Category Archives: Abolition Of Work

Excelsior Correspondent

JAMMU, Jan 1: BJP State president, Ravinder Raina today claimed that One Nation One Tax formula has been totally achieved with the abolition of Toll Tax at the Lakhanpur Toll Post by the Government yesterday.Talking to reporters at BJP Headquarter, Trikuta Nagar, here, today Raina claimed that with the abolition of Toll Post at the Lakhanpur , the mission of One Nation, One Tax has been accomplished for the betterment of the common masses.Raina was flanked by former Dy. CM, Kavinder Gupta, BJP State general secretary, Yudhvir Sethi, State secretary, Arvind Gupta and State incharge partys All Morchas, Munish Sharma. BJP State office secretary, Tilak Raj Gupta, State Additional publicity secretary, Ajay Vaid and Sahil Kaul.

Click here to watch videoRavinder Raina, said that the target of Ek Bharat, Shreshta Bharat has been achieved with this historic decisions by BJP Government at Centre led by Prime Minister, Narendra Modi after long wait of decades together. He said that with the decision; time, fuel and money all will be saved which was earlier putting major burden on consumers pocket. The decision has been hailed by one and by all across the regions of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh, he added.Raina, claimed that with the abolition of Toll Tax, the objects of daily use will become cheaper, which will have direct positive impact on every household across the region. After the implementation of the decision, many objects like Cement, Steel etc. will become cheaper from now onwards. Terming it as a major decision helping common masses economically on one hand, he said that decision has also unified whole nation economically, having achieved emotional feeling of oneness amongst the whole trade and commerce sector.Raina, while allaying the apprehensions of the industrial sector, said that the Modi Government is committed to the welfare of the industrial sector. He put special emphasis on the Make In India campaign started by Prime Minister, Narendra Modi led Union Government. He asked that in Jammu region, industrialists have worked really hard to cater to the needs of the people and especially keeping in consideration that J&K was at the last point of the web transforming it into primarily a consumer State. He said that we have to work upon various modern techniques to transform this region from Consumer to provider and assured that the Modi Government will do every needful thing to help them (industrialists) for the development of their hard earned units.

See the article here:

With abolition of Toll there is 'One Nation, One Tax': Ravinder Raina - Daily Excelsior

Harold Macmillan. Harold Wilson. John F. Kennedy. Charles de Gaulle. From the vantage point of 2020, it is tempting to look back nearly six decades and pine for political leaders from a different era.

The historians craft, of course, is to put people and events in proper context. The pressures of the times, as well as the foibles and weaknesses of statesmen (and most of them were men), then come into sharp relief. And who better to chronicle the period than Peter Hennessy, the doyen of post-war British history?

The books title is taken from prime minister Macmillans speech in Cape Town in 1960. In a significant and highly controversial moment, he acknowledged that the British government would not stand in the way of colonial independence movements.

That is the familiar bit of the story. However, and eerily topically, Hennessy also describes Macmillans efforts to join the European Economic Community (EEC) as a way of repositioning Britain in the world. With his penchant for sweeping historical analysis, he saw Britains inevitable destiny in being integral to the European project. It was, for Macmillan, part of his Grand Design to unite Britain, Europe and the US to halt the advance of communism.

Ultimately, Macmillan retired exhausted, physically and mentally. He was an Edwardian throwback and his brief successor was the aristocratic Sir Alec Douglas-Home (So good of Alec to do Prime Minister, as his mother memorably put it). The future belonged to Harold Wilson as the relatively new leader of the Labour Party. And if anything captured Wilsonian dynamism, it was his call for the white heat of technology to forge a new Britain.

As Hennessy convincingly demonstrates, the phrase was not merely an election slogan. Rather, it reflected and, to some extent, shaped the zeitgeist.

The book is notable for a single chapter on what Hennessy sees as the pivotal year: 1963. This is a remarkable piece of writing that could make a short book on its own, rather than just a summary of an extraordinary 12 months.

In this one chapter, Hennessy is able to discern the underlying currents that were to shape and, to a large extent, still shape modern Britain.

He also indulges in his passion for everything to do with Britains secret nuclear state. Much of it will be familiar from his previous work, but it particularly resonates when talking about the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, and the influence Macmillan had over the much younger JFK.

There is an interesting section on the Robbins report on university expansion. Hennessy argues that it was another facet of early 1960s modernisation as the cohorts shaped by Rab Butlers seminal 1944 Education Act came of age.

