- monthly subscription or
- one time payment
- cancelable any time
"Tell the chef, the beer is on me."
“ [...]— Ökonom Flassbeck: "Es ist nicht nur Griechenland" | derstandard.at - 2015-06-26
STANDARD: Was braucht es neben einer kräftigen Lohnentwicklung in Deutschland noch, damit Europa wieder aus der Rezession kommt?
Flassbeck: Es braucht wieder einen makroökonomischen Dialog, bei dem die Lohnentwicklung in Europa koordiniert wird. Da muss entschieden werden, wie sich Länder an ihre Produktivität anzupassen haben – und sie müssen sich anpassen, das ist das entscheidende.
STANDARD: Politisch schwer machbar.
Flassbeck: Tja, dann gibt's halt keine Währungsunion mehr. Eine Währungsunion bedeutet, dass ich entsprechend meinen Verhältnissen lebe. Ich kann weder systematisch über noch unter meinen Verhältnissen leben, und beides ist aber der Fall. Griechenland hat über seinen Verhältnissen gelebt und Deutschland unter seinen Verhältnissen. Österreich ist auch ein wenig darunter.
STANDARD: Ist Deutschland zu mächtig für diese EU?
Flassbeck: Das Problem ist, dass in einer Finanzkrise Gläubiger unheimlich mächtig werden und Deutschland ist der größte Gläubiger. Und die Sache ist, dass Deutschland nicht begreift, dass diese Macht des Gläubigers nicht eine gottgegebene Macht ist, sondern ein reiner Finanzmarkteffekt. Kluge Politiker würden mit dieser Macht sehr behutsam umgehen, aber kluge Politiker sind in Deutschland weit und breit nicht zu sehen.
Shir Hever is an economic researcher in the Alternative Information Center, a Palestinian-Israeli organization active in Jerusalem and Beit-Sahour. Hever researches the economic aspect of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territory, some of his research topics include the international aid to the Palestinians and to Israel, the effects of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories on the Israeli economy, and the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns against Israel. His work also includes giving lectures and presentations on the economy of the occupation. He is a graduate student at the Freie Universitat in Berlin, and researches the privatization of security in Israel. His first book: Political Economy of Israel’s Occupation: Repression Beyond Exploitation, was published by Pluto Press.
HEVER: I was born in Jerusalem, and I was born into a lefty household, a critical household. And the most important thing that I think my parents taught me and raised me with is this idea that I have to be aware of my own privileges and to take responsibility for them, because Israeli society is extremely divided and extremely hierarchical, and I am lucky to have been born male, white, Jewish, Ashkenazi, so in all of these categories in which I had an advantage, and my parents told me this is an unfair advantage.
JAY: Now, just because it’s an interesting kind of historical note, there’s kind of two types of Zionist fascists. There are Zionists who are simply very aggressive against Palestinians and people called them fascists, and then there are Zionists who loved Mussolini.
HEVER: Yeah, I’m talking about the second kind. I’m talking about real—people who really adopt this kind of Zionist—or this kind of fascist ideology that the state is above everything, and that we all have to conform to a certain idea, and that we should find our great leader. So that kind of Zionism is not mainstream, actually, and it’s not in power. In many demonstrations that I had the chance to go to, people tend to shout that fascism will not pass.But, of course, when you look at it from a more academic point of view, there’s a difference between fascism and other kinds of repressive regimes, and I would say Israel is a colonial regime, a colonialist regime, in which there’s apartheid, there’s very deep entrenched repression.
But in a colonialist system there’s always fear. And you grow up with this fear also. You always know—.
JAY: Did you?
HEVER: Yeah, yeah. I mean, when I would go to certain areas or when I took a taxi with a Palestinian driver, then even my closest family would get nervous about it. And then it made me wonder: how come you taught me that everybody’s equal but you’re still afraid of Palestinians?
(M)y close family, my immediate family, they were very supportive of my opinions. And we had many political debates at home—sometimes arguments, but in the end I think for the outsider it doesn’t seem like we’re that much far apart. When you go a little bit further to the extended family, then that’s a whole different story. And most of the family on my mother’s side stopped speaking with me after I decided not to go to the army. And so, yeah, my mother’s parents, who were fighters in the Palmach, they had a completely different worldview and a very Zionist right-wing perspective in which they believe that all of these policies against Palestinians were completely justified.
JAY: And your grandparents, were any of them—when did they come to Israel? Did you have direct family that were killed during World War II?
