसत्ता की हिंसा की वैधता बन जाता है। एक के पास संविधान की मनचाही व्याख्या और औपनिवेशिक कानूनों की विरासत है तो दूसरे के पास समाजवाद के उस अधिनायकवादी और सर्वसत्तावादी संस्करण की फंतासी है, जो चीन में सचमुच में नवउदारवाद में ही तब्दील हो गया है।

कांग्रेस और भाजपा में से किसका पक्ष लेंगे? इस प्रश्न पर वामपंथियों का काफी समय और ऊर्जा जाती है। जो दोनों को ही नहीं चुनना चाहते, वे क्या करें? जो वाम दलों का समर्थन करते हुए भी उनकी आलोचना करते रहना चाहते हैं, वे क्या करें? जो आदिवासियों के प्रति हो रहे अन्याय और माओवाद, दोनों के विरोध में हैं, वे क्या करें?  ऐसे लोगों के लिए भी कोई राजनीतिक वक्त ऐसा आ सकता है जब दो बड़े पक्षों में से किसी एक के खिलाफ ज्यादा बोलना पड़े। आपातकाल में इंदिरा गांधी की तानाशाही का विरोध करते हुए समाजवादियों के एक हिस्से ने संघ वालों को अपने साथ खड़ा होने दिया। राजीव गांधी के खिलाफ आंदोलन करते हुए वाम ने इस बात को नजरअंदाज कर दिया कि भाजपा भी इसी मुद्दे पर आंदोलन कर रही है। बाबरी मस्जिद गिरने या गुजरात दंगों के बाद उन सेकुलरवादियों को भी कांग्रेस से राहत मिली जो उसे सख्त नापसंद करते थे।

इसी तरह जब केंद्र सरकार ने आदिवासी इलाकों में माओवादियों के खिलाफ युद्ध करने की घोषणा की तो आदिवासी प्रश्न पर सोचने वालों के लिए यह साफ था कि इससे छापामारों की सेहत पर कोई असर नहीं पड़ेगा, मगर आदिवासी इलाके तबाह हो जाएंगे। आंकड़े बताते हैं कि सलवा जुडूम के बाद से माओवादियों की ताकत और हिंसा बस्तर में कई गुना बढ़ गई है। कई हजार आदिवासी शिविरों में ले आए गए। कई हजार डर कर और बच कर पड़ोसी राज्यों की तरफ भाग खड़े हुए। कई हजार माओवादियों के तर्क या बंदूक के असर में आ गए या ले आए गए।
जिन लोगों ने सरकार के युद्ध के एलान का पुरजोर विरोध किया उनमें कई गांधीवादी, समाजवादी, सर्वोदयवादी हैं। ये देख चुके हैं कि कैसे उत्तर पूर्व में सेना की कार्रवाई और आतंकवाद एक दुश्चक्र बन चुका है। युद्ध के विरोध में भाकपा जैसे वे दल भी हैं जो माओवादियों का निशाना रहे हैं। जो किसी जंगल में कभी सिर्फ इसी कारण माओवादियों की गोली का शिकार हो सकते हैं कि वे भाकपा जैसी ‘संशोधनवादी’   कम्युनिस्ट पार्टी के सदस्य हैं।
हाल में गृहमंत्री पी चिदंबरम ने कहा कि हमने कभी युद्ध की बात नहीं की, यह मीडिया की उपज थी। उनका यह स्पष्टीकरण नागरिक समाज के दबाव का नतीजा है या झारखंड में आसन्न चुनावों की मजबूरी का? यह चिदंबरम की सदाशयता है या अधूरे बंगाल मिशन के चलते तृणमूल कांग्रेस का दबाव? इसका पता चलना फिलहाल मुश्किल है। तब तक बुद्धिजीवी चाहें तो खुशफहमी में रह सकते हैं।
सरकार के युद्ध-एलान के विरोध के दौरान ही कथित ‘जनयुद्ध’ के पक्ष में मिथक गढ़ने की कोशिश भी हुई। कहा गया आदिवासियों ने बंदूक उठा ली है। यह नहीं पूछा गया कि तो क्या आंध्र के आदिवासियों ने बंदूकें रख दी हैं। आदिवासियों के साथ हुआ अन्याय और पीडब्ल्यूजी की हिंसा आधारित राजनीतिक विचारधारा दो अलग बातें हैं। माओवादियों के कब्जे और दखल का जितना इलाका है, उससे कहीं ज्यादा बड़े इलाके में आदिवासियों के लोकतांत्रिक आंदोलन चल रहे हैं, जो न सिर्फ उनके शोषण और दमन बल्कि विरोध के हिंसावादी रास्ते के भी खिलाफ हैं, जिन्होंने कई बार बहादुरी से सरकारी गोलीबारी झेली है, जिन्होंने कई बार राजसत्ता की बंदूक को जन आंदोलन की ताकत से झुकाया है।