Winds of Change covers everything from the impact on the railways of the review by the hard-nosed technocrat Dr Beeching, through long-forgotten changes such as the abolition of resale price maintenance, to the Beatles first hit in 1962, Love Me Do. Hennessy has the all-too-rare gift of being able to combine academic rigour with wry observation, gently observed moments from his own formative years and beautifully written prose. We can only hope that the rest of the 1960s, and beyond, gets similar treatment.

Sir David Bell is vice-chancellor and chief executive of the University of Sunderland and a former Whitehall permanent secretary.

Winds of Change: Britain in the Early SixtiesBy Peter HennessyAllen Lane, 624pp, 30.00ISBN 9781846141102Published 5 September 2019

Read the rest here:

Winds of Change: Britain in the Early Sixties, by Peter Hennessy - Times Higher Education (THE)

Sen. Elizabeth Warren marked the one-year anniversary ofher presidential campaign Tuesday in Boston, using the citys history as a revolutionary hotbed to press her case for fighting for big, structural change in American politics.

Our best moments as a country have been when we see a challenge clearly and we mobilize to meet it head on, Warren said in the New Years Eve speech at Old South Meeting House.

The Massachusetts senator said that turning over into a new year is normally a moment for optimism, but noted that there is currently a chill of fear in the air, alluding to the approaching presidential election and impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, as well as more existential issues like climate change and an expected Supreme Court decision this year on LGBTQ rights.

The danger they feel is real, Warren said, adding that now it comes to us to fight back.

We are a nation that fights back, she said. Fighting back is an act of patriotism.

In one of several veiled criticisms Tuesday at the more moderate candidates in the Democratic presidential primary, Warren argued that the countrys best moments have come when its leaders acted boldly, from the American Revolution to the abolition of slavery to the New Deal programs in response to the Great Depression.

Those moments in American history define us, she said. And at each one of them, if our leaders had approached the moment thinking small, we would not have made it through.

The backdrop of Warrens speech was no coincidence. Old South Meeting House is just the latest in a series of locations steeped in historic working-class movements where shes staged cornerstone speeches of her White House bid, including the Lawrence mills where she officially launched her campaign to New York City and Atlanta.

But the nearly-300-year-old brick church in downtown Boston stands out in American history. Old South Meeting House, which is now a busy museum and tourist destination, was where thousands of American colonialists met and organized the Boston Tea Party. Demonstrators eventually dumped 340 chests into Boston Harbor in protest of the British monarchys efforts to impose its authority on the colonies (and offload the British East India Companys surplus of tea on the Americans).

For half a century leading up to the American Revolution, this place served not only for prayer, but also as a safe haven to test out our early ideas of freedom, justice, and equality, Warren said Tuesday.

The former Harvard Law School professor also singled out Phillis Wheatley, a former Old South Meeting House congregation member, as a central theme in her remarks.

A West Africa native who was kidnapped and sold into slavery in Boston in the mid-18th century, Wheatley studied literature which, for a slave, was illegal at the time as a teen and went on to become the first African-American woman to publish poetry. Her work was largely inclusive and celebrated the ideals of what the American colonies could become. One of Wheatleys first-edition books remains on display at the meeting house.

As she sat in this church, in these pews, Phillis scoured the holy scripture for the words she needed to give voice to her visions and to spark her imagination, Warren said. She imagined a world that did not yet exist, but a world she could see.

Despite her talents, in 1772, Wheatley was forced to prove her authorship to a court of 17 disbelieving white men, including powerful figures like John Hancock and Thomas Hutchinson, the then-governor of Massachusetts. She did and went on to receive international recognition and even a White House invitation from George Washington. Wheatleys story has a tragically early ending: More than a decade after being freed from slavery, she died in poverty at the age of 31.

Warren is now urging primary voters to imagine as Wheatley did; variations of imagine and imagination appeared 50 times in the Cambridge Democrats speech, according to a written copy of her prepared remarks.

The appeal comes amid intensifying criticism from primary rivals like Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg, who Warren has accused of cozying up to wealthy donors, that her ambitious plans particularly when it comes to health care reform would cost too much or wouldnt realistically pass in a Congress split along party lines.

Channeling Wheatley, Warren asked the roughly 680 people packed into Old South Meeting House and the tens of thousands watching via online stream to imagine a country where moneyed interests have less influence over government policy, as well as what her plans would personally mean for them.

If you were no longer tied to your job in order to pay off student loan debt, where would you go? Try a different job? Move back to your hometown? Start your own business? Warren asked, alluding to her plan to forgive individual student debt up to $50,000 and eliminate tuition at public colleges.