HEVER: Yeah. So this is actually the exact—the interesting intersection of two stories, because my mother’s side of the family came to Palestine before the Holocaust, before the Second World War, and participated in the Nakba against Palestinians. And my father’s family—.
JAY: So they came during the ’30s or ’20s?
HEVER: Yeah, over some time, but yeah. And my father’s family came right after the war. They escaped from the Nazis in Poland. And the vast majority of the family in Poland was exterminated by the Nazis. So they escaped to the Soviet Union, where they lived pretty harsh years during the war. And then the family scattered again, and that part of the family that chose to go to Palestine, to Israel, happened to be my side of the family.
HEVER: That is a concept called Hebrew labor, and it was done very openly and without shame because there was at that point of time no concept that such structural and comprehensive racism against a particular group of people is something that Jews should also be worried about. I mean, it wasn’t something that was even in people’s minds so much, because Palestinians were part of the scenery, part of the background, and not treated as the native inhabitants of Palestine. But it has to be said also that during those fights it wasn’t—even though it was a colonial situation, in which Zionists were supported by foreign powers in coming and colonizing Palestine, it wasn’t clear if they were going to succeed or not, and it wasn’t clear until 1948 whether they would succeed or not. So from the personal stories of these people, they saw themselves as heroes or as overcoming a great adversity, and not as people who had all their options and decided that here’s a little piece of land that we want to add to our collection. From their point of view, this was their chance to have their own piece of land, and when looking at the colonial powers, the European colonial powers operating all of the world, they didn’t think that what they were doing was so strange or peculiar.
HEVER: And during the ’90s there was—the Oslo process began. There was a coalition between Yitzhak Rabin from the Labor Party and Meretz, which was the part that they supported. Meretz was the liberal party for human rights, but still a Zionist party. And this coalition started to negotiate with Yasser Arafat and to start the Oslo process. But at the same time, they would implement these policies that were just completely undemocratic and—for example, to take 400 people who were suspected of being members of the Hamas Party without a trial and just deport them. And at that point my parents had a kind of crisis of faith and they decided not to support his party anymore. And I would say this is the moment where Zionism was no longer accepted.
HEVER: I think the moment that I made that choice is actually much later, because it’s possible to have all these opinions but still play the game and go to any regular career path. But after I decided not to go into the army and after I decided to go to university, in the university I experienced something that changed my mind.
JAY: But back up one moment. You decide not to go into the army. (...) That’s a big decision in Israel.
HEVER: Well, I was again lucky to be in this very interesting time period where Netanyahu just became prime minister, and he was being very bombastic about his announcements, and a lot of people started doubting the good sense of going into the army. So it was a time where it was relatively easy to get out. At first I thought, I will go into the army, because I went to a very militaristic school. My school was very proud of all the intelligence officers that used to come out of it. So I thought, okay, I don’t want to be an occupier, I don’t want to be a combat soldier in the occupied territory, but if I’ll find some some kind of loophole that I can be a teacher or do some kind of noncombat work for the army, I’ll do that.
And I used to support the Oslo process, because I used to read the Israeli newspapers, and it seemed like Israel is being very generous and willing to negotiate, when in fact—. But my mother, I said that she was working for the government. She would bring me some documents about the Oslo process, and there I would be able to read about the water allocation and about land allocation and say, well, this is certainly not a fair kind of negotiation. But then, when the Second Intifada started, it was repressed with extreme violence by the Israeli military, by the Israeli police. And that was also a moment in which I felt that even living in Israel is becoming unbearable for me. But there’s always kind of the worry, is it going to get to the next step? I think this immediate tendency to compare it with the ’30s in Germany is because it’s a Jewish society.
The Palmach (Hebrew: פלמ"ח, acronym for Plugot Maḥatz (Hebrew: פלוגות מחץ), lit. “strike forces”) was the elite fighting force of the Haganah, the underground army of the Yishuv (Jewish community) during the period of the British Mandate for Palestine. The Palmach was established on 15 May 1941. By the outbreak of the Israeli War for Independence in 1948 it consisted of over 2,000 men and women in three fighting brigades and auxiliary aerial, naval and intelligence units. With the creation of Israel’s army, the three Palmach Brigades were disbanded. This and political reasons led to many of the senior Palmach officers resigning in 1950.
Meretz defines itself as a Zionist, left-wing, social-democratic party. The party is a member of the Socialist International and an observer member of the Party of European Socialists. It sees itself as the political representative of the Israeli Peace movement in the Knesset – as well as municipal councils and other local political bodies.