जो लोग ‘चिदंबरम के युद्ध’ का या किसी ऑपरेशन ग्रीनहंट का विरोध कर रहे हैं और एकदम सही विरोध कर रहे हैं, वे ऐसा राजसत्ता की गोद में बैठ कर तो शायद नहीं कर रहे होंगे! वे किसी युद्धक्षेत्र में नहीं, बल्कि लोकतंत्र की उसी जगह पर बैठ कर विरोध कर रहे हैं, जो जनता ने अनवरत संघर्षों के बाद हासिल की है, जिसकी आजादी के बाद से लगातार हिफाजत की है और जो व्यवस्था परिवर्तन के उनके संघर्ष की बुनियाद है।
लोकतंत्र और असहमति की जगह जितनी आज है उससे बड़ी होनी चाहिए। यह है कानून का रस्सा तुड़ा कर भागती राजकीय हिंसा और न्याय के नाम पर की जा रही दुस्साहसवादी हिंसा के बीच की जगह। दोनों तरह की हिंसाएं जनवाद, न्याय, शांति जैसे मूल्यों को उनसे जुड़ी विडंबनाओं का हवाला देकर अपने अस्त्रागार में शामिल करती चलती हैं। जिस तरह आदिवासियों ने भारतीय राजसत्ता के बांध, खदान, कारखाने और अभयारण्य के लिए ‘जरूरी’ विस्थापन वाले उस विकास को नहीं चुना, जो निरंतर उनकी जमीन और जंगलों पर कब्जा करता गया, उसी तरह उन्होंने माओवादियों और उनकी बंदूक को नहीं चुना। क्या बंदूक चुनने का मौका देती है?
केंद्र सरकार कहती है कि माओवादी न हों तो आदिवासियों का विकास कर दें। ऐसा है, तो पहले बुंदेलखंड में और तमाम शहरों की गंदी बस्तियों में क्यों नहीं विकास कर देते? सरकार कहती है कि हम जमीन, जंगल के सवाल पर माओवादियों से बात करने को तैयार हैं। सरकार को आज बस्तर में सरकार के खिलाफ निहत्थे खड़े मनीष कुंजाम और रामनाथ सरफे से, ओडीशा, नर्मदा घाटी, विदर्भ के शांतिपूर्ण जन आंदोलनों से बात करने से किसने रोका है? चंबल में रह रहे और सरकारी आंकड़ों के मुताबिक भुखमरी का सामना कर रहे सहरिया आदिवासियों के साथ क्या तब बात करेंगे जब कोई जागरूक डकैत उनके मुद्दे को उठाएगा? सरकार आज तक मेधा पाटकर, बीडी शर्मा, सुनील या बिजय भाई से आदिवासियों की स्थिति की समझ क्यों नहीं ले पाई। क्या बातचीत की मेज तक एकमात्र रास्ता हथियारों से होकर जाता है?