Warren noted that polls have shown high public support for reforming the countrys expensive health care system, reducing money in politics, and the wealth tax she wants to levy on fortunes over $50 million. But she said those numbers comes with a hard truth.

No one who has power in Washington is going to give it up easily, Warren said.

The billionaires, the corporate executives, and their favorite presidential candidates have one clear goal: To convince you that everything you imagine is impossible, to convince you that reform is hopeless, to convince you that because no one can be pure its pointless to try to make anything better, she added, in a rejoinder to Buttigiegs recent argument against purity tests.

Those with power and those who do their bidding dump an endless avalanche of excuses, misdirections, and distractions on the American people, she said. Its all designed to get us to give up and resign ourselves to the way things are with them in power and everyone else left behind.

Returning to Wheatleys life, Warren acknowledged that the young poets own story, like those of generations of African Americans, did not end in victory. Warren said the fight against oppression, and for the country to live up to its highest ideals, continues into 2020.

In the spirit of one young woman who raised her voice from these pews more than two centuries ago, let us begin tomorrow committed to dream big, fight hard, and win, she said.

See the original post here:

How Elizabeth Warren invoked the history of Boston in her New Years Eve speech - Boston.com

The last 10 years have seen a lot change in the world of technology - but what will the next decade bring us?

A decade ago the hottest smartphone on the market was the iPhone 3GS - a phone with a miniscule 3.5" display and a far cry from the 6.5" screen available on the iPhone XS today.

Speakers have got bigger too, now coming packed with integrated circuits allowing us to do our shopping from our living rooms just by talking.

So what's in store for the 2020s? Here are 10 predictions...

Over the course of the last year a number of jetpack and personal flying machines were developed and successfully flown by engineers from across the world.

French inventor Franky Zapata said he had only a "50% chance of success" when he attempted to cross the Channel on his flyboard. But he did it.

And former Royal Marine Richard Browning used a jet suit he invented to negotiate one of the toughest assault courses in the military. Now he's set up a company to come up with new ways it could be used.

And in Dubai, police have begun training on hoverbikes in the hope that they can help first responder units reach areas that would otherwise be difficult to reach. The futuristic vehicles are intended to be in action this year.

Professor Rachel Armstrong is a professor of experimental architecture at Newcastle University, and co-ordinator of the living architecture project. She said:

"By the year 2030 houses are more self-sufficient in terms of energy and resources to the point where we are weaned off fossil fuel-based domestic systems.

"Using the incredible processing power of microbes, the tiny organisms that make our soils fertile and whose ancient ancestors are contained within fossil fuels, each home will have a "digester" that, provides an ideal home for microbes, which feed on our liquid waste.

"As they feed on our waste fluids, they turn them into clean water, low power 12V electricity supply and a range of organic compounds that can be used for a range of things like fertiliser.

"Cleaned water will be recycled back into our bathrooms and kitchens, reducing our overall water consumption.

"Organic matter will be used to feed our pot plants, window boxes and gardens, so we won't need to buy fertilisers to make them greener.

"The low-power electricity supply will not only be able to charge our mobile phones and lighting but also perform a range of automated tasks using robots around our home.

"Fitted with an artificial intelligence that "knows" just how much energy and resource you, your plants and microbes need to have a healthy home, these "cyborg" systems will become a "living" system that looks after us.

"Different kinds of microbes can make different useful products, like heat and now that we've learned how to engineer them using synthetic biology techniques, new regulations will enable them to be installed in homes under specific conditions where they make high value products like vitamins, medicines, food and even remove pollutants.

"People living in these homes are no longer just consumers of resource but are producers of valuable substances that can be used to trade, or give to others in need, forming the basis of a new kind of "off-grid" domestic "economics".

Professor Genevieve Bell has a PhD in cultural anthropology and after a long career at tech giant Intel now heads the 3A Institute in Australia, examining the human impact of AI. She told Sky News:

"When asked about the future, I often look at the past. It might not give us the answers, but it always helps me frame better questions and points of view.

"I think that is because the things that make us human change very slowly, certainly nowhere near as fast as technology changes."

She added: "Back in 2003, science fiction writer William Gibson said: 'The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed.' I believe there are parts of the future that are all around us, we just need to look for them.

"The proliferation of smart devices, be it smartphones, robot vacuum cleaners or smart speakers in the home, are part of a long wave of automation of domestic tasks, and of using digital technologies where once things were analogue, mechanical and physical.

"These new devices do more than just the tasks at hand, though, they also enable masses of data to be collected. Where that data goes, who uses it and for what, are new questions and raise new challenges.