In the international media it has been described as left-wing, social-democratic, dovish, secular, civil libertarian, and anti-occupation.
"Hebrew labor" is often also referred to as “Jewish labor” although the former is the literal translation of “avoda ivrit”. According to Even-Zohar the immigrants of the Second Aliyah preferred to use the word “Hebrew” because they wanted to emphasize the difference between their “new Hebrew” identity and the “old Diaspora Jewish” identity. For them the word “Hebrew” had romantic connotations with the “purity” and “authenticity” of the existence of the “Hebrew nation in its land”, like it had been in the past.
Related to the concept of “Hebrew labor” was the concept of “alien labor”. Ben-Gurion wrote about the settlers of the First Aliyah: “They introduced the idol of exile to the temple of national rebirth, and the creation of the new homeland was desecrated by avodah zara”. According to Shapira avodah zara means both “alien labor” and, in a religious sense, “idol worship”. Along with bloodshed and incest this is one of the three worst sins in Judaism. Application of this concept to the employment of Arab workers by Jews depicted this as a taboo.
Kann ein Staat souverän sein - oder nur seine Bürger? Haben nicht alle Völker das Recht auf Selbstbestimmung? Was hat das Grundgesetz mit Immanuel Kant zu tun und wäre ein Kant-Studium als Vorbereitung auf ein Rechtsstudium ratsam? Philosophische Fragen die der Jurist und Staatsrechtslehrer Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider im Gespräch mit Ken Jebsen beantwortet. Schachtschneider ist zudem Referent auf der Compact-Konferenz am 24.11. in Berlin-Dahlem (Anmeldung unter http://konferenz.compact-magazin.com ).
David Graeber in Conversation with Rebecca Solnit. This excerpted conversation, worth reading in full, took place on January 26th, 2012, at City Lights Books in San Francisco.via soup.io, here
Published on 18 Aug 2012 by RussiaTodayJulian Assange's case has raised numerous concerns among journalists and activists who fear being prosecuted for doing their job. RT interviews author and journalist Naomi Wolf, who says the US government is especially tough on those exposing official wrongdoing.
“ [...]— DK-Verleger Georg Schäff gegen Leistungsschutzrecht: "Mit dem digitalen Wandel umgehen" | donaukurier.de 2012-03-26
Es ist nun einmal so, dass sich die Welt verändert. Gott sei Dank ist es so. Mal zum Besseren, mal zum Schlechteren. Und es ist schlicht und einfach unsere Aufgabe - sowohl die eines ganz normalen Bürgers als auch die eines Anbieters von Medien – sich diesem Wandel zu stellen und sich zu überlegen: Wie kann ich mein Angebot verbessern, sodass es die Menschen interessiert. Und wenn es die Menschen interessiert, dann würden sie im Idealfall bereit sein, dafür auch zu bezahlen. Da muss ich dann selbst entscheiden, ob ich etwas kostenlos zur Verfügung stelle, oder eben nicht.
In Ihren Augen ist es also nicht die Aufgabe der Politik, für entsprechende Normen zu sorgen, sondern die Verantwortung jedes Verlegers, sich zu überlegen, auf welche Art und Weise er mit welchen Inhalten im Internet Geld verdient?
Schäff: So sehe ich das. Für mich ist ein Verleger grundsätzlich ein Unternehmer wie jeder andere auch. Was hinzu kommt, ist, dass er ein Gut verlegen darf, das noch einen besonderen Schutz genießt in unserer Gesellschaft: das hohe Gut der Pressefreiheit. Und diese Pressefreiheit ist nicht die Freiheit des Verlegers, zu schreiben, was ihm in den Kopf kommt. Sondern das ist die Verantwortung, für einen ordentlichen Journalismus zu sorgen, der im Interesse der Menschen ist. Das geht auch mit der wirtschaftlichen Verantwortung einher. Journalistischen und wirtschaftlichen Erfolg muss man miteinander austarieren. Das ist eine sehr interessante Aufgabe, die mir im übrigen großen Spaß macht. Es kann nicht sein, dass jetzt sozusagen Naturschutzgebiete errichtet werden, mittels derer die Verlage tun und lassen können, was sie wollen, ohne Rücksicht auf Verluste.
