Whose opinions count? In an editorial on April 4, The Weekly Standard came down heavily on the federal judges for citing “evolving standards of decency” to save the life of Christopher Simmons who was earlier sentenced to death by the laws of Missouri, and contrasted the logic with Terri Schiavo’s case, arguing that the standards of decency were not enough to save the latter’s life. The attempt to draw analogies between two unrelated cases which are contextually distinctive is continuation of a neo-conservative journalism tradition. This is one which the conservative Insight magazine follows in its opinion too, “Is Terri Schiavo’s right to not be starved to death less than that of a convicted murderer like Scott Peterson, who gets three square meals a day on death’s row?” A critical look as opposed to a surface one, would prevail two fallacies: one, on content, the cases are entirely different in terms of their unique histories, and two, countless anti-life cry against Simmons/Peterson et al, doth not make one pro-life cry for Schiavo right. The neo-rights …
I believe Personal is ALWAYS Political anyway… With the world of things around me, I would not have opted for a life to begin with. What rightful a life is if my happiness is conditional upon some others’ discomforts? Not only was I brought to this world without my expressed permission, but each act of mine subsequently were determined by existing norms of an (in)human society which has resulted in mutual hatred among peoples, a society whose legitimacy I reject wholeheartedly. This deep anguish of helplessness and implicit submission forms the core of what I call my life. This is a life that’s ceased to be personal for long. Since the time I violated the enforced norms purposively and refused to surrender, I joined ranks with the social misfits—whose life experiences have varied not in types, but in degrees. With that, my personal journey has somewhere down the roads got mingled with the social roads not often taken, but largely despised. Read the entire article here
The standard definition online of GNU/communism is that it’s a term used to mock open source activist, and tag them as communists. Communist is used due to the resemblance between open source’s philosophy of sharing the code among all humanity and communism’s idea to share resources among all continent’s population. I do not have any problem with that. Actually I also think Richard Stallman is a highly progressive thinker and I adore him for that. But I dont quite get why the “open source” people are called activists and on top of that “mocked” as communists. First of all, a standard definition using mock as a word is itself pejorative. Two, open source activists themselves will come forward to denounce communism on their own. Why take extra trouble? For one, I know GNU is not as “open source” as “open source” people claim they are. Don’t these people study any philosophical differences between Stallman (read the GNU) with the rest (read the open source managers like Linus Torvlds, Bruce Perens etc..)?
Revisiting Time, Newsweek and US News and World Report: The three global magazines Time, Newsweek and US News and World Report, magazines are available in the developing world as widely as any of the more “local” periodicals. Indeed, despite the costs (each of these issues costs more than eight times the price of lets say, India Today or Outlook magazines in India), I have, like many of my friends, grabbed the copies to have perspectives on the actual global news. No wonder we have equated the Americas and their concern as the only globe worth reporting about. Nothing significant has changed even after the global tragedy of September 11. Although the divisions are made of the magazines for convenience, the similarities are glaring. There is no coverage of Africa, Asia or Australia. And there is no coverage of areas and peoples of the world that are not affecting the US at this time. Read the full article here.
I am never struck by the homeless in New York. For I know, momentarily, the cheek is turned the other side.