"Are our devices gossiping and judging us? Are they sharing our secrets and not-so secrets and with whom? What does it mean to talk about safety, privacy, security or even trust? Yet the technology won't make a different future, we will."

Professor Bell added: "In 2016, Klaus Schwab, director of the World Economic Forum, wrote that we have entered into the fourth wave of industrialisation, one where we'll see the emergence of cyber-physical systems (CPS).

"Think: drones, autonomous vehicles, manufacturing robots and smart lifts. CPS represents a significant shift in the application of AI, from discrete, computer-based automation to embedded in a range of physical, often mobile, objects.

"And as these systems emerge, as robots and humans interact, as more data is produced and algorithms make sense of this data, we need to make sure we are asking the right questions."

Dr Nicola J Millard is a BT principal innovation partner. She isn't a technologist but combines psychology with futurology to try to anticipate what might be lying around the corner. She said:

"Although artificial intelligence has yet to reach the sophistication of R2D2 or C3PO, there is no doubt that automation will impact us all in the future.

"Augmented Intelligence, where humans and machines exploit each other's strengths, is likely to become an increasingly common way of working."

She added: "Looking into the next decade, playing games, interpreting the stock market, writing articles about football, spotting patterns in large, messy data sets, and performing activities in highly structured and predictable environments are all relatively easy for machines to learn to do.

"But by 2030 we'll also start to see AI taking a much more sophisticated shape as humans will start to trust machines to fly planes, diagnose illnesses and manage financial affairs unsupervised.

"We'll also see artificial intelligence start to impact transport in a big way with smart cities and smart cars being the new norm.

"But with AI comes moral dilemmas of many of these advancements.

"Think for example of the self-driving car. Should the car swerve to avoid a pedestrian if it thinks that there is a high likelihood that its actions will injure the driver. And who is responsible?

"This is a legal grey area that will need to be addressed in the future."

"Death, thou shalt die," wrote the 17th century metaphysical poet and Church of England cleric John Donne. His point was spiritual, but for David Wood, the co-leader Transhumanism UK, the "abolition of ageing" is a real goal to pursue.

He spoke to Sky News for a fascinating episode of Off Limits earlier this year, alongside Dr Ian Pearson, a futurologist who has researched different ways to extend human life and pointed to advances in genetic studies.

Dr Pearson said: "We're looking at the genetic modification side of things already, and we're looking at technologies in biotech that will allow us to play with telomeres [cells linked with the ageing process] on the end of the DNA strands."

He added: "The technologies for life extension that IT offers are probably around the 2040, 2050, 2060 time frame, when we'll have the IT that will allow us to live pretty much forever, or at least until the IT stops working.

"We will make direct links to the brain, and make replicas of your brain, or make an extension of your brain outside in the computer world.

"Therefore your mind will carry on migrating into that computer area, and at some point in your distant future, 99% of your mind is living in the computer, so if your body dies you lose 1% of your mind.

"The rest of it carries on as if nothing had happened. You buy an android, use that as your body from now on, and you carry on living."

Silkie Carlo is the director of Big Brother Watch, a civil liberties NGO which campaigns against state surveillance in the UK. She told Sky News:

"2020 will be a turning point for the future of surveillance in the UK.

"We'll have a definitive judgment from the highest court in Europe on whether mass surveillance breaches human rights.

"We'll also have pivotal fights against state and corporate uses of facial recognition, social media monitoring, encryption backdoors, automated decision making and predictive analytics.

"In 10 years from now, we could be a mature surveillance state with a population that's watched, listened to, recorded and tracked more pervasively than ever before - and indeed, a population that records and tracks itself.

"It could be a data-driven nation of ambient surveillance and constant quantification. Implants and biometrics would be part of everyday life and surveillance would lace the "smart" homes and cities we'd live in.

"But it all depends on the choices we make in the next year or so.

"If we make the right ones, we'll look back on this as the dark decade of surveillance - and the future will be one where technologies make us more free, not less.

Renate Samson is a senior policy adviser at the Open Data Institute. Her vision of the future is one in which the value of data is collectively and collaboratively realised. She said:

"Data is a new form of infrastructure for us and for society as a whole.

"In 2030 the world of data will probably look much like it does today, but we will have a more nuanced approach to how we live our digital lives, though the opportunities for true control will likely remain weak and the consent model may be broken beyond repair.

"The love affair with big data will have soured. Good, accurate, authoritative data will be the hot desire.

"Rather than holding all the data all the time just in case, organisations will realise that using accurate data to address a specific problem will bring real value. Data collaboration by people rather than just business may also begin to be the norm.