“ [...]— We're Underestimating the Risk of Human Extinction | Ross Andersen - The Atlantic - 20120306
One possible strategic response to human-created risks is the slowing or halting of our technological evolution, but you have been a critic of that view, arguing that the permanent failure to develop advanced technology would itself constitute an existential risk. Why is that? Bostrom:
Well, again I think the definition of an existential risk goes beyond just extinction, in that it also includes the permanent destruction of our potential for desirable future development. Our permanent failure to develop the sort of technologies that would fundamentally improve the quality of human life would count as an existential catastrophe. I think there are vastly better ways of being than we humans can currently reach and experience. We have fundamental biological limitations, which limit the kinds of values that we can instantiate in our life---our lifespans are limited, our cognitive abilities are limited, our emotional constitution is such that even under very good conditions we might not be completely happy. And even at the more mundane level, the world today contains a lot of avoidable misery and suffering and poverty and disease, and I think the world could be a lot better, both in the transhuman way, but also in this more economic way. The failure to ever realize those much better modes of being would count as an existential risk if it were permanent. Another reason I haven't emphasized or advocated the retardation of technological progress as a means of mitigating existential risk is that it's a very hard lever to pull. There are so many strong forces pushing for scientific and technological progress in so many different domains---there are economic pressures, there is curiosity, there are all kinds of institutions and individuals that are invested in technology, so shutting it down is a very hard thing to do. What technology, or potential technology, worries you the most? Bostrom: Well, I can mention a few. In the nearer term I think various developments in biotechnology and synthetic biology are quite disconcerting. We are gaining the ability to create designer pathogens and there are these blueprints of various disease organisms that are in the public domain---you can download the gene sequence for smallpox or the 1918 flu virus from the Internet. So far the ordinary person will only have a digital representation of it on their computer screen, but we're also developing better and better DNA synthesis machines, which are machines that can take one of these digital blueprints as an input, and then print out the actual RNA string or DNA string. Soon they will become powerful enough that they can actually print out these kinds of viruses. So already there you have a kind of predictable risk, and then once you can start modifying these organisms in certain kinds of ways, there is a whole additional frontier of danger that you can foresee.
The emergence of new media and social media -- it has all looked fairly revolutionary, the beginning of something entirely new.
// oAnth -- original URL openculture.com
(Living in a Tribal Society within the Global Village)
But, when you step back and consider it, these innovations mark perhaps just an acceleration of a trend that began long ago — one that Marshall McLuhan, the famed communication theorist, first outlined in the 1960s. The vintage clip above gives you a feel for this, and McLuhan himself appears at around the 2:45 minute mark. As you watch this video, you start to realize how prescient McLuhan was, and how social media is almost the logical fulfillment of the trend he saw emerging.
Der Frankfurter Philosoph Axel Honneth ist einer der wichtigsten lebenden Vertreter der Kritischen Theorie, die in den 1930er Jahren von Horkheimer und Adorno begründet wurde. Während die Kritische Theorie unter dem Eindruck des Nationalsozialismus ein düsteres Bild der Zukunft zeichnete, ist Axel Honneth zuversichtlicher. In seinem neusten Buch «Das Recht der Freiheit» behauptet er gar, unsere Welt werde immer gerechter, da die Menschen nicht müde werden, Unrecht anzuprangern und Anerkennung einzufordern. Der Kampf um Anerkennung wird damit für Honneth zum ethischen Fortschrittsmotor – er verändert unser politisches System, unsere Arbeitswelten und letztlich auch unsere Liebesbeziehungen zum Guten hin.
Sorte de vade mecum, ou d’aide-mémoire mais approfondi, sur de grandes questions comme la nature de la découverte, la probabilité, le réalisme et l’instrumentalisme, les expériences de pensée, la nature des entités mathématiques, ou les objets quantiques voire les valeurs et les idéaux du savant.
L’écho rencontré par le mouvement des indignés témoigne d’une grande insatisfaction envers la représentation politique à travers le monde. Dans cet entretien, le politiste Loïc Blondiaux appelle à démocratiser la démocratie en combinant diverses formes démocratiques expérimentales et élections.
// oAnth - original URL -- http://www.laviedesidees.fr/Sommes-nous-representes.htmlSee it on Scoop.it, via manually by oAnth - from my scoop.it contacts
Ils sont hauts fonctionnaires, ministres, secrétaires d'Etat, patrons, journalistes et forment, selon notre invité, "l'oligarchie des incapables".
"Tell the chef, the beer is on me."
"Basically the price of a night on the town!"
"I'd love to help kickstart continued development! And 0 EUR/month really does make fiscal sense too... maybe I'll even get a shirt?" (there will be limited edition shirts for two and other goodies for each supporter as soon as we sold the 200)