I was forwarded this note in one of the lists. About how the various Semitically named american hero's. I quote:
At Cincinnati, Bill Cunningham, according to the LAT, who "introduced presidential candidate John McCain at a rally here today accused Barack Obama of sympathizing with 'world leaders who want to kill us' and invoked Obama's middle name -- three times calling him 'Barack Hussein Obama.' " John McCain repudiated Cunningham's low tactics and said that using the middle name like that three times was "inappropriate" and would never happen again at one of his rallies.
I want to say something about Barack Hussein Obama's name. It is a name to be proud of. It is an American name. It is a blessed name. It is a heroic name, as heroic and American in its own way as the name of General Omar Nelson Bradley or the name of Benjamin Franklin. And denigrating that name is a form of racial and religious bigotry of the most vile and debased sort. It is a prejudice against names deriving from Semitic languages!.....
To that, somebody responded saying that all Christian names were Semitic. And my response to that was...
You have a point there, xxxxx, but then I guess, Semitic as the author meant, was "current" Semitic. Or names as you would find currently in the middle east. Its just how different one see's "things" in the past. You mentioned Jacob and from the same root comes Yusuf.
Got me thinking, The "Europeanization" of Christianity, the expansion of the Islamic Empire, destruction of the Byzantine Empire, etc. etc. meant that it got cut off from the Middle Eastern roots. Another way of looking at it is to look at how Christ is represented in art down the ages and down the regions. The general representation is of a frail(ish), tall, delicate white man, while, according to scientists (there were several documentaries around it), he would possibly have been more of a stocky, coarser featured, powerfully built man. Perhaps that is why the documentary came as so much of a shock.
While saying that, Islam was not torn from its roots as was Judaism and Christianity... and then again, the reaction (both theologically and culturally), the reactions to that tearing was so different.....
Curious how people react to their histories, what they hide and what they emphasise!
More on how this rampant rush to biofuels is mucking up the world's agricultural society. Has anybody thought about what will happen to the food prices if all the bloody farming land is switched to bio-fuel food grain production? I quote:
Agricultural commodities prices will remain high for the next few years, boosted by strong demand from the biofuels industry and robust consumption from emerging markets such as China and India....The price of soyabean, wheat and rice have surged this year to all-time highs and corn prices have jumped to a 12-year record. The costs of coffee, cocoa, sugar, meat, poultry and dairy products have also risen sharply.
Its the poor in the emerging markets who will suffer for this unmanaged environmental policy and the sad thing is, none of the environmentalists are saying anything about the fact that the poor are getting hungier and poorer. But then, saving the planet is more important, let the poor starve. Typical bloody bleeding middle class western liberalism. Hate it. Simply do not think through their silly ideas.
I just saw this news item today. What's the benefit? It will not improve sustainability that much and if airplanes start using biofuels as well, then the price of foodgrains will rise even more. Typical silly choice. Like not buy anything made by child labour but not worry about how the child will be educated or fed.
What a fascinating paper. Imagine trying to use economic models to describe how Christianity moved from being a sect to a religion in the Roman Empire? You see, the author tries to explain and understand how a religion which started off being exclusive became open to all while on the other hand, became very doctrinarian and dictatorial about theology.
So being open as well as rigid at the same time, and how did that help in making the success of the religion in a relatively short period of time? Also, why did all the theological debates around 320AD break out at the same time across a wide variety of countries ranging from Egypt to Asia Minor? The answer can be found in the rational choice theory and the author applies it to the fight between paganism and Christianity.
You see, there was never a question of conversion in Greek or Roman times, you can switch from one deity to another, no problems, as long as you are ok with the Roman Religion (see the parallels with today's secular regimes?). So what did Christianity bring to the table, so to say? and I have to give a lengthy quote here because this is the crucial bit.
Modern historical research ([Harnack, 1908], [Nock, 1933], [Bardy, 1949], [Latourette, 1954] and [MacMullen, 1984]) has shown that the Christian message made converts because it promised individual spiritual salvation, made this promise credible by a unity of doctrine and organization founded on books embodying God's revelation to humankind, and backed this long-term promise with a short-term network of mutual protection and charity that paid tangible benefits to members. Christianity asked of its converts a complete renunciation of all other cults and “insurances” against misfortune and an uncompromising break with the religious traditions that had seemingly made the Roman state the greatest power to date. Against these heavy costs, however, were to be set the benefits of spiritual salvation and material within-group security. These benefits would become especially valuable when the old order appeared to be incapable of further guaranteeing the security and prosperity it had prided itself of for centuries, as happened in the third century.
Its when political dislocation occurred that Christianity took root as paganism was not able to satisfy the Roman's (and that's broadly defined as all members of the Roman empire, not just the inhabitants of current Rome or Italy) ecumenical and spiritual needs.
The author talks about how the Jews were quite heavily involved in proselytisation at that time and how the Christians had to break away from being just another Jewish cult or salvation group and they used the unique theological basis of Jesus, his life, his incarnation and re-incarnation to produce clear blue water between the Jewish and Pagan practices. But this, in the initial cases, was restricted to only few members, admission was very carefully controlled. This could therefore keep the doctrine clean and controlled within a controlled group of people.
But if it had to grow, it had to throw open the doors to outsiders and that would mean that the doctrines would be exposed to different interpretations and then it would again dribble away into sectarianism at worst or paganism at best. So, the compromise that was drawn, and perfectly economically based, was that they threw open the doors but closed the doors on doctrine such as the Council of Nicaea. I quote:
Finally, first imperial favor and subsidization of the church, then disestablishment and financial starving of pagan cults, and lastly the lifting of Christianity up to the rank of official religion of the state under Theodosius in the 390's, with the accompanying proscription of all non-Christian cults, solved the church's problem of adverse selection in recruitment. By disrupting the traditional public cults of the literate upper classes and thereby lowering their opportunity cost of joining in, the church was able to sustain its huge organizational growth.