"Community will become more meaningful, people will seek to share and engage in smaller groups rather than long for the world to know everything.

"This will partly be inspired by an exhaustion with fake news and falsehoods on social media, and the need for accurate, truthful information.

"Individuals will have a greater sense of what data about them is and where their comfort with sharing lies.

"We will become more attuned to the misuse of behavioural data about us. Privacy will continue to matter but it won't be a one size fits all. Concepts of ownership of data will persist amongst the few, but the majority will act collectively to challenge organisations who are unethical.

Andrew Orlowski is director of the research network Think of X. He predicts that marketing-driven ideas about human identity which have been adopted by Facebook and Google will begin to recede. He said:

"The public keeps delivering up shocks to our experts, who now seem to live in a perpetual state of surprise.

"And for that you can blame the pop psychologist Malcolm Gladwell, the bestselling Canadian and the master of the quirky counter-intuitive pop science McNugget.

"Following his success, psychologists and neuroscientists began crafting their work to appeal to this new audience.

"Both wanted to make their accounts of how we behave to be 'scientific' - but their programs had fatal flaws. Psychologists became convinced that we were always wrong, and neuroscientists with extinguishing the idea of free will.

"Instead of being complex Enlightenment-era individuals, we were really either rats, or badly flawed robots.

"These ideas spread from marketing to our intelligentsia and captivated our policy makers.

"So we've been nudged and "game-ified" in encounters where the manipulator hopes we don't notice the manipulation.

"Google and Facebook promised the increasingly out-of-touch political class that they could not only understand our behaviour, but shape it too.

"But the result was that by erasing what makes us human, the boffins had painted all the walls white and now couldn't find the door.

"The explanations were useless. When everything was quirky and counter-intuitive, no intuition could be understood or predicted.

"It doesn't help that both fields are now beset by crises: what is useful is not reproducible, and what's reproducible is not useful.

"So my bet is that these fads have had their day. The 'why we do things' - the acknowledgement of human agency - will return to explanations of 'what we do'. It must, for who wants to be surprised all the time?

Rowland Manthorpe is the technology correspondent at Sky News. He found a serious issue in European efforts to tackle competition issues posed by the Silicon Valley giants. This is his analysis.

In a wide-ranging interview at the start of her second term as European competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager acknowledged reforms demanded from firms such as Google don't "necessarily change anything" because the companies had "already won the market".

She cast doubt on the effectiveness of future changes to Google's Android mobile operating system, saying she was "not holding my breath".

Ms Vestager fined Google a record 4.3bn (3.9bn) in July 2018 for using Android to illegally "cement its dominant position" in search and forced it to make changes to restore competition to the marketplace.

But although Ms Vestager said Google would be introducing a "preference menu", offering users a choice of different browsers in the new year, she admitted she was not sure whether it would work.

She told Sky News: "One of the very impressive competencies of Google as a company is their competence of making people make choices."

Asked if she meant that Google would drive users towards its own products, she replied: "This is why it will be very interesting to see, how will such a menu of different options - how would that actually work?"

Ms Vestager is beginning a second term as European commissioner for competition, with an expanded role that has seen her labelled the 'most powerful regulator of big tech on the planet'

In her first term, she levied record-breaking fines against Google and forced Amazon and Apple to pay huge sums in unpaid tax, drawing the ire of US President Donald Trump who said she must "hate the US".

Yet although she said she had been able to stop companies breaking European competition law, and punish past misconduct, she acknowledged that "recovery of the markets" was a "work in progress".

This year marked the 50th anniversary of the moon landings, and now a number of national agencies and private companies are planning on returning mankind to the moon by 2030.

The US space agency NASA plans to not only return to the moon before 2030, but to journey beyond it and land a human on Mars, although that may not take place within the decade.

"This time we're going to the moon to stay," said NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine, adding: "And from there we'll take the next giant leap in deep space exploration."

It won't simply be another great step for man, either.

Marking the 50th anniversary since the Apollo 11 mission in which humans first stepped onto the moon, Mr Bridenstine has told Sky News the agency is sending a woman to the moon in 2024.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk, the billionaire founder of SpaceX, has claimed it would be easier for his company to land on the moon first rather than try to convince NASA that the company is up to the task.

An even richer billionaire, Jeff Bezos, has also announced his plans for his own private space exploration company Blue Origin to send a spaceship to the moon.

China's space agency also landed a lunar rover this year as part of its Chang'e 4 mission which has been on the dark side of the moon since January.