बंगाल में माओवादियों के हाथों मरते माकपा के कार्यकर्ता मानव अधिकार के विमर्श से बाहर हैं। उनके परिवारों के आर्तनाद मीडिया से, ‘क्रांतिकारी’ बहसों से बाहर हैं। उनकी चीखें ‘बुद्धि’-जीवियों के हृदय को नहीं जगातीं। वे बंगाल के सत्ता परिवर्तन की जरूरी कीमत चुकाने के लिए पैदा हुए थे। वे एक हारती हुई, पिटती हुई पार्टी के सदस्य हैं। यह सही है कि माकपा अपनी नवउदारवादी फिसलन के चलते बंगाल में लगातार चुनाव हार रही है। मगर क्या किसी हारती हुई पार्टी के कार्यकर्ताओं को इस तरह खत्म किया जाना चाहिए? लोकतंत्र में कौन नहीं हारता? और हाशिए के आंदोलन तो चुनावी राजनीति में जगह ही नहीं बना पाते।
बंगाल में कार्यकर्ता कांग्रेस या तृणमूल के नहीं, माकपा के मारे जा रहे हैं। पर चिदंबरम उलटे माकपा पर बरसते हैं। अजीब नजारा है। माओवादी ममता के बाएं बाजू खड़े हैं। मनमोहन और चिदंबरम दाएं बाजू खड़े हैं। मीडिया लगातार बेचैनी के साथ पुलिस की बंदूक और माओवादी के कंधे पर टंगी बंदूक के बीच पैन शॉट निकाल रहा है। अतिरेक बिकता है। भाकपा, नर्मदा बचाओ आंदोलन, आदिवासी मुक्ति मोर्चा, समाजवादी जनपरिषद, माले (दीपंकर) आदि के पक्षों से टीआरपी नहीं बनेगी।
बुर्जुआ लोकतंत्र को ठीक करने के दो तरीके हो सकते हैं। एक तो यह कि इसे ज्यादा जनवादी और पुख्ता बनाया जाए। दूसरा यह कि इसे खत्म कर, इस पर कब्जा कर तानाशाही के रास्ते पर जाया जाए, जो रास्ता अनवरत कुर्बानियों को किसी सेना या किसी गुट के हवाले कर देता है। मगर समाजवादी लोकतंत्र का रास्ता कहां है? इक्कीसवीं सदी के समाजवाद का यह प्रश्न मुंह बाए खड़ा है, जिसका मुकाबला वाम विचार को करना है। माकपा को यह सोचना होगा कि वह स्तालिनवादी तानाशाही के खिलाफ नहीं बोलेगी तो माओवाद से विचारधारा का संघर्ष कैसे कर पाएगी? जैसे स्टालिन ने समाजवाद के लिए हजारों ‘संदिग्ध’ कम्युनिस्टों को मरवा दिया, माओवादी क्या ठीक वैसे ही संशोधनवादी माकपा कार्यकर्ता को मरवा रहे हैं? वाम मोर्चे के दल समाजवादी लोकतंत्र के सवाल को रणनीति के सवाल के रूप में छोड़ नहीं सकते। उन्हें ‘समाजवाद में मानवाधिकार’ को लेकर अपना रुख साफ करना होगा। वरना उनके लिए भी ‘बुर्जुआ’ मानवाधिकार रणनीति का एक औजार मात्र रहेगा, जिस वैचारिक स्थिति के चलते बहुत से मानवाधिकारवादी माकपा के मरते लोगों से मुंह फेर लेते हैं।

