Diberdayakan oleh Blogger.

Popular Posts Today

Letter: Inclusion for the Disabled

Written By Unknown on Senin, 30 September 2013 | 13.26

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.

Your Sept. 19 editorial about the homicide of a man with Down syndrome, Robert Ethan Saylor, 26, of Maryland in a movie theater gave me pause ("A Chance to Learn From a Senseless Death").

We may believe that we have come a long way since the days when anyone who was different was institutionalized. And we may think that as a society we are able to meet the basic civil rights of our citizens, including the mentally ill as well as those with intellectual or developmental disabilities. But the tragic death of Mr. Saylor tells us that we have more work to do.

At the Arc, we strive toward a world in which all people, regardless of their differences, are understood and supported. We focus on gaining greater acceptance of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, including those on the autism spectrum, a group that continues to increase dramatically.

Our programs help identify a person's abilities, and together with our families, teachers and business partners, we create opportunities for inclusion in society.

We applaud the decision by Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland to create a commission to examine how law enforcement, medical workers and others can better understand those with disabilities. Initiatives like this can continue to propel us toward an inclusive society that respects the rights of its citizens and celebrates their abilities.

RICHARD P. SWIERAT
Executive Director, Arc of Westchester
Hawthorne, N.Y., Sept. 24, 2013


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Letter: Abortion and Fetal Pain

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.

To the Editor:

When and whether a human fetus experiences pain may be a scientific issue ("Complex Science at Issue in Politics of Fetal Pain," front page, Sept. 17), but in the abortion debate this is really just a red herring.

Imagine that it could be proved that the fetus does not experience pain or that its pain could be eliminated with some sort of intrauterine anesthetic. Would this lead any abortion opponents to say, "Oh, I guess abortion is O.K. after all"? I doubt it.

The question of fetal pain is not primarily a scientific issue but an emotional one, used politically to promote the view that a woman should not have a right to make her own reproductive decisions.

JAMES PAULSON
Oshkosh, Wis., Sept. 18, 2013

The writer is a professor of chemistry at the University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh.


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Letter: Private School Admission

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.

Re "Private Schools Likely to Drop an Entrance Test" (front page, Sept. 20):

At the Bank Street School for Children, the admissions process for our youngest applicants has never depended upon the E.R.B. exam or on any other standardized test.

Issues of test preparation aside, as educators who believe deeply in our school's progressive philosophy of education, we have long understood that a standardized test score can only narrowly and unfairly define a 4- or a 5-year-old, especially given the broad spectrum of human development at such a young age.

Careful and informed observations of a child — both individually and in small groups — allow us to begin to understand that child's innate curiosity and how he or she approaches both academic problems and social interactions.

That process is a more legitimate and successful assessment of a child's readiness for school and, for us, has always been the preferable alternative to a standardized test.

ALEXIS S. WRIGHT
Dean, Children's Programs
Bank Street College of Education
New York, Sept. 21, 2013


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Op-Ed Columnist: The Right Gets Its ’60s

"Something's happening here.

What it is ain't exactly clear."

— Stephen Stills, 1966

The right-wing campaign to sabotage the Affordable Care Act has driven a lot of normally temperate people past the edge of exasperation. Pundits have described the crusade as crazy, stupid, arrogant, dishonest, cynical, ridiculous and politically suicidal. And that's not just liberals talking. Jennifer Rubin, who blogs from the right for The Washington Post, says of the defunding obsessives, they "have absolutely no idea what they are doing." Fox News seems perplexed, and eyes are rolling at The Weekly Standard. Big Business is appalled. Elders of the Republican right, like Karl Rove, are harrumphing their disapproval.

And yet the zealots press on, threatening to hold the rest of the government hostage to kill a health care reform that (a) is the law and (b) shows every sign of being a good thing for the country.

What's happening here ain't exactly clear. But I have a notion: The Republicans are finally having their '60s. Half a century after the American left experienced its days of rage, its repudiation of the political establishment, conservatives are having their own political catharsis. Ted Cruz is their spotlight-seeking Abbie Hoffman. (The Texas senator's faux filibuster last week reminded me of Hoffman's vow to "levitate" the Pentagon using psychic energy.) The Tea Party is their manifesto-brandishing Students for a Democratic Society. Threatening to blow up America's credit rating is their version of civil disobedience. And Obamacare is their Vietnam.

To those of us who lived through the actual '60s, the conservative sequel may seem more like an adolescent tantrum than a revolution. For obvious starters, their mobilizing cause is not putting an end to an indecent war that cost three million lives, but defunding a law that promises to save lives by expanding access to insurance. Printing up unofficial "Obamacare Cards" and urging people to burn them is a silly parody of the protest that raged 50 years ago. But bear with me.

At the heart of the '60s radical zeitgeist was a sense that the government had forfeited its legitimacy, and that the liberal establishment had sold out or lost its nerve. At the heart of the right-wing uprising is a similar sense of betrayal: the president is not just an adversary but an alien; the Republican leadership has lost its principles; the old rules don't apply.

Like the original '60s, when revolutionary fervor coexisted with the celebration of free love and pharmaceutical bliss, the new '60s has a growing libertarian flank. And just as the 1960s "movement" had its share of camp followers who showed up for the sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll, the Tea Party attracts political freeloaders drawn by the addictive drugs of power and television attention.

Both political upheavals occurred against a backdrop of cultural disorientation, in particular a new-media invasion and a shrinking zone of privacy. In the '60s, the rise of national televised news disrupted the comfort of homogeneous communities. Issues that had been generally confined to a private sphere — especially issues of sexuality and women's rights — burst into public debate. In the '60s, as David Farber of Temple University has written, Americans saw "all of life's chances as infiltrated and even determined by the binds of the political." Today's upheavals likewise take place in an unsettled time of dissolving boundaries, of ubiquitous media and diminishing privacy. Conditions are ripe for the rise of new leaders, some of whom will be demagogues and charlatans.

I tried out my theory on Todd Gitlin, a Columbia professor whose books include "The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage." He pointed to one important similarity between then and now, and one significant divergence.

"The very strong parallel is the go-for-broke mood," Gitlin said. The rules of order and civility of language go out the window because "you feel this is a matter of apocalyptic urgency." Obamacare is not Vietnam, "but for them it is." The health care law, the main components of which are just being implemented, embodies for the right an abuse of government power verging on tyranny, which justifies the most extravagant response.

The main difference, Gitlin said, "is that Abbie Hoffman never would have run for the Senate. The Tea Party, for all of its complaints, and the Republicans in general have a long history of taking their dissent within the party."


13.25 | 0 komentar | Read More

Room for Debate: Walter White's Soul, and Yours

A murderous drug dealer who has ruined lives and destroyed his family would usually earn nothing more than our disgust. But in the AMC series "Breaking Bad," the adventures of the methamphetamine kingpin Walter White have stirred moral debate among many viewers. Is he a hero, a villain, or something in between?

But can a television show, where characters stay with you week after week for years, do more than draw your attention? Can your take on a character's actions make you question your own moral judgment? Or can it affirm immoral judgments? (Listen up, Walter fans!)

Read the Discussion »
13.25 | 0 komentar | Read More

Opinion: Hey ‘Starry Night,’ Say ‘Cheese!’

Written By Unknown on Minggu, 29 September 2013 | 13.26

Illustration by Joon Mo Kang, Vincent Van Gogh's "Starry Night," From The Museum of Modern Art/Licensed by Scala — Art Resource, NY

ARE you thinking of seeing the big fall art exhibitions, including the Magritte show at the Museum of Modern Art or the Balthus show at the Metropolitan Museum of Art? Please be advised: photography is not permitted. Please also be prepared for skirmishes in the galleries between museum guards charged with enforcing no-photography rules and a public that is likely to ignore them. These days, many museum visitors arrive with smartphones and the assumption that they have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of good photographs.

Museum bans on picture-taking are practically unenforceable and are also obsolete. Art museums in America typically permit visitors to take (nonflash) photographs of works in a museum's permanent collection but forbid pictures at temporary exhibitions. This prohibition is currently under review at many institutions, some of which have already dropped it.

You don't have to be a cultural alarmist to feel unsettled by the ubiquity of digital cameras in museums. As early as 1936, the German critic Walter Benjamin warned that cameras were instruments of distraction that impeded concentration and robbed art of its "aura."

Indeed, there is a type of museum visitor today who stops in front of Rembrandts and Vermeers for only as long as it takes to snap a picture of them. Other visitors prefer taking photographs of art-plus-people, blocking traffic in the galleries as they step forward and back trying to compose either "selfies" or tourist-style snaps in which entire families pose in front of old master paintings. This can be exasperating for other visitors and can make smartphones seem to be the enemy of art and beauty.