The head of the China National Space Administration, Zhang Kejian, has announced its plans to land human crew on the south pole of the moon within the next 10 years.

Who will get there first? We'll just have to wait and see.

The rest is here:

Ten tech predictions for the decade ahead: What will happen by 2030? - Sky News

The 2019-20 Broadway season hit $1 billion in grosses as it crossed the halfway point this month, but many of the most promising productions are still to come. First-quarter 2020 will usher in a raft of eagerly anticipated theater, from radical revivals of canonical musicals to new work from major American playwrights and New York engagements of acclaimed successes from across the Atlantic. And that doesn't include the crunch month of April, when producers tend to stack their prestige projects during the end-of-season cutoff period for Tony Awards eligibility.

Here are 20 incoming theater productions that promise to get the year off to a dynamic start, on and off-Broadway.

The curiosity factor arguably is highest around avant-garde Belgian director Ivo van Hove's fresh take on West Side Story (in previews at the Broadway Theatre ahead of a Feb. 20 official opening). Departing from the signature Jerome Robbins dances long associated with this landmark 1957 musical about racial gang violence in mid-'50s New York City, the production assembles a notably young, culturally diverse ensemble a record-setting 32 of them making Broadway debuts and features new choreography from another iconoclastic European artist, Anne Teresa De Keersmaeker.

Rethinks on classic works also are happening off-Broadway, notably when Ruth Negga, the Oscar-nominated star of Loving and AMC's Preacher, makes her American stage debut in the title role of Hamlet (beginning performances Feb. 1 at St. Ann's Warehouse in Brooklyn). Staged by internationally renowned South African director Yael Farber, the production debuted to strong critical response in fall 2018 at the Gate Theatre in Dublin; it shifts the focus from the Danish prince's anguish and indecision to the ferocious power of his resistance against treachery.

Also in Brooklyn, offstage partners Rose Byrne and Bobby Cannavale will co-star as separated spouses at war in a contemporary update of Euripides'Medea (previewing from Jan. 12 ahead of a Jan. 30 opening at BAM Harvey Theater). Dylan Baker also appears in the production directed and adapted by Australian theater-maker Simon Stone, whose bold take on Lorca's Yermastarring Billie Piper was a critical smash in both London and New York.

Another unconventional approach to an established work will be seen when two-time Tony winner Marianne Elliott's lauded London revival of Company arrives on Broadway (previewing from March 2 at the Bernard B. Jacobs Theatre, with official opening set for March 22). Flipping the gender of the commitment-shy central character in the 1970 concept musical by Stephen Sondheim and George Furth about the challenges of contemporary relationships, the production stars Katrina Lenk (a revelation in Indecent and The Band's Visit) with a cast that includes Broadway royalty Patti LuPone, toasting "The Ladies Who Lunch" as boozy Joanne, the role made famous by Elaine Stritch.

Revivals are otherwise few on Broadway in the early part of the year, aside from Kenny Leon's new production of the Pulitzer-winning 1981 drama by Charles Fuller, A Soldier's Play (in previews at the American Airlines Theatre, opening Jan. 21). Set in an African American Louisiana Army barracks in 1944, and revolving around the murder of a black sergeant, the racially charged ensemble piece features David Alan Grier, Blair Underwood and Jerry O'Connell.

The first Broadway opening of the year is a London import, starring Laura Linney in a stage adaptation by Scottish playwright Rona Munro of Elizabeth Strout's jewel-like novel, My Name Is Lucy Barton(previewing from Jan. 4 at the Samuel J. Friedman Theatre, with official opening set for Jan. 15). The solo play's title character is an author scarred by a childhood of poverty and abuse, who wakes up in a hospital with her long-estranged mother at the foot of her bed, stirring uncomfortable memories. Richard Eyre directs.

Also from London and seen to great acclaim at New York's Park Avenue Armory last March is The Lehman Trilogy (begins performances March 7 at the Nederlander Theatre, officially opening March 26). Simon Russell Beale, Adam Godley and Ben Miles reprise their multitude of roles, playing the German-Jewish immigrant brothers who built a financial empire, as well as countless spouses, descendants, business allies and rivals in Italian playwright Stefano Massini's epic reflection on American capitalism. Masterfully directed by Sam Mendes, the adaptation by Ben Power spans 160 years. The big question is how designer Es Devlin's ingenious set a giant glass rotating cube will fit in a traditional proscenium theater.