PORTO ALEGRE (blergh) – Reacionários e direitosos existem por toda a parte, mas em Rio Grande esta fauna parece viver em habitat natural. Nunca vi cidade com maior número de prostitutas travestidas de anjos, gente enrustida pela carapaça da “democracia social” que, explicitamente, considera Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez e Evo Morales “comedores de criancinhas” inveterados. Macarthistas de carteirinha, capazes de apregoar a Ditadura Civil-Militar brasileira como algo “não tão ruim assim”, ditabranda, nas palavras de um jornaleco qualquer por aí.

Pois digo isso, porque me espantou ver a dimensão que um simples convite para a atividade de lançamento do livro “Dossiê Ditadura – Mortos e Desaparecidos Políticos no Brasil (1964-1985)”, em Rio Grande, tomou. Divulguei o evento onde pude, inclusive na famigerada comunidade orkutiana “Rio Grande – A Cidade”, aquele famoso lugar de gente muito boa, mas que, como tudo, também é freqüentado por maus-caracteres, a escumalha defensora de aberrações diversas.

Claro que a divulgação da palestra não passou incólume aos moralistas de cuecas. Houve quem dissesse que o Araguaia foi um “piquenique” dos comunistas, que são todos uns “FDP” e atrocidades afins. Argumentei que os defensores da moral e cívica verde-oliva encontrariam na palestra que ocorreu hoje, na FURG, um palco preparado para um belíssimo debate com quem pode argumentar contra o pensamento reacionário, mas, claro, todo mundo se disse muito ocupado para debater, etc e tal. Como sempre, no Orkut todo mundo é macho.

Pelas pinceladas aqui e ali, pude ler que a palestra do Enrique Padrós, da Suzana Lisboa e da Criméia Almeida foi um sucesso, sem reaças para encher o saco e atordoar o debate. Ainda bem! Só o que me deixa irrequieto é esse péssimo caráter papareia de não querer discutir a ditadura, como se ela não tivesse ocorrido e – pior ainda – como se alguns dos nomes que até hoje bancam de “personalidades rio-grandinas” não tivessem participado ativamente do terror que foram aquelas décadas de autoritarismo.

Oxalá eu possa assistir e auxiliar na reconstrução da historiografia da minha cidade, de forma a fazer aquilo que meus renomados “mestres” (aqueles figurões da universidade local, principalmente) se negam: ouvir, pesquisar e desvendar o que foi a Rio Grande dos milicos. Os documentos estão aí, brotando. E quando eles vierem à tona (o que não vai demorar muito), muita gente vai ter que guardar sua mentalidade reacionária em casa. Bem escondidinha.

my sisters and i have the most interesting conversations at night. it’s right before we fall asleep that our minds are the busiest, and we conjure up these crazy ideas and discuss things that most people wouldn’t discuss over lunch. last night, we were actually talking about our views on abortion. odd topic choice, huh?

it was pretty interesting, i mean we have a ten year old who has a basic idea of what it is and we hear her thoughts. is there any other situation where she’d be able to freely speak her ideas? yeah, but in the far future. most would assume she’s only ten and probably doesn’t understand. and that’s probably true, she does see the world through different eyes.

different eyes as they may be, they’re also observant and intelligent ones. i’m quite impressed with sarah’s ability to debate subjects well ahead of her age.

but anyway, aside from that, paris got a phone! so now we can text each other =) she wants to hang out this weekend… so we should get that all sorted out.

A forma de se comprovar a teoria da evolução é ver o que ela se propôs a explicar (a origem e diversidade das espécies sem intervenção Divina) e olhar para as evidências. Quando nós fazemos isso, vêmos imediatamente que, longe de ser um “facto”, a teoria da evolução é um ponto de partida (um paradigma, uma fé, uma religião) que está contra as observações cientificas.

No entanto, evidências científicas dificilmente servem como forma de se abandonar uma posição religiosa, (embora possam enfraquecê-la) e como tal todos os métodos científicos que se usem para se subverter a teoria da evolução vão ser ignorados pelos evolucionistas.

Para eles, a teoria da evolução já não é um “se” mas sim um “como“.

Half day at school.

Debates on after school for 3rd years and 1st years.

3rd Year Topic = “____”
1st Year Topic = “____”

3rd Year Teams
Proposing

Opposing

Rules
4:30 minute max. length
Points of Information are Allowed [First 60 and Final 30 secs protected]
First Speaker = Opens for team and makes point
Second Speaker = Makes point and Closes for team

The Debate Over Darwin Continues: Stephen Meyer vs. Michael Shermer in Beverly Hills

In less than two weeks we will witness the rematch of the decade as Stephen Meyer and Michael Shermer face off on the question of intelligent design versus evolution.