Nonetheless, the vogue for digital photography is a constructive development that, for the most part, enhances our experience of art. First, there is the eye factor. A visitor who photographs van Gogh's "Starry Night" echoes, however wanly or casually, the basic mission of visual art: to celebrate the act of looking. When you gaze through a lens, you are likely to consider the world more deeply. You frame space and take note of composition, the curve of a line, the play of light and shadow. As the photographer Dorothea Lange noted, "The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera."

As an aid to art education, smartphone cameras are preferable to older devices. Consider Acoustiguides, which offer a blizzard of facts in the place of soulful communication and create a buzzing sound in the galleries that can cause you to wonder, "Am I hearing voices?"

Unlike Acoustiguides, photographs go home with you and offer long-term benefits. For art-history students, iPhone photographs are an earnest reference aid, a crystalline substitute for hard-to-decipher notes.

For everyone else, digital photographs work in much the same way as art postcards did in their heyday a half-century ago when museum gift shops devoted more display space to them. On a recent trip to the Museum of Modern Art, I admired a plastic handbag in the gift shop, peeked at the price — $595, an Issey Miyake! — and ached for the humble Picasso postcards of my childhood.

Astoundingly, there are still a handful of museums that prohibit photography altogether. The Frick Collection, for one, seems to take a perverse pleasure in its old-world formality; it does not permit children under the age of 10 on the grounds either. The Frick's camera policy, like those elsewhere, is now under review. "We are keenly aware of how devices like smartphones are used in galleries," Ian Wardropper, the Frick's director, noted recently in a statement. "We're reviewing the policy, but have not yet made a change."

Most other museums permit photography at least in the permanent exhibition galleries, but ban picture taking at temporary shows to accommodate and appease lenders. Private collectors who lend museums their paintings like reassurance. They don't want thousands of strangers to photograph their artwork, post it on Facebook or add a humorous mustache to it.

Museums have lately begun to rethink loan contracts and to encourage lenders to be less possessive with their artwork. "In the past year we have been making strides to loosen our policy," Maxwell L. Anderson, the director of the Dallas Museum of Art, noted in an e-mail. "We now routinely attempt to negotiate with all of our lenders to allow photography of their works while on display in the galleries. We have included that express permission in our own loan letters and contracts." The change, he notes, should put an end to confrontations between guards and visitors. "It is far more important for our gallery attendants to focus on the safety of the works of art and our visitors than to have to constantly admonish our visitors, 'No photographs!' "

As subtle as that point may seem, the new loan arrangements represent a sea change. Or rather a see change. We are at the tipping point where art museums are poised to become copying centers whose every single artwork can be reproduced in digital form a million times every day.

I say hooray. When we photograph, e-mail, tweet and Instagram paintings, we capitalize on technological innovation to expand familiarity with an ancient form. So, too, we increase the visual literacy of this country. Much can be gained. Nothing can be lost. A photograph of a painting can no more destroy a masterpiece than it can create one.

Deborah Solomon is the art critic at WNYC and the author of the forthcoming book "American Mirror: The Life and Art of Norman Rockwell."


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Download: Rolf-Dieter Heuer

The physicist Rolf-Dieter Heuer is director general of the European Council for Nuclear Research, or CERN, in Switzerland, where he oversees efforts to discover the subatomic underpinnings of the universe using the 17-mile Large Hadron Collider.

READING E-mails, unfortunately. Most of it has to do with the management of CERN. My job compares to being a mayor of a small city of 3,000 inhabitants that houses several thousand tourists every day. When it comes to books, however, I enjoy biographies such as Boris Stoicheff on Gerhard Herzberg or Ronald Clark on Einstein. And I like intelligent crime stories. The rabbi series by Harry Kemelman is an example. The rabbi uses logic to solve crime. I like logic. I don't like things going on by chance.

LISTENING If you come home in the evening and you are really tired, you have two choices. You can choose rock music, which wakes you up and then the next day you are tired again or you can take some music that calms you down and you can talk in parallel. I like Mozart.

WATCHING I'm a big soccer fan, so I'm trying to keep up with the World Cup qualifiers. To some extent, the way you have success in soccer is the same as in particle physics. If you have 11 geniuses on the field, you will not win. The geniuses will fight against each other and there is no team. You need the right mixture of geniuses and workers.

FOLLOWING I read a lot of newspapers online, and frequently find myself shocked by the comment threads that follow certain articles. I suppose I'm not the only one to worry about the long-term consequences of transferring our social interactions from face to face to online. It's so easy to do something anonymously. This is a danger. If you have an aggressive opinion, you should say who you are.

COLLECTING I'm a great fan of traveling with old guidebooks. I have a "Plan de Paris par Arrondissement," first published in 1955, and it's interesting to see what's changed and what's not. It gives you an insight into how people used to travel. Being German, of course, I also have a healthy collection of Baedekers, and only wish I might one day find some of the early editions. I think the oldest guidebook in my collection is from 1901, London.

EATING Sometimes a fondue is just the best thing in the evening. Don't ask me what kinds of cheese. I have to be very diplomatic. CERN is on the Swiss-French border. I like the Swiss cheese and I like the French cheese.

Kate Murphy is a journalist in Houston who writes frequently for The New York Times.


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

News Analysis: I’ll Have What She’s Thinking

SCIENCE has looked into some strange things over the centuries — reports of gargantuan sea monsters, purported images of Jesus, sightings of alien spaceships and so on. When I first heard of spontaneous orgasm, while researching a book on yoga, including its libidinal cousin, tantra, I figured it was more allegory than reality and in any event would prove beyond the reach of even the boldest investigators.

Well, I was wrong. It turns out science has tiptoed around the subject for more than a century and of late has made considerable progress in determining not only the neurophysiological basis of the phenomenon but also its prevalence. Men are mentioned occasionally. But sex researchers have found that the novel type of autoerotism shows up mainly in women.

Ground zero for the research is Rutgers University, where scientists have repeatedly had female volunteers put their heads into giant machines and focus their attention on erotic fantasies — the scans reveal that the pleasure centers of their brains light up in ways indistinguishable from everyday orgasms. The lab atmosphere is no-nonsense, with plenty of lights and white coats and computer monitors.

Subjects often thrash about so forcefully that obtaining clear images of their brains can be difficult.

"Head movement is a huge issue," Nan Wise, a doctoral candidate at Rutgers who helps run the project, said in an interview. "It's hard to get a decent signal."

She said a volunteer's moving her head more than two millimeters — less than a 10th of an inch — can make for a bad day in the lab.

It is easy to dismiss this as a new kind of narcissism in search of scientific respectability, a kinky pleasure coming out of the shadows. Many YouTube videos now purport to show people using controlled breathing and erotic introspection to achieve what they describe as "thinking off" and "energy orgasms."

But the research is also illuminating a plausible neurological basis for the long intermingling of sexuality and mysticism and, in particular, the teachings of tantra, which arose in medieval India as a path to spiritual ecstasy. Perhaps most important, it illustrates how little we really know of human physiology. Scientists have long debated the purpose of the female orgasm, which plays no direct role in procreation. The emerging reality of spontaneous orgasm seems to do nothing but deepen the mystery.

The investigations began more than a century ago as physicians described what some called psychic coitus.

On the Upper East Side of Manhattan, at the Metropolitan Dispensary and Hospital for Women and Children, the chief physician, T. J. McGillicuddy, issued a warning in "Functional Disorders of the Nervous System in Women," published in 1896. He said "involuntary orgasms" from erotic thoughts could lower a woman's vital energies and "cause melancholia and mental weakness."

As a cure, he recommended hard mattresses and cold sponge baths.

The stigma associated with spontaneous orgasm fell away as sex investigators began to see autoerotism as a normal part of human experience.

Havelock Ellis, the pioneering British physician, described the contemplative state in his landmark six-volume study of sexual behavior, published between 1897 and 1910. He said that concentrating on sexual images, among other stimuli, could lead to "spontaneous orgasm in either sex, even in perfectly normal persons."

Surveys revealed that the phenomenon, while rare, nonetheless seemed to occur with some regularity. In 1948, Alfred C. Kinsey of Indiana University and his colleagues published "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male." That groundbreaking study looked at thousands of cases but noted only two in which men "could reach climax by deliberate concentration of thought on erotic situations."

But the team's follow-up report on women, published in 1953, surveyed 2,727 women, and the researchers found that 2 percent of the interviewees — 54 women — reported an ability to reach orgasm by "fantasy alone."

William J. Broad is a science reporter for The New York Times and the author of "The Science of Yoga: The Risks and the Rewards."


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Opinionator | The Stone: The Enigma of Chinese Medicine

The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless.

A few years ago, while visiting Beijing, I caught a cold. My wife, who is Chinese, and wanted me to feel better, took me to a local restaurant. After we sat down, she ordered a live turtle. The proprietors sent it over. I startled as the waiters unceremoniously cut the turtle's throat, then poured its blood into a glass. To this frightening prospect, they added a shot of baijiu, very strong grain alcohol. The proprietor and waiters, now tableside, gestured with obvious pride for me to drink the potent medicine. I winced, found the courage, and drank up.

