Jedan skup ideja o financiranju školovanja u Edukacijskom centru Moj Posao:
Monthly Archives: Svibanj 2011
Izvrstan članak, prikaz nove Gandijeve biografije. Primjerice:
He quickly became enmeshed in a dispute over the use of the word “coolie,” which was then being used to describe Indian laborers. His initial comments on the word showed a surprising lack of awareness and empathy. As Lelyveld explains, “[Gandhi] concedes that coolies may sometimes be disorderly, may even steal. He knows but doesn’t make a point of saying that most of those he has now agreed to call coolies are of lower-caste backgrounds. If anything, caste is a subject he avoids…. Temporarily, at least, he doesn’t identify with them.” A couple of years later, while Gandhi was engaged in protecting the voting rights of educated Indians like himself, he wrote that his peers “have no wish to see ignorant Indians who cannot possibly be expected to understand the value of a vote being placed on the Voters’ List.”
I went to Benghazi to assess the intentions and credibility of the Transitional National Council and Libyan opposition. We brought medical supplies for the Benghazi Medical Center, where injured people from Misurata and elsewhere are being treated.
Around the table sat improbable allies: some had been prominent officials in Qaddafi’s regime; others had spent many years in prison under sentence of death. They were united in recognizing that their country deserved a new start. I was reminded of Poland’s “roundtable” in 1989, when Solidarity sat with the ruling communists to negotiate the end of the regime.
A quarter century ago the Polish Solidarnosc activist Adam Michnik described the tasks that lay ahead for a liberated or about-to-be liberated Eastern Europe: „We know very well how to make fish soup from an aquarium but we don’t know how to make an aquarium out of fish soup“.
“All successful post-despotic countries reformed alike. Each unsuccessful country finds its own excuse.”
Jonah Lehrer ne vjeruje da su Tversky i Gilovich u pravu, tj. da postoji “vruća ruka” i “hladna ruka” u košarci; ali potom ide još gora pristranost – prema kojoj su argumenti smišljeni za “grooming” a ne za dokazivanje istine.
Prilično kritični članak o Hayeku, pa ipak:
Keynes, Hayek’s friend and lifelong intellectual opponent, called it “a grand book,” adding, “Morally and philosophically, I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it.”
Fukuyama recenzira Hayekovu knjigu “Constitution of Liberty” u današnjem NY Timesu
Hayek always had problems getting the respect he deserved; even when he was awarded the Nobel in economic science in 1974, the awards committee paired him with the left-leaning economist Gunnar Myrdal. With the passage of time, however, many of the ideas expressed in “The Constitution of Liberty” have become broadly accepted by economists — e.g., that labor unions create a privileged labor sector at the expense of the nonunionized; that rent control reduces the supply of housing; or that agricultural subsidies lower the general welfare and create a bonanza for politicians.
George Monbiot of the left-leaning British newspaper The Guardian has a must-read column in which he admits that because of a whole series of intellectual mistakes, the global green movement’s policy prescriptions are hopelessly flawed.
Read the whole piece for a thoughtful and brutally clear expose of the intellectual bankruptcy of the green movement from one of the smartest people in it. This is what I’ve been getting at for more than a year here: regardless of what is happening to Planet Earth, the green movement does not have coherent and workable solutions.
Greens like to have it both ways. They warn darkly about “peak oil” and global resource shortages that will destroy our industrial economy in its tracks — but also warn that runaway economic growth will destroy the planet through the uncontrolled effects of mass industrial productions. Both doomsday scenarios cannot be true; one cannot simultaneously die of both starvation and gluttony.
One of the great puzzles of contemporary political debate is what exactly critics of Western governments mean by the term ‘neo-liberalism’. Typically, the concept is associated with the ideas propagated by a familiar cast of conservative villains, including Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News. Behind the scenes, pulling the strings, are said to be the financial powers of Wall Street and the City of London. But this will not do as a definition. It is rarely made clear whether the ultimate object of their attack is a theory, a set of policies, a phase of capitalism, or something else.
The mystery deepens when it comes to David Harvey, one of the most sophisticated exponents of the concept of neo-liberalism. In the current intellectual climate, it would probably come as a surprise to many to learn that the work of a 75-year-old professor of anthropology and self-proclaimed Marxist is so popular. Yet his 2010 YouTube lecture on the crises of capitalism has received over one million hits. Other critics of neo-liberalism also widely cite Harvey’s many books as authorities on the subject.