These two men have met several times before, most recently at Freedomfest in Las Vegas in 2008 (click here for video). They also sparred in 2005 at Westminster College and appeared together on Lee Strobel’s Faith Under Fire program (video here). It will be interesting to see the new insights into the questions at hand as this debate has matured and developed.

The debate is hosted by the American Freedom Alliance and will take place at the prestigious Saban Theater in Beverly Hills on Monday, November 30, at 7:30pm. Dr. Meyer and Dr. Shermer will be joined by Dr. Richard Sternberg and Dr. Donald Prothero, respectively.

For more information and to buy tickets, click here.

(Via Evolution News)

Here is audio of a debate of sorts between William Lane Craig and Daniel Dennett. Craig spends 45 minutes going over three theistic arguments in some detail: Leibnizian cosmological arguments, kalām cosmological arguments, and anthropic principle teleological arguments. Dennett responds for about 10 minutes. He seems impressed by Craig’s presentation, but objects that our intuitions (about causality for example) when taken to these conclusions, cease to be intuitive. I’m not sure that’s really relevant though, since the exposition of an intuition is never as obvious and clear as the intuition itself. At any rate, it’s obviously more plausible to affirm the principle of causality than to deny it.

He also objects to the claim that abstract objects do not stand in causal relations. He suggests they can in a sense, but the sense he describes is clearly formal causal relations. The claim is that they cannot stand in efficient causal relations, and so cannot be appealed to as efficient causes.

It ends with a couple of minutes of commentary by “Alister” who I assume is Alister McGrath since Craig’s CV includes “In Defense of Theistic Arguments” in the just-published The Future of Atheism: Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett in Dialogue.

(HT Quodlibeta)

O Instituto Goethe, o Instituto de Letras da UFRGS e a Secretaria Municipal da Cultura realizam nos dias 24, 25 e 26 o seminário Debates Contemporâneos. Serão três palestras, duas mesas e quatro oficinas para debater a literatura contemporânea brasileira, alemã e francesa. Toda programação é gratuita e contará com a participação dos críticos José Castello, Juremir Machado, Marcelo Backes, Ana Helena Krause; dos autores Altair Martins, Carlos André Moreira, Cíntia Moscovich e Pedro Gonzaga; e dos editores Annete Baldi, Antônio Xerxenesky, Carolina Chang, Clô Barcellos, Fernando Rozano, Robertson Frizero e Tito Montenegro. As novas tecnologias de leitura digital permitem que as pessoas carreguem uma pequena biblioteca no bolso, facilitando acesso ao livro, mas o tempo para reflexão, paradoxalmente, parece cada vez mais curto. Este seminário propõe uma pausa para o debate qualificado de ideias sobre a literatura e o incentivo à leitura. Mais informações e inscrições pelos telefones (51) 3289-8072/3289-8073, por e-mail ou pelo site.

UPDATED: Anti-abortion display ignites debate on campus

Heated debate stays civil during Constitution Day controversy

Christopher Geanakos | Editor in Chief
geanakc@imail.losrios.edu
Additional reporting by Genevieve Jerome, Randy Briggs,  Juan De Anda and Robert Pace.
Skip to video

Updated on 9/29/2009 at 7:34 PM

An anti-abortion group sparked debate among City College students and faculty members Sept. 16-17 with an exhibit on the Quad showing photographs of aborted fetuses.

Exhibit speaker Howard Blythe said its purpose was to facilitate dialogue on abortion and was part of scheduled events for the Associated Student Government-sponsored Constitution Day.

Many on campus expressed different points of view about the exhibit.
“It is very sad to see these pictures,” criminal justice major Robert Adams said. “If I got a girl pregnant, I could never ask her to do this to a child after seeing these pictures.”

Psychology major Leah Gaston said she found the display unsettling.
“It’s really gross and really disgusting and some of them [the pictures] I think are uncalled for.”