We are all living in the vast gray area between leech-bleeding and antibiotics.

I felt better later that night and in the days that followed, but I wasn't sure why. Was it the placebo effect? Perhaps my body was already on the mend that night, rendering the medicine superfluous. Or did the turtle blood-baijiu potion speed my recovery? Maybe in years to come we will discover some subtle chemical properties in turtle blood that ameliorate certain illnesses.

Many Westerners will scoff at the very idea that turtle blood could have medicinal effects. But at least some of those same people will quaff a tree-bark tincture or put on an eggplant compress recommended by Dr. Oz to treat skin cancer. We are all living in the vast gray area between leech-bleeding and antibiotics. Alternative medicine has exploded in recent years, reawakening a philosophical problem that epistemologists call the "demarcation problem."

The demarcation problem is primarily the challenge of distinguishing real science from pseudoscience. It often gets trotted out in the fight between evolutionists and creation scientists. In that tired debate, creationism is usually dismissed on the grounds that its claims cannot be falsified (evidence cannot prove or disprove its natural theology beliefs). This criterion of "falsifiability" was originally formulated by Karl Popper, perhaps the most influential philosopher of science of the 20th century, and, at first blush, it seems like a good one — it nicely rules out the spooky claims of pseudoscientists and snake oil salesmen. Or does it?

The contemporary philosopher of science Larry Laudan claims that philosophers have failed to give credible criteria for demarcating science from pseudoscience. Even falsifiability, the benchmark for positivist science, rules out many of the legitimate theoretical claims of cutting-edge physics, and rules in many wacky claims, like astrology — if the proponents are clever about which observations corroborate their predictions. Moreover, historians of science since Thomas Kuhn have pointed out that legitimate science rarely abandons a theory the moment falsifying observations come in, preferring instead (sometimes for decades) to chalk up counter evidence to experimental error. The Austrian philosopher Paul Feyerabend even gave up altogether on a so-called scientific method, arguing that science is not a special technique for producing truth but a flawed species of regular human reasoning (loaded with error, bias and rhetorical persuasion). And finally, increased rationality doesn't always decrease credulity.

We like to think that a rigorous application of logic will eliminate kooky ideas. But it doesn't. Even a person as well versed in induction and deduction as Arthur Conan Doyle believed that the death of Lord Carnarvon, the patron of the Tutankhamen expedition, may have been caused by a pharaoh's curse.

The issue of alternative medicine, especially Traditional Chinese Medicine (T.C.M.), brings fresh passion to the demarcation problem. Americans are gravitating to acupuncture and herbal medicines (less so the zoological pharmacology, like my turtle blood), but we crave some scientific validation for these ancient practices. And the Chinese are themselves looking for ways to legitimize T.C.M. to the Western world, and distinguish it from the more superstitious aspects of traditional culture.

A couple years after the Beijing visit, while I was looking for a place to live in Shanghai, a realtor assured me that the apartment we were viewing was in a very auspicious location. Looking out the window 10 floors up, I could see the bend of Suzhou Creek as it passed the building. He explained that this curve and flow was very good feng shui. It was a prosperous channel of "positive qi energy."

I took the apartment.

The general facts of feng shui (literally "wind and water") strike many of us as relatively indisputable. Simply put, if you arrange your furniture in certain patterns and directions, it feels to most people psychologically better than certain other patterns. But the metaphysical "causal theory" behind these facts is more controversial. Chinese medicine holds that energy meridians mark the flow of a force called "qi" and this force is streaming throughout nature and our bodies — causing harmony and health or disharmony and illness (depending on the degree to which it is blocked or unblocked).

Darwin's scientific revolution didn't correspond to the experimental method of the falsifiability model.

I certainly don't need this theory to be true to explain why I feel less agitated when my office desk faces the doorway than I do when my back is to the door. And I don't think I need it to explain the sense of peace I get from looking out my window at Suzhou Creek. Perhaps the metaphysical qi theory of feng shui will eventually give way to one that aligns with our understanding of sensory perception or psychology. Growing clinical evidence showing the palliative effects of placebos has led many tough-minded doctors to conclude that beneficial physiological responses (like endorphin and dopamine release) can be triggered by subtle suggestions, sugar pills, prayer, music and other seemingly gratuitous mechanisms. So, why not furniture placement?


Aristotle distinguished science from other kinds of knowledge on the grounds that it gave a causal explanation for observable experience, and its claims were systematic (logically coherent). By these Aristotelian criteria, T.C.M. at least looks fairly scientific — the system of qi provides the causal foundation for specific associations within acupuncture healing, kung fu skills, feng shui architecture, herbal remedies and so on.

Starting in the 17th century, however, the definition of science changed significantly. It wasn't enough to have a systematic causal story, since many competing stories could fit the same observable phenomenon. Retrograde planetary motion could be explained by Ptolemaic epicycle causation, for example, but that causal picture was eventually unseated by a shift to heliocentric astronomy. What's needed is the correct and verifiable causal explanation; and the scientific method (the "hypothetico-deductive model" in philosophy of science parlance) arose in order to put causal explanations through a gantlet of empirical tests.

Can qi theory be scientific in this more rigorous sense? Skepticism seems reasonable here because no one has seen qi directly. Even the meridians (or channels) of qi in the body remain undetectable to Western instruments, yet T.C.M. practitioners spend years mastering the meridian anatomical charts.

Are they chasing an illusion that takes authority from tradition alone, or are we still only at the commencement stage of discovery? Qi energy looks unfalsifiable, but maybe the promissory note will soon be paid. After all, scientists theorized, hypothesized and assumed the reality of the gene (a unit of heredity) long before anyone actually observed one. And the Higgs boson was posited in the 1960s, but only confirmed in 2012. Will qi energy be confirmed as the causal underpinning for the often-reported correspondence between acupuncture and healing?

In the 19th century, Darwin's scientific revolution didn't correspond to the experimental method of the falsifiability model. Galileo had been rolling balls down inclined planes and making direct observations to evaluate his gravitation theory, but Darwin's theory of natural selection was less observable. Instead, Darwin's natural selection attained increasing scientific acceptance because it explained so many diverse phenomena (like adaptive structures, anatomical homologies, the fossil record, and so on). The paradigm of qi is as explanatorily resourceful and deeply rooted in China as Darwinism is in Western science. But there's a major difference, too, and it needs articulation.

Darwinism only posits three major ingredients for evolution; offspring vary from their parents and siblings, offspring resemble their parents more than non-kin, and more offspring are born than can survive in their environment. Each of these facts is easily observable and when you put them together you get adaptive evolution of populations. No additional metaphysical force, like qi, is being posited.


While lying on the acupuncturist's table in China recently, I wondered if I was too skeptical or too gullible about qi. Dr. Shao Lei, at the Huashan Hospital, was nationally renowned as a skillful manager of this mysterious force. I explained to him that I had chronic lower back pain. Dr. Shao made a study of my tongue and informed me that my back pain was actually a qi problem with my kidney, but he could strengthen the weak qi area. He stuck me with 10 needles in my lumbar region, and a couple of pins behind my knees. He hooked these to an electrical voltage generator and zapped me gently for 20 minutes, while warming my back with a heat lamp that looked like it could be keeping french fries hot at a fast-food joint. I did not engage in this mild torture once, but several times — just to make a thorough, albeit anecdotal, study of the matter. And I can honestly say that my back improved in the few days that followed each session.

It seems entirely reasonable to believe in the effectiveness of T.C.M. and still have grave doubts about qi. In other words, it is possible for people to practice a kind of "accidental medicine" — in the sense that symptoms might be alleviated even when their causes are misdiagnosed (it happens all the time in Western medicine, too). Acupuncture, turtle blood, and many similar therapies are not superstitious, but may be morsels of practical folk wisdom. The causal theory that's concocted to explain the practical successes of treatment is not terribly important or interesting to the poor schlub who's thrown out his back or taken ill.

Ultimately, one can be skeptical of both qi and a sacrosanct scientific method, but still be a devotee of fallible pragmatic truth. In the end, most of us are gamblers about health treatments. We play as many options as we can; a little acupuncture, a little ibuprofen, a little turtle's blood. Throw enough cards (or remedies), and eventually some odds will go your way. Is that superstition or wisdom?


Stephen T. Asma is a professor of philosophy at Columbia College Chicago, and the author, most recently, of "Against Fairness." He will be in Beijing on a Fulbright grant in 2014.


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Opinion: Knock, Knock, Knockin’ on Nobel’s Door

Elliot Landy/Redferns — Getty Images

Bob Dylan at a photo session for the "Nashville Skyline" album cover, at Woodstock, N.Y., in 1968.