Another play that drew plaudits in both London and New York en route to Broadway is Martin McDonagh's Hangmen (previewing Feb. 28 at the John Golden Theatre, opening March 19). Mark Addy, Dan Stevens and Ewen Bremner star in the pitch-dark comedy-thriller set in the mid-'60s in a Lancashire pub run by England's second-most-famous executioner, a skill rendered obsolete by Britain's abolition of capital punishment.

Brit playwright Alice Birch won the prestigious Susan Smith Blackburn Prize for Anatomy of a Suicide, her multigenerational exploration of the lives of mothers and daughters marked by trauma. Lileana Blain-Cruz directs an ensemble cast that includes Carla Gugino in the experimental drama's U.S. premiere (previews from Feb. 1 ahead of a Feb. 18 opening at the Atlantic Theater Company).

American playwrights premiering new work include Tracy Letts with his explosive portrayal of democracy in action, viewed through the satirical prism of a disputatious small-town city council meeting, The Minutes (previewing from Feb. 25 for a March 15 opening at the Cort Theatre). Reuniting with Anna D. Shapiro, the director of his Pulitzer- and Tony-winning play August: Osage County, Letts will join the cast on Broadway, playing the local mayor, alongside Armie Hammer as an idealistic whistle-blower in an ensemble that also includes Blair Brown, K. Todd Freeman, Austin Pendleton and Jessie Mueller.

After turning heads with Small Mouth Sounds, her terrific play set at a silent meditation retreat, Bess Wohl makes her Broadway debut with the comedy-drama Grand Horizons (in previews at the Hayes Theatre, opening Jan. 23). Leigh Silverman directs Jane Alexander and James Cromwell as parents whose potential separation after 50 years of marriage shakes up their extended family, played by Ben McKenzie, Priscilla Lopez, Maulik Pancholy, Ashley Park and Michael Urie.

Patrick Breen, Margaret Colin, Gregg Edelman and Frank Wood are among the cast of Richard Greenberg's new play The Perplexed (City Center Stage I, previewing from Feb. 11 for a March 3 opening). Lynne Meadow, who directed the playwright's exquisite domestic drama The Assembled Parties, again will stage this account of the petty jealousies and deep-seated grudges that surface when two clans gather to celebrate the nuptials of their children in a swanky Fifth Avenue apartment. (Greenberg also will be represented later in the Broadway season with a revival of his 2003 Tony winner, Take Me Out.)

Lauren Yee's Cambodian Rock Band (previewing from Feb. 4 ahead of a Feb. 24 opening at the Pershing Square Signature Center) will make its New York debut following hit productions at a string of prominent regional theaters. Comedy, mystery and racial identity drama meet rock concert in this deep dive into family secrets as a father and daughter are pulled into the dark past of a notorious Khmer Rouge war criminal. Chay Yew directs a cast that includes Francis Jue, Joe Ngo and Courtney Reed in a play featuring live music by Los Angeles band Dengue Fever.

Celebrated parodist and drag performer Charles Busch continues to ransack the vaults of vintage Hollywood for inspiration with his latest, The Confessions of Lily Dare (previewing from Jan. 11 before a Jan. 29 opening at the Cherry Lane Theatre). Busch stars alongside Nancy Anderson, Christopher Borg, Howard McGillin, Kendal Sparks and Jennifer Van Dyck in this comic melodrama riffing on pre-Code 1930s tearjerkers.

On the musical front, writer-director Conor McPherson's tone poem set in Minnesota during the Great Depression and interlaced with the songs of Bob Dylan, Girl From the North Country (previews start Feb. 7 at the Belasco Theatre, with a March 5 opening night), moves to Broadway following a sold-out, extended run in fall 2018 at the Public Theater. The large ensemble cast includes Mare Winningham, Marc Kudisch, Todd Almond, Jay O. Sanders, Kimber Elayne Sprawl and Austin Scott.

The Public also will debut two new musicals, starting with Coal Country (previews from Feb. 18 for a March 3 opening), about the 2010 Upper Big Branch mine explosion in West Virginia that killed 29 men and destroyed countless other lives. Based on first-person accounts from survivors and family members, the show is written by Jessica Blank and Erik Jensen (The Exonerated), directed by Blank and features an original score by country-folk legend Steve Earle.

Also at the Public, Tony winners David Hyde Pierce and Ari'el Stachel star with Jacqueline Antaramian and Joaquina Kalukango in the musical adaptation of Tom McCarthy's 2007 indie film The Visitor (previews from March 24, opening date to be announced), about a widowed college professor whose stagnant life is upended when he finds a young immigrant couple occupying his Manhattan apartment. The Next to Normal team of composer Tom Kitt and lyricist Brian Yorkey reunite on the score, with a book by Kwame Kwei-Armah and Yorkey, and direction by Daniel Sullivan.