Some felt that it was unfair that the exhibit ran unopposed Sept. 16. As a result, Planned Parenthood, The Queer Straight Alliance club, the Sac City FreeThinkers club and City College Health Services set up booths across from the anti-abortion presentation the next day.

“We want to be a supportive, positive presence,” QSA President Ash Pearsol said.

“I’m pro-choice,” said D. Del-Toro, a QSA member. “We want people to understand we respect your choices and your decisions.”

ASG Vice President Debbie Dixon addressed the campus during the second day’s events to personally apologize for the controversial display.

“This part of what had been planned for Constitution Day was never mentioned,” Dixon said. “It was kind of an earmark onto the plans for Constitution Day that the rest of us were unaware of.”

The anti-abortion exhibit by The Sanctity of Human Life Network, a religious nonprofit organization focused on anti-abortion activism, was voted unanimously onto the Constitution Day schedule by the campus ASG Sept. 2.

According to Dixon, the anti-abortion group was billed as the Genocide Awareness Project when ASG was voting on groups to invite to campus for Constitution Day. She said that the group’s misleading name, coupled with lack of information on the group and rushed voting, contributed to the ASG unanimously passing a vote to bring the group onto campus.
ASG President Steve Macias assumed responsibility for arranging the group’s unopposed presence on campus.

“I was the person who added the Genocide Awareness Project to the Constitution Day plans,” Macias said. “The rest of the plans, as far as the 12-1 events on Thursday, were put together by the Student Affairs Committee.”

Though Macias acknowledged the event did not go as smoothly as he hoped, he said that the constitutional discussion generated on abortion was in keeping with the Constitution-based theme.

“I think that much of the controversy is good and that controversy isn’t always a bad thing,” Macias said.

There is currently a petition to recall Macias circulating among students on campus.

Below is a link to a statement by ASG President Steve Macias after the event took place

http://media.scc.losrios.edu/asg/ASGPresGAP.pdf

  Hello everyone! 

I have definitely learned throughout the semester that even if there are endless possibilities when it comes to incorporating technology within the class, it really comes down to what the teacher feels comfortable with and enjoys doing themselves.  For me, I absolutely loved learning about Webquests this past week, where I can definitely see myself using it within my future classroom (depending on age).  Just by searching used webquests, I felt how these types of assignments were able to provide important and engaging learning experiences for the students where they now have to work with information and create something new instead of memorizing facts. I believe that with older students (6th grade and up) teachers need to provide more independence within their lesson plans where the students are able to use the content in ways that are the most meaningful to each of them.  I remember the few instances in high school when we were given a topic and a role and we were able to research and write based on our own interests and interpretations.  These are some of the few projects that I actually remember growing up, where I can even tell you today about some of the information I learned about.  These projects did not use webquests, although I feel now that those would be even more helpful.  I think that webquests are appropriate in providing students with enough background and introductory information to get the students started but that it is really up to each student to take what is given and create a successful project filled with creativity and comprehension.  Using what I have learned about the use of webquests and how effective and engaging they are in providing effective learning experiences, I will try to incorporate these types of assignments within my classroom.  I will hopefully then be able to reach all of my students and provide opportunities for each to be successful academically.See you all Thursday! Amber

On Nov. 21st, I competed on a team with three other philosophy majors in the Rocky Mountain Region Ethics Bowl competition held at the University of Colorado at Boulder. We won all four rounds to qualify for nationals, held in Cincinnati, Ohio in February! Here were the interesting cases we debated.

On 20^th of November, during the Annual Delegate Meeting (ADM), one of the main topics in UK’s politics for the last few months was discussed. Passionate debate about the British national Party (BNP) and its role within society was held.

By Julija Jegorova and Stephen Fothergill

The BNP – “Britain’s most democratic party.”

The British National Party gained widespread notoriety after its leader won a seat in European parliament. However, some feel that the BNP should be known as a “Nazi party” as it proclaims that “…BNP exists to secure a future for the indigenous peoples of these islands in the North Atlantic which have been our homeland for millennia.”