THIS year's Nobel Prize in Literature should be announced in early October, and over on the tony British betting site Ladbrokes, Haruki Murakami of Japan, riding the waves of acclaim for his fantastical novel "1Q84," is the favorite. Other well-known names — Milan Kundera, Philip Roth, Joyce Carol Oates — are bandied about, but Mr. Murakami is unique: among perennial Nobel front-runners, it would be difficult to find a writer more influenced by the popular music and culture born of the social and cultural upheavals of the 1960s.

The Quotable Bob Dylan

That fact prompts a pressing question: why isn't the most vital of the artistic catalysts of those upheavals himself a front-runner for the prize? I'm referring of course to Bob Dylan, a fierce and uncompromising poet whose writing, 50 years on, still crackles with relevance. Mr. Dylan's work remains utterly lacking in conventionality, moral sleight of hand, pop pabulum or sops to his audience. His lyricism is exquisite; his concerns and subjects are demonstrably timeless; and few poets of any era have seen their work bear more influence.

I'm not the first to suggest it, but it's time to take the idea seriously. The Nobel Prize in Literature is not awarded posthumously, and Mr. Dylan, now in his 70s, has battled heart disease. Alfred Nobel's will decreed that the prize should go to a writer with "the most outstanding work in an ideal direction." Why hasn't Bob Dylan received one?

Given his medium (songwriting) and profession (rock star), Mr. Dylan may have some strikes against him:

Bob Dylan is not in the mold of the sober creator of "great literature." He most certainly is not — but consider: in 1997, the literature prize went to Dario Fo, the incorrigible and profane Italian playwright, at whose selection the Roman Catholic Church in particular was amusingly aghast. The vast majority of literature prize recipients are world titans (Mario Vargas Llosa, Günter Grass) or less-well-known but established candidates (Orhan Pamuk of Turkey, the late Seamus Heaney of Ireland), with a relatively obscure recipient every so often (like Elfriede Jelinek of Austria nine years ago), just to keep us all on our toes. It has been too long since the Swedish Academy has honored a mind like Mr. Fo's.

Mr. Dylan just writes pop lyrics. Actually, Mr. Dylan writes, full stop. Why discount what has been written because of where it ends up? Those who would use the word "pop" as a cudgel or tool of exclusion do so at their peril. Dickens and Twain, Hugo and Shakespeare and Euripides — all soaked up the acclaim of their day. Alfred Hitchcock, whose work at its height met critical condescension, would have some useful thoughts on the subject as well.

Still — his doggerel verses are not literature. In the 1950s in America, rock was a mongrel music, created out of the cultures of the downtrodden — people who built their lives around the blues, folk, gospel or country. Electric guitars got involved, and then some leers and hip thrusts. A new postwar generation of youth took notice, and a cultural revolution was born.

Mr. Dylan added literature. He was first, of course, a singer of folky loquacity, and a serious student of the music's antediluvian influences: what the critic Greil Marcus calls "the old, weird America." To this he wedded the yawp of the Beats and the austere intellectualism of the Symbolists. Drugs didn't hurt, and passing but pungent imagery shows that Mr. Dylan had absorbed the Bible as well.

That disruptive mélange gave us the imagery and power of songs like "Chimes of Freedom" and "Desolation Row," of "A Hard Rain's a-Gonna Fall" and "Visions of Johanna," among scores of others. He has displayed a mastery of everything from the political jeremiad ("It's Alright, Ma [I'm Only Bleeding])" to the romantic epic ("Tangled Up in Blue"), and lines like "Money doesn't talk, it swears" show his way with the lancing aperçu. Mr. Dylan is neither a saint nor a moralist. Epic anger and personal petulance erupt out of his lyrics. But so do tender mercies, extravagant and deep love, self-castigation and what turns out to have been no little wisdom.

Pop lyrics are corrupted by the writer's desire for popular acclaim. In fact, the record is clear that — whatever ambition lay in his breast — his is a personality, and his art is of a nature, that makes it difficult to chase popular approval or sanction. Mr. Dylan is no Solzhenitsyn, but he is a figure who genuinely challenges the established order.

He was surely the first pop artist to tell his audience things it didn't want to hear. In 1963, from the dais at a civil rights dinner, he looked with some contempt at the well-dressed crowd and said, "My friends don't wear suits." The drama surrounding his lurch into electric music is perhaps overstated; "Like a Rolling Stone" was a huge hit. What's really radical about the song is its derisive look at his privileged listeners. Mr. Dylan reveled in the comeuppance he saw on the horizon: "You said you'd never compromise" and now "... you stare into the vacuum of his eyes / And ask him do you want to make a deal?"

Bill Wyman is a freelance writer on the arts and former arts editor at NPR and Salon.


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Editorial: Now, the Hard Part

Written By Unknown on Sabtu, 28 September 2013 | 13.26

President Obama and President Hassan Rouhani of Iran showed leadership this week in committing themselves to resolving the dispute over Iran's nuclear program. On Friday, they capped days of promising gestures with a phone call — the first direct contact between top American and Iranian leaders in more than three decades.

In a series of speeches, media interviews, private meetings and even a news conference, Mr. Rouhani, a moderate who took office in August, and his foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, laid the groundwork for mending ties with American policy makers, policy analysts and businesspeople. But the phone call was the most audacious sign of a new day, and Mr. Rouhani immediately told the world about it on Twitter.

It's hard not to be swept up in the euphoria, especially when an adversary begins to seem not only reasonable but personable. Both leaders have now taken risks that would have been impossible even a few months ago, before Mr. Rouhani was elected to replace Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a hard-liner who spewed anti-American and anti-Israel diatribes. But so far, it's only words; the Iranians haven't actually done anything to satisfy concerns about their nuclear program. In fact, Mr. Rouhani has repeatedly affirmed Iran's plans to continue enriching uranium.

Moreover, it is hard not to worry about how crushing, and possibly dangerous, the disappointment will be if the two countries fail to settle differences over Iran's nuclear program and begin to build a new relationship beyond that. The two sides came to this point after years of international sanctions — approved by the United States, the European Union and the United Nations Security Council — that have damaged Iran's economy and after Mr. Obama warned of possible military action to keep Iran from producing a nuclear weapon.

At the White House, Mr. Obama acknowledged the difficulties but spoke of a responsibility to pursue diplomacy and said he believed "we have a unique opportunity to make progress with the new leadership in Tehran." That, he said, will require "meaningful, transparent and verifiable" actions on Iran's part to persuade the international community that it is not building nuclear weapons.

Work on the nuclear issue began when the United States and its five partners in the negotiations — Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany — met with Mr. Zarif on Thursday for the first time, and then Mr. Zarif and Secretary of State John Kerry had a 30-minute one-on-one conversation. The two left the meeting talking about trying to conclude a nuclear agreement in one year.

No country feels more threatened by Iran than Israel, and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is clearly unhappy with the American-Iranian thaw. In addition to having a nuclear program, Iran is the main backer of Hezbollah and has provided arms and fighters to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

But a peaceful solution to the nuclear dispute would undoubtedly be the best outcome and would help enhance stability in the region. After years of Iranian dodging and delays, the two sides have set an ambitious timetable for reaching an agreement. The work begins in earnest when Iran and the major powers resume their negotiations in three weeks.


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Editorial: Toward Marriage Equality in New Jersey

A state judge's welcome ruling on Friday that New Jersey must allow same-sex couples to marry was legally sound, full of common sense and a strong signal to the New Jersey Legislature to renew its efforts to make such unions legal.

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that same-sex couples were entitled "on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples." But the court split on the question of whether same-sex couples had a right to marry under the State Constitution. In 2012, the State Legislature voted to allow same-sex marriage, but the bill was vetoed by Gov. Chris Christie.

The basic injustice of allowing civil unions but not same-sex marriage became significantly more egregious when, following the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage in June, federal agencies like the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services began rolling out new rules providing for federal benefits for lawfully married same-sex couples.

This injustice lay at the heart of Friday's forceful ruling by Judge Mary Jacobson of State Superior Court in Mercer County. "The ineligibility of same-sex couples for federal benefits is currently harming same-sex couples in New Jersey in a wide range of contexts," she wrote. "Same-sex couples must be allowed to marry in order to obtain equal protection of the law under the New Jersey Constitution." Judge Jacobson noted, for example, that couples in civil unions may not enjoy the protections of the Family Medical Leave Act or access the same federal tax benefits as married couples. Her 53-page decision thoroughly demolished the state's argument that New Jersey could not be held responsible for not treating same-sex couples equally because it was the federal government that denied benefits to couples in a civil union, not the state.