The author then creates an economic model to predict this movement (see beginning equation and graph) which shows how Christianity moved from sect to an universal church modelling the relationships between benefits of being a pagan versus Christian, the membership conundrum and equilibrium points. He concludes that the rise of Christianity was not a historical accident or an inevitable occasion but a perfectly logical and economic choice made by Romans of that time.
But this does not explain how Christianity dribbled away in Europe nor how Secularism arose from the basic tenets of Christianity. Or how it is arising in USA. Or how its flourishing in Latin America, Africa and Asia? Or how it arose via missionaries in the European imperial times in countries as wide ranging as India to Madagascar?
Or why it did not take root in China, India, or Japan? In particular, why did it not take root in these 3 countries which will, arguably, have the most pagan religions of all (Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism and perhaps Animism as well?). Mind you, it is perfectly rational for conversion to happen in these countries. Whether it is because of fear, or economic benefits or peer pressure, generally, you can boil this idea of adopting another religion down to economic factors. As for why you continue in that religion is a different matter and for future research.
This paper offers an economic interpretation of Christianity's transformation from sect to universal religion in the Roman empire. It first points out paganism's apparent inability to provide individual security in times of distress, such as the third century C.E., as a reason for the increasing demand for monotheism. It then reviews Christianity's monotheistic competitors and points out the reasons why they lost out. Next, it addresses the Christian church's choice between exclusive membership and open access to all applicants on the day of its triumph and shows, by means of a cooperative model, that open access and universal membership were a superior policy if coupled with doctrinal radicalization. Finally, it analyzes the theological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries by means of a Hotelling-type linear spatial model of doctrinal strictness ranging from paganism to Judaism, and traces the theological choices that were made back to the church's need to distance itself from its potential competitors.
Now this is a great idea and perhaps one of the only ways that small farmers can work together to align with the large agronomic value chains ending with the large or small retailers. By linking the small farmers with technology, it removes one of the biggest hurdles in the sustainability of small scale farming, and that is the element of scale.
Whether it is purchasing fertiliser or selling at the local shops, small quantity traders and farmers will always be penalised. I quote:
NEW DELHI: IT major Infosys Technologies on Tuesday said it has entered into a partnership with ACDI/VOCA, a non-profit organisation, for providing an application to improve efficiency of the country's agro supply chain.
The information and communication technology-enabled application minimises inventory requirement, reduces waste and facilitate better integration between retailers and farmers, Infosys said in a statement.
The application manages the supply chain from the level of profiling of farmer clusters, crop planning, scheduling, tracking and forecasting. It also enables farmers to access technical information such as data and images, access to region-specific weat her updates and market information such as daily sales volumes and average prices.
Currently, 1,700 small farmers are integrated into organised retail supply chains through this application and over the next 5 to 8 years the usage is expected to increase to a million farmers, it added.
"This solution gives the organised retail sector access to a reliable small holder production base," Mr Binod H R, Senior VP and Head (India Business Unit), Infosys Technologies said, adding that it decreases farm-to-market losses, currently estimated at 30- 40 per cent on certain products.
ACDI/VOCA is an international development organisation that promotes broad-based economic growth. This application falls under its growth-oriented $6.3-million Microenterprise Development Programme, a USAID-funded initiative. - PTI
What exactly is proportionate force? Should Israel just fire up an unguided rocket for every unguided rocket which comes across?
Or perhaps unguided bombs dropped in a carpet bombing pattern across Gaza?
How about random artillery fire, and since proportionality demands ratio's and proportions, so measure the strength of the rockets and then use that size.
Sometimes I wonder why these politicians are allowed to get away with saying such fatuous sayings? Journalists should challenge them.
And more importantly, if you cannot influence the outcome, then do everybody a favour and shut up because you become part of the problem not the solution.
I read that quote last week and was deeply influenced and impacted by it. I have been thinking about it ever since. It makes perfect sense, what my daughter is reading now or what my son is studying now is based upon things which started centuries ago.
Then comes this article in today's FT, which I support fully. It asks for a world education bank. I quote some snippets:
Education is a well-established global development priority. This was reiterated in 2000 when, at the UN millennium summit, the goal of “universal primary education for every child” was enshrined as the second of the eight millennium development goals the international community set itself to attain by 2015. This is a goal that we are very unlikely to meet.
A World Education Bank would raise the profile of education as a development goal. Its sole purpose would be to promote education at all levels in any country that asked for help. Developing countries would be prime beneficiaries....
While the concept is too wooly at this moment and it is not clear as to how the PISA work or the UNESCO institution will work, but it is a step in the right direction. It is a severe indictment of UNESCO that it is now reduced to a bureaucracy which can easily be shut down and replaced with this nice, tight World Education Bank.
I am puzzled, why would Tata want to use Virgin as the brand-name? Tata has a very good brand name in India and rapidly across the world. The only reason I can think of is that its too fuddy duddy, too quality.. etc. etc. and so they went for the Virgin Name. "Virgin" gives the frisson of fun, excitement and slightly risque image to the entire exercise.
But I bet some moron somewhere is going to get upset and launch a legal case against the name stating that its against some bloody culture or something. Frivolous lawsuits, thy Elysian fields are in India. You just wait...
Sometimes when I read stories like this, I do think that the death penalty is justified. What kind of an animal is this man? How can a man do something like this to his 15 MONTH old nephew?
Now I never realised how cash is counted in different ways around the world! How interesting! Teller Training?