According to Anindya Bhattacharyya (Unite against the fascism), BNP members are trying to get rid of “three H’s” – Hard image, Hitler and Hooliganism. They want these terms to become less negative and to become regularly used in our day-to-day vocabulary. The only way we can stop BNP is try to break its support and show its real aims. Bhattacharyya said: “Every mistake should be published. People must know that it is an organisation based on lies.”

Question Time

Media, as the fourth estate, is one of the most influential powers a democracy possesses.

The BNP reached the peak of its popularity following the BBC’s “Question Time”, where for the first time a representative of a far right political party was asked to take part in the show.

Media against fascism: facing problems.

The majority of journalists strongly believe that the BNP should not be covered in the media. However, due to the work deadlines and the industry’s competition to get the “hottest headlines” journalists are being forced by editors to interview and observe topics about the BNP.

Things to be done

Speakers during the meeting called for a number of  ways of fighting against the BNP’s methods. They said:

• Big events are needed around the country, exposing British’s National Party aims
• Debates must be made for young inexperienced journalists to debate the nature of political coverage
• Try to prevent BNP’s support from increasing, by accurate reporting of social issues
• Media should take responsibility for intelligent comment on these issues

They expressed concern that without those steps the BNP might never be exposed and would continue to gain support from disaffected voters unaware of their true intentions.

Bhattacharyya said: “Many people don’t understand the concept of the “far right”, but they instictivley know that when a party is described as having Nazi beliefs they are inherently wrong.”

En el Aula Magna del Área de la Educación, el Arte y la Comunicación-AEAC-, de la Universidad Nacional de Loja –UNL-, se realizó el pasado jueves el foro-panel  “Periodista comerciante de la comunicación o servidor del pueblo”, con la participación de los estudiantes y docentes de la carrera de Comunicación Social de la UNL.

El panel estuvo conformado, en su mayoría, por periodistas profesionales

El panel estuvo conformado por Ángel López, sociólogo y docente del AEAC, Luis Benítez, presidente de la Unión Nacional de Periodistas –UNP-núcleo de Loja, Miguel Cáceres, director del noticiario “Panorama” de radio “Rumba”, José Iñiguez Cartagena, docente de la carrera de la Comunicación Social de la UNL y José Lucero, coordinador de la fundación Nuestros Jóvenes. La moderación estuvo a cargo de Edwin Castillo, docente de la Carrera.

La carrera de Comunicación Social de la UNL, está empeñada no sólo en debatir estos temas, sino en buscar lineamientos que  permitan tener un posicionamiento respecto a este papel ético de los periodistas que siempre esta en discusión y que los estudiantes deben conocer, afirmó Milton Andrade Tapia, coordinador de la Carrera.

Este evento fue organizado por el séptimo módulo paralelo “B” y el objetivo fue analizar si en realidad el periodista del siglo XXI se interesa por servir al pueblo y comunidad, o si es una persona más que comercializa con la comunicación y que sólo busca lucrar. Además, se pretendía dar a conocer a docentes y estudiantes, sobre la realidad de la práctica profesional de periodista en la sociedad.

Según Freddy Córdova, estudiante del séptimo módulo paralelo “B”, el rol del periodista en la actualidad es de trascendental importancia, radica ahí el valor de reflexionar sobre cuál es el verdadero rol que están cumpliendo los periodistas y sí es que en verdad están aplicando la ética y responsabilidad en los medios en los que trabajan.

Members of the media attended the Media Workers Against the War fringe meeting at the NUJ ADM to listen to a discussion of the British military position in Afghanistan.

By Stephen Fothergill and Julija Jegorova.

Speaking at the meeting were photographer Guy Smallman, who recently returned from Afghanistan, Nahella Ashraf, who chairs the Manchester branch of Stop the War, and Sue Glenton, mother of British soldier Joe Glenton.

Sue Glenton

Sue Glenton is the mother of British soldier Joe Glenton, who refused to go back to war in Afghanistan on a matter of principle and ethics.