The ruling brings New Jersey tantalizingly close to ending official discrimination against gay people and joining the 13 states that currently allow same-sex marriages, but it isn't there yet. Indeed, Governor Christie shamefully plans to appeal the decision, possibly preventing it from going into effect on Oct. 21 as the judge ordered, and potentially delaying fair treatment for many residents of the state for a year or more.

But there's another avenue. The Democratic-led Legislature has until January to override Mr. Christie's veto of their 2012 marriage equality bill. Bolstered by the ruling, legislative leaders should devote themselves now to making that happen.


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Op-Ed Columnist: Three Sisters (Not Chekhov’s)

It's September, and school's in. Let's talk to some teachers, shall we?

The teachers I have in mind are Edel Carolan, 28; Denise Dargan, 36; and Melinda Johnson, 38. They're sisters, each with a different kind of teaching experience. Edel is a second-grade teacher at a public school in the Bronx, while Denise, who stopped teaching three years ago, spent eight years as a teacher at a New York City charter school, one of the seven charters that Carl Icahn, the financier, has opened in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Melinda, meanwhile, teaches second grade in a suburban school district in New York.

When I got them together over the summer, my thought was that it would be interesting to explore the differences between their varied teaching backgrounds. And there were certainly plenty of differences: Denise raved about her job teaching in the charter school, though she also said that the longer school days and the intensity of the place took a toll on her family life. Melinda, who had also taught at a public school in the Bronx before landing her current job in the suburbs, recalled being amazed at the "sense of calm" in the suburban school. "I was shocked," she said. "I thought 'Where's all the action?' " Edel talked about how she could never take parental involvement for granted the way her sisters could — but also about how satisfying it was when she had a class full of kids whose parents were invested in their educations.

In the weeks since we had that conversation, however, what has stuck with me is not so much the differences as something they all had in common. All three sisters felt that they had been unprepared to stand in front of an urban classroom when they first became teachers. Denise, who didn't have a teaching degree, had been hired by Jeffrey Litt, then the principal of the charter school — he is now the superintendent of all the Icahn charters — so it is not a surprise that she had to learn on the job. Indeed, she made it sound as if learning on the job was relatively easy because Litt was such a gifted teacher himself.

Edel went to a college in Pennsylvania and Melinda to one in New York. Both have undergraduate degrees in elementary education, yet they both recalled how lost they felt when they first stood in front of a classroom. They hadn't done nearly enough student teaching, they felt, and, in any case, the student teaching they had done hadn't prepared them to deal with issues, as Edel put it, "like poverty, drugs, crime, and hunger" that she was seeing on a daily basis.

In desperation, Edel sent a note to one of her college professors asking for help. (He gave her a few pointers.) Melinda recalls thinking that even the most basic elements of her job — classroom management, organization, lesson planning — were things she had to figure out on her own, after she had begun teaching. When I asked them what they had learned in college, they shouted in unison: theory! (Denise went on to get a master's degree in education, which she laughingly described as "not exactly hands-on.")

For all the talk about public school reform — much of which revolves around improving the practice of teaching — what goes on in schools of education never seems to get much attention. According to a study released a few months ago by the National Council on Teacher Quality — a study that reported that three-quarters of the nation's teaching programs are, "at best," mediocre — "the field of teacher preparation has rejected any notion that its role is to train the next generation of teachers." The report continues, "The burden of training has shifted from the teacher preparation program to the novice teacher — or more accurately the new teacher's employer."

Yet shouldn't teacher education be precisely what the reform movement should be focused on? Surely, it would be a lot easier to improve the quality of teaching by training people before they become teachers, rather than after they've started on the job, the way Edel, Denise and Melinda had to learn.

"It never fails to amaze me how few reformers have talked about this," says Amanda Ripley, the author of the fine new book, "The Smartest Kids in the World." Ripley investigated three countries that have educational outcomes better than ours: Finland, South Korea and Poland. In Finland, she discovered that getting into a university teaching program was akin to "getting into M.I.T.," she told me. "You master a subject, and then you spend a year doing student teaching, with a mentor who gives you constant feedback." By the time the teacher is ready to join the work force, he or she actually knows how to do the job.

As it turns out, there are some people who are trying to transform teacher education here at home. As the school year progresses, I hope to introduce some of them — and their ideas.


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Opinionator | Disunion: Shelby’s Great Raid

Disunion follows the Civil War as it unfolded.

In the aftermath of the Union's capture of Little Rock, Ark., on Sept. 10, 1863, the Confederate general Sterling Price led 8,000 rebels on a dejected march toward the southwest corner of the state, near Arkadelphia. Once there, the soldiers settled into their camps with the enthusiasm of a chain gang. Out on the edge of town, on a near-empty creek bed, Col. Joseph Orville Shelby, known as Jo, his arm in a sling, staked out a fittingly bleak campsite.

It had been a star-crossed year for the dashing, 32-year-old cavalryman from Missouri. Since winning command of his own division — "Shelby's Iron Brigade" — the self-trained horseman had proved time and again that he was a gutsy fighter and inspiring leader. And what did he have to show for it? An endless series of retreats and now a painful injury, suffered at Helena, Ark., on July 4, just as Ulysses S. Grant was receiving the surrender at Vicksburg that Helena was supposed to forestall.

When not fighting battles, Shelby and his men enjoyed going on raids, wreaking havoc behind enemy lines. But it had been nearly six months since the last raid, and that one had not gone well. The Confederate general John S. Marmaduke, who was more experienced with infantry than cavalry, had ordered the raiders to lay siege to Cape Girardeau, Mo. Shelby spent five hours throwing men at a wall of federal artillery, a futile endeavor that showed why you don't bring a horse to a cannon fight.

Sitting outside Arkadelphia, Shelby had pondered the future under his commanders – and decided there wasn't one. With his adjutant and historian, John N. Edwards, at his side, Shelby met with Thomas C. Reynolds, the Confederate governor-in-exile of Missouri, and sought support for a new raid, one that he alone would lead. The objectives, Edwards wrote later, were "to penetrate Missouri as far as practicable, inflict what damage he could upon the enemy, and gather unto his friends the greatest advantage possible."

Where had Shelby dreamed up this quixotic venture? Was it from hearing of exploits of his boyhood friend John Hunt Morgan, whose two-week invasion of Indiana and Ohio in July had terrorized Northerners? Or was it the memory of his own 800-mile expedition behind Union lines to his home in Lafayette County, Mo., in the summer of 1862, from which he returned with 1,000 fresh recruits — the core of his Iron Brigade?

Whatever the inspiration for the raid, it lacked support from Shelby's military superiors. But Reynolds was excited. As good Missouri Confederates, he and Shelby shared a belief that under the right circumstances, the arrival of the Stars and Bars could foment an insurrection in the slave-owning Union state. Indeed, pro-Southern feeling in Missouri was high, thanks to oppressive measures taken by federal troops in four counties in the western part of the state.

Reynolds prevailed on Price and the new commander of Confederate forces in Arkansas, Theophilus H. Holmes, to give Shelby the go-ahead. Holmes, a mostly deaf, 59-year-old mediocrity known behind his back as Granny Holmes, may have assented to the raid to rid himself of an impetuous colonel who he assumed would be captured, as Morgan was. Like many professional military men, Holmes saw little difference between a raider and a bushwhacker.

On the eve of the raid, the general called Shelby to his tent. As soon as he entered, wrote Edwards, Holmes said, "Sir, your men are nothing but a set of thieves, and their thieving must be stopped."

Shelby demanded to know the general's source. "Everybody says so," replied Holmes.

"Do you believe a thing when everybody says it?"

Holmes replied that he did.

"Do you know what everybody says about you?"

Holmes said he did not.

"They say that you are a damned old fool."

And with that, on Sept. 22, 1863, Shelby and 800 men in four divisions rode out of Arkadelphia, to the cheers of soldiers and citizens. As they parted, Price told his colonel that if he returned safely from Missouri, a promotion to brigadier general would be awaiting him.

The raiders traveled light, with just two pieces of artillery and 12 wagons of ammunition. Along the way, Shelby scooped up men, munitions and materials in at least 23 lightning-quick actions on poorly manned depots and forts. Union officials sent scores of telegraph messages to one another during the three weeks when the raiding party was active, for as the historian Daniel O'Flaherty observed, "no one ever knew where Shelby was until after he had been there."

Telegraph chatter often linked Shelby to Quantrill, and accused the independent cavalry of flouting the conventions of war. Early in the raid Shelby's men chased off 200 federal troops near the Arkansas River and plundered the supply wagons left behind. Like most rebel soldiers, they were desperately low on clothing and shoes, and when they captured Neosho, Mo., on Oct. 3, they were decked out mostly in Union blue.

Neosho would have fallen to the rebels regardless of what they wore. Another incident, however, was more troubling. Shelby, Edwards and others were riding past a German stronghold when a "tall, lank, kill-dee of a fellow" hopped into their path brandishing rifle and revolver.

"Well, boys, I'm glad to see you," said the young tough, who naturally assumed the column of bluecoats advancing toward him were Union men. "I heard Jo Shelby was coming this way," he continued, explaining that he had come out to "have a pop at him with this here weapon."

The colonel and his entourage, amused at this instance of mistaken identity, let him talk.

"Me and a parcel of the boys just formed a kind of guerrilla company for home service," he continued, "and only day afore yesterday we killed old man Beasly, Tom Mays and two of Price's men just home from the army."

At this, wrote Edwards, "Shelby's face hardened instantly, and his lips closed firm and ominous." He asked the man, "Did these men make resistance?"

"No, not exactly," came the reply, "but they were rebels, you know."

"Precisely just such rebels as you see before you!" Shelby thundered.

And with that, the Confederate soldier disguised as the enemy ordered the startled civilian taken away and shot.

On they went in a 1,500-mile gallop around Missouri and Arkansas, cutting telegraph lines, pulling up tracks, ambushing Union outposts, executing deserters and Jayhawkers, ordering escaped slaves back to their masters, pillaging storehouses, cheering the locals and constantly adding recruits.

Related
Disunion Highlights

Fort Sumter

Explore multimedia from the series and navigate through past posts, as well as photos and articles from the Times archive.

The Union Army finally caught up to them at Marshall, Mo., just down the road from Waverly, where a 21-year-old Jo Shelby had moved from Kentucky to grow hemp with slave labor. The raiding party now numbered 1,200, but thousands more federal troops ringed the town. Spiking one of the two rebel cannons, Shelby ordered a jailbreak straight through enemy lines — and it worked. Their force was split in two by Union cavalry, but many of Shelby's men knew this country well, and by the time they reached Warrensburg, 60 miles away, they had shaken off their pursuers and retaken the offensive.

The raid's final week was spent in a day-and-night retreat through downpours of rain and snow, occasionally interrupted by skirmishes in the rear. Cavalry raids are storied for the level of physical endurance they demand of the rider, but even by this measure the privations on Shelby's raid were extreme.

"To those unacquainted with the effects produced by loss of sleep, the sensations would be novel and almost incredible," Edwards later wrote. "Beyond the third night stolid stupor generally prevails, and an almost total insensibility to pain." Men "dropped from the saddle unawakened by the fall," or were poked by officers with sabers "until the blood spouted, without changing a muscle of their blotched, bloated faces."

Granny Holmes was no doubt astonished when, on Nov. 3, Shelby's exhausted brigade rode into Washington, Ark., larger and better equipped than when it left 41 days before. Shelby instantly became the most famous Confederate in the west. An epic poem was composed in his honor, along with a campfire song:

Ho boys! Make a noise!
The Yankees are afraid!
The river's up and hell's to pay —
Shelby's on a raid!

In his official report, the colonel — soon to be General Shelby — claimed to have caused $2 million in damage and killed or wounded 600 soldiers, while losing just 150 of his own. He also reported that Missourians remained "true to the South and her institutions, yet needing the strong presence of a Confederate army to make them volunteer."

This was one way of saying the hoped-for insurrection did not occur. And indeed, the Union Army soon repaired the damage from the raid and reinforced its grip on Confederate Missouri. Like everything the rebel army did west of the Mississippi, Shelby's moment of glory proved as fleeting as a gray ghost on a strong steed.

Follow Disunion at twitter.com/NYTcivilwar or join us on Facebook.


Sources: "The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies," Series 1, Vol. 22; John N. Edwards, "Shelby and His Men"; Daniel O'Flaherty, "General Jo Shelby: Undefeated Rebel"; Anthony Arthur, "General Jo Shelby's March"; Stephen B. Oates, "Confederate Cavalry West of the River." The authors wish to thank John F. Bradbury Jr. of the State Historical Society of Missouri and Jeremy Neely of Missouri State University for their assistance.


Aaron Barnhart and Diane Eickhoff are the authors of "The Big Divide: A Travel Guide to Historic and Civil War Sites in the Missouri-Kansas Border Region."


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Opinionator: ‘The Slave to His Star’

Disunion follows the Civil War as it unfolded.

Near the end of April 1863, on the eve of the first muster of African-American regiments in the North, William Slade, the head servant in the White House, sent Abraham Lincoln a petition from Washington's black community recommending officers for the district's first regiment of black troops. Sixty-seven men signed the petition, addressed to Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, including members of the Israel Lyceum of Washington City, an African-American debating society. A letter from Slade to Lincoln accompanied the petition, acknowledging that he and the other men wanted Lincoln to see the petition at the "earliest practicable moment."

Slade was an important presence in the Lincoln White House. He served as a personal messenger to Lincoln during this period, according to Elizabeth Keckley, Mary Todd Lincoln's dressmaker and Slade family friend. Slade's children played with Tad Lincoln in the White House.

Slade was also a prominent black leader in wartime Washington. He presided over the Social Civil and Statistical Association, an African-American civic organization, and he was an elder in the 15th Street Presbyterian Church. Both Slade and his wife, Josephine, worked for the Contraband Relief Society throughout the war and provided aid to fugitive slaves from the Confederacy who had gathered in camps in and near the city.

Like Lincoln, Slade was known for his sense of humor and ability to tell a story. Echoing the president's reputation for homespun humor, Slade reportedly had some jokes that "could make a horse laugh." And like Lincoln, who penned a short verse on Gen. Robert E. Lee's invasion of the North in the aftermath of Gettysburg, Slade wrote at least one poem during the Civil War, in the summer of 1863. Slade's poem added to the compelling literary narrative being written by African-Americans during the war — one that has gone virtually unremarked in literary histories.

Lincoln and Slade were not alone in their taking to poetry during one of the most tumultuous periods of the Civil War. In fact, poems were so ubiquitous in the everyday experience of the war that the recruiting calls for "300,000 more" might as well have described, with little hyperbole, the number of poems on the move as much as the number of troops being raised. Poems were written, published, reprinted, saved and circulated by men and women, children and adults, soldiers on the battlefront and family members at home. In this cultural landscape, only a minuscule fraction of the poems were written by the likes of Herman Melville and Walt Whitman.

William Slade's poem, "The Slave to His Star," appeared in the New York-based weekly newspaper The Anglo-African on Sept. 19, 1863. The paper was one of the most important in black New York. Thomas Hamilton launched the original Weekly Anglo-African at No. 48 Beekman Street in Manhattan in 1859. Facing financial pressures, he sold the paper to James Redpath almost two years later, in March 1861. Under Redpath, the newspaper — subsequently retitled the Pine and Palm — became a propaganda sheet for the Haytian Bureau of Emigration. Dismayed with this turn in events, Hamilton's brother, Robert, determined to re-establish The Anglo-African as a newspaper "devoted specially to the best interests of the colored people in this and other countries." The revitalized Anglo-African was published for the first time on July 27, 1861.

As editor Robert Hamilton regarded verse as an important tool for communication and community building, and most issues of The Anglo-African featured multiple poems. Contributions came from blacks as well as whites, and John Greenleaf Whittier was only the most prominent antislavery poet to appear in the pages of The Anglo-African, which reprinted his poems from other newspapers and magazines — a standard practice of the period. One of the newspapers from which The Anglo-African most routinely borrowed verse was The National Anti-Slavery Standard, located, during the war, with The Anglo-African on Beekman Street.

The Anglo-African, however, also featured many original poems written expressly for it. Contributors of original poems included John Willis Menard, an African-American clerk in the federal Emigration Office; Fanny M. Jackson, a former slave from Washington, freed when she was a young girl, and a student at Oberlin College during the war; Pvt. Francis Myers, a member of the storied Massachusetts 54th Regiment; and "EBED," who remains unidentified and whose work is representative of the many pseudonymous and anonymous original poems to appear in the paper.

Slade's poem, "The Slave to His Star," is an ode to the North Star, the celestial compass that guided runaway slaves to the free North under the cover of night, written in the voice of a slave who has made the journey from bondage to freedom. Well before Slade wrote his poem, the North Star had emerged as a powerful symbol in antebellum antislavery literature. In 1840 the abolitionist poet John Pierpont wrote "The Fugitive Slave's Apostrophe to the North Star," and in 1848 the former slave William Wells Brown included an anonymous piece titled "The Slave Holder's Address to the North Star" in "The Anti-Slavery Harp: A Collection of Songs for Anti-Slavery Meetings." "The Slave Holder's Address" tellingly identified the North Star as the "Abolition star." In recounting his escape from slavery, Frederick Douglass told of his plan to "follow the guidance of the north star till we got beyond the limits of Maryland." Douglass later named his first abolitionist newspaper the North Star.

Related
Disunion Highlights

Fort Sumter

Explore multimedia from the series and navigate through past posts, as well as photos and articles from the Times archive.