She said: “When Joe was sent to Afghanistan he believed he would be helping to liberate women, stop the opium trade and bring down the warlords. Instead he found himself in a war of attrition which has led to the death of co

untless innocent people.”

She added that until he s

ent his letter to Gordon Brown on 30^th July 2009, he was up on charges of being A

wol, which allows sentencing of up to two years in prison.

He is now up on the more serious charge of desertion which carries a maximum life sentence. She said:

“We’re supposedly fighting in Afghanistan for democracy, really I think we should be fighting for our democracy over here.”

Guy Smallman

Guy Smallman spoke about his time in Afghanistan during the recent November elections. He expressed his dismay with Afghan democracy by saying: “I couldn’t find a single Afghan person who is happy with politics. They believe that their President was elected earlier in the White House.”

He went on to say that he believes that the war is doing nothing to help the Afghan people. Many people are far worse off than before the war started. He said: “Some people have to sell their children to feed their families.”

Stop the War

Nahella Ashraf, Chair of Manchester Stop the War, began her speech by reminding the audience of the main reasons Britain had gone to war.

She said: “We were told that we were looking for Osama Bin Laden dead or alive and to end Al-Qaeda’s movement.”

Other justifications for the war were to promote democracy and to fight for the rights of women in Afghanistan. She argued that this had not happened and in fact in many cases people were far worse off.

She said: “The support for the Taliban is growing. This doesn’t mean that the Afghan people support them, but rather they support anyone who fights against the people who are killing young men, woman and children.”

Links (open in new windows):

http://www.mancsagainsttanks.org/

www.stopwar.org.uk

O ciclo de debates itinerantes de mulheres não parou, gente! Vai acontecer mais um na sexta-feira, 27 de novembro, às 14 horas no auditório da Faculdade de Enfermagem da UFBA. Dessa vez o tema é : ‘Aborto, o que nós temos a ver com isso?’

Vocês já perceberam que o tema está em voga, e que as mulheres estão de fato interferindo nos assuntos que competem a elas. Isso enfatiza a necessidade de debater essa questão polêmica que é o aborto sem deixar que a religião ou que os mesmos homens da lei continuem tomando decisões sem perguntar o que as cidadãs e os cidadãos acham disso tudo.

Blog Marcha Mundial de Mulheres-UFBa

Recently, with me focusing so much on the 1984 and its relation to politics,  I remembered another topic that I was going to bring up.

This one, was something curious that has happened in my life.  I have had two major debates  my high school experience.

One was at the beginning of it, during Freshman year, one was at the end, during senior year.

Both was on the Iraq war/ the war on terror.

One came up because of a project…and I forget why the first one came up.

One was awesome and brilliant, with high fives being exchanged at the ability of the class to hold a civil debate.

And one got out of control, screaming, yelling, cutting people off.  And I ended it by leaving the room, after someone asked snidely, “and where did you get your information from…Huckabee?”

Now before I go on, let me just say that both were excellent teachers, truly admirable examples of their profession (for what it is worth).  Though one of them did like to call me ‘his radical conservative’ back when I was younger, a name I took a lot of pride in.

But several things happened in both debates that could have made the difference.

One way controlled, in the Socratic method, and was handled generally one at a time.

One was uncontrolled, a basic free for all that emotions went high on, with people cutting off each other…and the teacher did have some direct and actual participation in the debate.

Now other than one side will tend to get louder when they have the authority figure on their side perceived or otherwise, the lesson here I think is a simple one.

Controlled situations are…well easier to control, than non controlled situations.  The better the debate is for everyone, the better the ability for everyone to talk calmly with one another.  If things get out of hand, emotions run high, and that will not help anyone at all, no one will be convinced, everyone looks like morons, and the points aren’t really made because everyone is dealing with their own template of what happened instead of what actually did.

Which I will be more than happy to articulate my points in future blogs…many many blogs…and tell you what the rest of the class should have let me say, and then I would have given you your fair shake.  This is what should have happened, but it did not.

This is yet another example, of something from school, that has helped shapen my Conservatism.