Slade's North Star is at once the star over Bethlehem that led the Magi to the infant Jesus and the pillar of fire that guided the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt. In equating slaves from the American South with the Israelites of the biblical exodus story, "The Slave to His Star" adopted another trope common to poems published within the abolitionist press. Slade's ode also refers to the poem "Bright Star" by the English Romantic poet John Keats. Slade's poem begins with the same words of address — "Bright star" — and by the end of the first stanza, Slade's narrator describes his own star as "steadfast" (echoing Keats's "would I were stedfast as thou art"). Both poems highlight the constancy and solitariness of their stars, but unlike Keats, Slade presents the North Star as a divine agent that assists his speaker. These resonances suggest Slade's familiarity with Anglo-American poetic traditions. Combined with the very existence of "The Slave to His Star," Slade's poetic literacy raises the tantalizing possibility that he is the author of a more substantial body of poetry than this single poem now attributed to him.

"The Slave to His Star" appeared in The Anglo-African almost one year to the day after Abraham Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation of Sept. 22, 1862. Both the preliminary and final versions of the Emancipation Proclamation declined to emancipate slaves in loyal border states, Tennessee and the occupied regions of Louisiana and Virginia. By foregrounding the North Star and the slave's perilous journey north at this time, Slade's poem may have reminded Anglo-African readers how much work remained to be done.

Follow Disunion at twitter.com/NYTcivilwar or join us on Facebook.


Sources: William Brown, ed., "The Anti-Slavery Harp: A Collection of Songs for Anti-Slavery Meetings"; Elizabeth Keckley, "Behind the Scenes: Thirty Years a Slave and Four Years in the White House," edited by Frances Smith Foster; Abraham Lincoln, "General Lees invasion of the North, written by himself"; Elizabeth Lorang, "Not Feeling Very Well … We Turned Our Attention to Poetry": Poetry, Washington, D.C.'s Hospital Newspapers and the Civil War; Elizabeth Lorang and R. J. Weir, ed., "Will not these days be by thy poets sung: Poems of the Anglo-African and National Anti-Slavery Standard, 1863-1864″; Kate Masur, "The African American Delegation to Abraham Lincoln"; John E. Washington, "They Knew Lincoln"; Marcus Wood, ed. "The Poetry of Slavery: An Anglo-American Anthology, 1764-1866."


Elizabeth Lorang is a librarian at the Center for Digital Research in the Humanities and the University of Nebraska at Lincoln.

R.J. Weir is a supervisor in American literature at the University of Cambridge.


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Letters: When Evangelicals Adopt Children Abroad

Written By Unknown on Jumat, 27 September 2013 | 13.26

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.

"The Evangelical Orphan Boom," by Kathryn Joyce (Sunday Review, Sept. 22) offered important cautions for those seeking to care for orphans but ultimately obscured the most important truth of all. Indeed, as the essay argued, international adoption carries real risk of moral hazard and unintended consequences. This is true of any effort to address deep human need and demands great discernment and care.

The growth in action by Christians to aid orphans amplifies these hazards. Whenever efforts to aid the destitute increase, both positive and flawed outcomes tend to increase also.

But these important truths must never obscure the reality that millions of children today live without the love and protection of a family. Many can be reunited with relatives. Others can find other welcoming homes nearby. And for some, the only hope of a permanent family lies with foreign adoption.

Today's Christian engagement in orphan care includes all of these priorities. Caution and critiques are necessary in any such endeavor. But these actions can also serve as a rallying cry to all people of good will, reminding us that complexity must never become an excuse for inaction.

JEDD MEDEFIND
President, Christian Alliance
for Orphans
Merced, Calif., Sept. 23, 2013

To the Editor:

There are many thousands of children in the United States waiting to be adopted. These are children, wards of the state, whose parents are dead or who were deemed sufficiently abusive or neglectful to warrant the removal of their children from their care.  

I hope that the evangelicals discussed in Kathryn Joyce's essay will look closer to home to find children to adopt as an expression of their faith. While children elsewhere in the world need homes, wards of the state throughout this country need homes, too.

LEAH HARP
Chicago, Sept. 24, 2013

The writer is a clinical social worker with a background in child welfare.

To the Editor:

Poverty and disability are what push most infants and children into orphanages, state institutions and other so-called children's homes around the world. And most of them have parents or extended families.

These are dangerous places for vulnerable children who can be abused, denied medical care or trafficked for labor, sex and organs. Even in "good" orphanages, an infant or toddler loses one month of development for every three months he or she spends in a group setting.

Children with disabilities are rarely adopted or put into foster care, and those who live through childhood — many don't — face a lifetime of institutionalization. Most families would keep their children with the right supports. But as long as churches, donors and governments keep building orphanages, they will be filled.

LAURIE AHERN
President
Disability Rights International
Washington, Sept. 26, 2013


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Letter: Coal and Climate Change

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.

In support of new Environmental Protection Agency regulations, your Sept. 23 editorial "An Important Step on Global Warming" implies that the American coal industry is the chief contributor to global warming.

But even those concerned about the possibility of global warming should know that shutting down American coal-fueled plants would have no meaningful impact on global climate change.

For example, closing down our entire coal fleet would reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by just 3 percent. Global average temperatures would be reduced by only roughly .03 degrees Fahrenheit, and the increase in sea levels would be reduced by less than the thickness of a dime.

Coal is critical to meeting energy demands now and for generations to come. The industry has invested $110 billion so far to reduce multi-pollutant emissions by nearly 90 percent.

America should build on this success, rather than allow the E.P.A. to impose regulations that will force more plant shutdowns in an important industry.

MIKE DUNCAN
President, American Coalition
for Clean Coal Electricity
Washington, Sept. 23, 2013


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Letter: Think Twice About Egypt

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.

To the Editor:

Re "Egyptian Court Shuts Down the Muslim Brotherhood and Seizes Its Assets" (news article, Sept. 24):

Decades after the fact, American citizens are still learning about the role our government played in the coups that toppled Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran and Salvador Allende in Chile. We pray that Egypt's new junta proves less murderous than the governments of the shah or Augusto Pinochet.

But this much we know already: The junta that we've tacitly accepted in Egypt is the most repressive government there in human memory.

Americans should consider with open eyes our own role in creating the horrors of the last century before embarking on any more experiments in regime change around the world.

BARRY HASKELL LEVINE
Lafayette, Calif., Sept. 24, 2013


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Letters: An Afterlife, Vicariously

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.

Re "The Importance of the Afterlife. Seriously," by Samuel Scheffler (Sunday Review, Sept. 22):

Mr. Scheffler writes that "our capacity to find purpose and value in our lives depends on what we expect to happen to others after our deaths." Point well taken and very well made. However, don't underestimate the insistence of the human ego on a negotiated immortality and the dread of losing even this.

If all the people on earth die, and there are no more to come, it also means that my traces, my genes and the children who carry them, my influence on others, words I have written and spoken, music and art I may have created, all the shouts and whispers of who I am, are also erased. I die twice.

SANDRA SHAPIRO
New York, Sept. 22, 2013

To the Editor:

Samuel Scheffler argues that we live with purpose today because we know that it will serve humanity after our death. Personally, I find comfort in a more existentialist view.

While I do care about the future of my friends and family, I do the things I enjoy doing regardless of what happens after my death because, according to my existentialist perspective, there is no purpose to life besides taking advantage of what it gives us.

There are a number of other ideologies that people live by, including religion, political ideologies and so on. Concern for humanity after one's death is just one possible way to describe one's purpose on this earth.

NATALIE BARMAN
New Orleans, Sept. 24, 2013


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Opinionator | The Stone: Why Conservatives Should Reread Milton Friedman

The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless.

It's easy to think that our continuing impasses over the federal budget stem from deep differences in principle between conservatives and progressives over the role of capitalist enterprises in our society. Progressives favor substantial constraints, through taxation and other sorts of regulation, whereas conservatives think that, as Milton Friedman put it in his classic "Capitalism and Freedom," "there is one and only one social responsibility of business — to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits." But if we look more deeply into Friedman's view, the difference between his conservative economics and progressive views shrinks considerably.

Friedman made it clear that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is attached to the body politic.

To see why, we can start with the conclusion of the passage (omitted when I quoted it above) where Friedman says that the only social responsibility of business is "to increase its profits." The full text reads: "there is one and only one social responsibility of business — to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."

This qualification acknowledges a key restriction on the maximization of profit. More important, it commits Friedman to the principle that there can be restraints on the capitalist system that are not self-imposed but rather imposed by the society that employs this system for its own purposes.This principle is also implicit in Friedman's claim that if a business used any of its profits for social goods, it would be usurping the role of the political system.

It follows that, on Friedman's own account, capitalism is not an economic system that operates independently of the political system in which it is embedded. It is a creature of that system, which has goals (of morality and social responsibility, for example) that go beyond the profitable exchange of goods. Therefore, the owners of businesses must accept governmental restrictions on their profit-making for the sake of overriding social values.

It might seem that this activist role for government flies in the face of Friedman's libertarian insistence on the magic of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" to produce "public goods from private vices," without political control. In fact, however, Friedman makes it clear that the invisible hand is attached to the body politic. Here is how he introduces Smith's famous phrase: "It is the responsibility of the rest of us to establish a framework of law such that an individual in pursuing his own interest is, to quote Adam Smith again, 'led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.'"The "invisible hand," therefore, operates for the public good only because it is directed by the social values that our political system enacts by its laws. These values shape the function of the capitalist economic system.

So far, it might seem that Friedman envisages only minimal moral constraints on business activity. But in fact he acknowledges the need for a variety of government interventions to keep capitalism on the right track. These include not only laws against deception and fraud, but also control of the money supply, prevention of monopolies and compensation to those involuntarily harmed by pollution and similar "neighborhood effects" of business activities. Most strikingly, Friedman proposed a "negative income tax" to eliminate poverty. Roughly, his idea was to give all those reporting income below the poverty line a rebate that would bring them at least up to the line. Our current earned income tax credit — supported by both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan — is an application of the idea but restricted to those who are employed. Friedman, a major intellectual hero of the right, supported a program most current conservatives would denounce as "socialism."

Friedman was, of course, by no means a progressive (he opposed Social Security, corporate and graduated income taxes, and federally supported interstate highways and national parks). But his strong differences with progressives derive primarily from different views about our precise economic situation and the indirect effects of various governmental programs. Today, there is no effective support for eliminating capitalism, and even most progressives agree with Friedman's core position: they think that capitalism is an essential engine of economic production, but one that requires significant regulation to serve the overall needs of our society.

Our current political impasse over economic issues has arisen because so many conservatives have moved well beyond Friedman's position. They object to almost all regulation of business, reject the need for any governmental solutions to social problems, and often seem to insist on judging corporate success in terms of short-term profits. But whereas Friedman offers a plausible theoretical case for capitalism, there doesn't seem to be any intellectually respectable support for current conservatives' much more radical understanding of the system.

A move back to Friedman would not eliminate the substantial differences between conservatives and progressives. But it would allow a profitable political discussion of these differences, focusing on the specific sorts of regulation that our current economic system requires. Such discussions — about "how much" rather than "whether" — allow for the compromises usually required for effective political action. Faced with the disruptions of government shut-downs or defaults, progressives should all urge their conservative friends to reread Milton Friedman.


Gary Gutting is a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. He is the author of, most recently, "Thinking the Impossible: French Philosophy since 1960," and writes regularly for The Stone. He was recently interviewed in 3am magazine.


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Letters: Portrait of de Blasio as a Young Idealist

Written By Unknown on Rabu, 25 September 2013 | 13.26

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.

Re "Possible Mayor Now, but Then a Young Leftist" (front page, Sept. 23), about Bill de Blasio's work in support of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua in the late 1980s:

I did not vote for Mr. de Blasio in the Democratic primary, and he has not yet won my vote for mayor. But I hope that New Yorkers will read your profile of his youthful leftist days not as a cause for consternation but as the story of a young person's mature and canny commitment.

For readers who did not spend their youth in activist circles, the term "democratic socialism," as once used by Mr. de Blasio, can easily be misunderstood. Among young activists in the 1980s — when I was committed to many of the same causes as Mr. de Blasio — the phrase democratic socialism signaled the thinking of a person who yearned for fundamental social change, but who especially identified with the humane and calm agendas of the labor parties of Europe and Latin America.

Young people who went under the banner of democratic socialism knowingly distinguished themselves from the knee-jerk, anything-goes left. The young Mr. de Blasio sounds like a thoughtful and discerning activist. I hope he brings the same traits to the mayoralty should he win.

MITCH HOROWITZ
New York, Sept. 23, 2013

To the Editor:

The article on the young Bill de Blasio's support for the Sandinistas in Nicaragua leaves the impression that he was somehow "taken in" by them. It also treats this divisive issue as having no clear moral implications, with the Reagan administration denouncing the Sandinistas as "tyrannical and Communist," and liberals defending them as "building a freer society."

Yet we now have a mountain of evidence to show that the abuses of the Sandinista government in the 1980s were minor and sporadic compared with the extensive killings, largely of unarmed peasants, carried out by the armed forces in Guatemala and El Salvador, whose regimes had the staunch support of the Reagan administration.

The policy adopted by the United States government toward Central America at that time was one of the most shameful chapters in our nation's history, and no one need apologize for opposing it.

BARBARA WEINSTEIN
New York, Sept. 23, 2013

The writer is a professor of Latin American history at New York University and a past president of the American Historical Association.

To the Editor:

Bill de Blasio recalled having an "epiphany" at a health clinic in Nicaragua, when he saw a "map posted on the wall, which showed the precise location of every family in town." The article continued, "The doctors used it as a blueprint for door-to-door efforts to spread the word about the importance of immunizations and hygiene."

As a doctor, I was part of a team that used efforts like this in the 1980s in Somali refugee camps, reducing infant and child mortality rates by 50 percent. At the World Health Organization in the 1980s and 1990s, we applied similar efforts using health outreach workers to improve health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries around the world.

I am very encouraged by Mr. de Blasio's enthusiasm for this public health technology still greatly underused and desperately needed in the United States.

GARY SLUTKIN
Chicago, Sept. 23, 2013

The writer is a professor of epidemiology and international health at the University of Illinois School of Public Health.

To the Editor:

¡Viva de Blasio!

This story about a young man's thirst for social justice will likely incense New York's greedy elites. But those who aspire to live in a decent society would take a mix of European social democracy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal and liberation theology any day over the cruel free-market fundamentalism that we have now.

MARC EDELMAN
New York, Sept. 23, 2013


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Letter: Two Approaches to Homelessness

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.

To the Editor:

"In New York, Having a Job, or 2, Doesn't Mean Having a Home" (front page, Sept. 18) points to the fact that certain homeless parents do indeed have prior work experience in well-paying jobs. But when you dig deeper, you learn that so many others worked in low-wage, no-opportunity positions, lacking the skills and the education to move them forward.

The real story here is a tale of two systems, one to give affordable, low-income housing or rental subsidies to the homeless working families who can best use those resources now and sustain them in the future, and the other to provide education and job-readiness training to parents who need them before they can find a good job and move into housing.

Both approaches should be readily adopted by shelters today with the vision and commitment from a new mayor.

RALPH DA COSTA NUNEZ
President and Chief Executive
Institute for Children,
Poverty and Homelessness
New York, Sept. 19, 2013


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Letters: The Ted Cruz Show

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.

Re "Ted Cruz's Flinty Path" (column, Sept. 24):

Frank Bruni is not old enough to remember watching television as Senator Joseph R. McCarthy went about doing the Devil's business.

For those of us who are old, Joseph McCarthy has clearly been reincarnated in the body and spirit of Ted Cruz, the junior Republican senator from Texas: same appearance (brooding, ominous), same curl of the lip, same shameless innuendoes and lies, same gigantic ego.

A little late perhaps, but Senator McCarthy's wagon was eventually fixed by popular demand. I hope that we won't have to wait much longer for Senator Cruz to follow suit.

ANNE BERNAYS
Cambridge, Mass., Sept. 24, 2013

To the Editor:

Ted Cruz isn't nice. Ted Cruz is conceited. Ted Cruz is irreverent.  Blah blah.

Too bad there isn't a progressive Ted Cruz in Congress to shake up tired Democrats and an inhibited president and drag them to aggressive action against Republican economic Darwinism and toward an enthusiastic promotion of big, constructive public spending in the public interest.

MICHAEL M. OELBAUM
New York, Sept. 24, 2013


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Letter: Heart Disease in Infants

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.

Michael Grabell's personal and informative essay, "The Simple Test That Saved My Baby" (Sunday Review, Sept. 22), says it well. We have come far in our ability to treat congenital heart conditions.

Today, there are actually more adults than children living with congenital heart disease.

It's incredible that infants who might benefit from early treatment are not identified in their first days of life through a simple, effective, inexpensive and noninvasive test. In combination with other measures, pulse oximetry screening can reduce the chances of missed critical congenital heart disease in newborns to 2 percent.

Two years ago, at the urging of the American College of Cardiology and many others, the federal Department of Health and Human Services recommended adding pulse oximetry to routine newborn screenings across the country.

Today, a growing number of states are stepping up to require this test, offering another tool for early diagnosis of our country's No. 1 birth defect. It's time for the rest of the country to follow suit.

JOHN G. HAROLD
President
American College of Cardiology
Washington, Sept. 24, 2013


13.26 | 0 komentar | Read More
techieblogger.com Techie Blogger Techie Blogger