Going further back for its movie source is Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (at the Pershing Square Signature Center from Jan. 16, opening Feb. 4). Adapted by playwright Jonathan Marc Sherman from the 1969 Paul Mazursky comedy about two Los Angeles couples grappling with the sexual revolution, the show's original score is by Duncan Sheik, with Scott Elliott directing. Sheik also appears in the cast, alongside Jennifer Damiano, Ana Nogueira, Joel Perez and The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel regular Michael Zegen.

Finally, two Broadway musicals will revisit vastly different chapters of English royal history, separated by more than four centuries.

A fringe hit that became a West End smash in London, Six (previewing from Feb. 13 at the Brooks Atkinson Theatre, officially opening March 12) lets the wives of Henry VIII reframe their narrative as a 21st century girl-power pop concert. "Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived," they sing in this sassy reappraisal by Toby Marlow and Lucy Moss, co-directed by Moss and Jamie Armitage. The six-member cast is backed by an all-female band dubbed the "Ladies in Waiting."

Writer Joe DiPietro and composer (and Bon Jovi keyboardist) David Bryan 2010 Tony winners for Memphis collaborate again on Diana (previews start March 2 at the Longacre Theatre, with a March 31 opening). Christopher Ashley, who won a Tony for Come From Away, directs this bio-musical about the iconic figure known as "The People's Princess," her difficult marriage to Prince Charles and her tragic death in 1997.

Originally posted here:

The 20 Most-Anticipated New York Theater Productions of Early 2020 - Hollywood Reporter

What kind of movement?

In recent years, Pakistani women and gender minorities have organised marches across the country on the International Working Womens Day.

Despite attacks from the patriarchal Right and Left, their resolve to organise has not wavered. Different approaches to organising have surfaced within the larger movement. This article is in response to the idea prevalent amongst certain well-intentioned layers that our movement should be a cross-class one.

The ecological movements in Europe are plagued by a key weakness: a crisis of working-class leadership in the wake of a cross-class movement. The existing petty-bourgeois leadership with its radical programme criticises the rulers but makes appeals to the same for fixing the system. In the final sense, this means pushing for a green capitalism, which is neither social nor peaceful for the vast exploited and oppressed majority of the world. Now, having an anti-capitalist programme a programme that leads beyond capitalism is possible for someone who is critical of symptoms of capitalism or even the system as a whole.

The majority of the existing Pakistani womens movement is often not even subjectively anti-capitalist. But even the layers that are do not have an anti-capitalist programme. While last years Aurat March manifesto pins the blame for certain problems on capitalism, it does not call for another system, let alone telling us how to achieve it. It also falls short of pinpointing the fundamental roots of womens oppression, which can be found in the specific division of labour within capitalist society and the burden of privatised reproductive work cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc put on the shoulders of (largely working- and lower middle-class) women within the family.

Just like the global climate movement, the womens movement in Pakistan has to become conscious of the system it is fighting. Adding specific anti-capitalist criticisms to our programme is not enough. We have to go beyond and hand over the reins of leadership to the working class.

A cross-class movement claims to represent the interests of all classes. Such a movement cannot have a working-class programme.

Different classes have different objective interests. The working class has no ownership over the means of production. Whether or not this class is subjectively conscious of it as yet, its objective interest lies in the abolition of private ownership of the means of production and replacing it with social ownership. This interest is irreconcilable with that of those classes whose source of wealth and social status is private ownership of property.

This is not about the personal individual participation of women from this or that class. It is a question of which class it is whose programme a movement embodies. Will a cross-class movement also have a cross-class programme? This is either impractical as it will limit everyone to the smallest common denominator or, in the final sense, impossible as there will always be a class that determines the politics/programme of the movement.

In a cross-class movement in a bourgeois society, this necessarily means subordinating the working womens class interest (which is linked to the strategic removal of the oppressive division of labour with regard to productive and reproductive work) to the limited goals of bourgeois feminists.

Let us assume the best possible outcome of a cross-class movement: that limited demands for formal equality between men and women are fulfilled. Working women will get formal equality like their bourgeois feminist counterparts but they will have it as women who will still work 12 hours a day and have no access to healthcare or welfare. They will have formal access to all spheres of public life as much as their male working-class partners, who equally have no money or time to factually enter these spheres. These working women will fight for the individual rights and freedoms of bourgeois feminists in the name of a cross-class movement.

But this cross-class movement will not and cannot fight for the full emancipation of the working woman as long as the movement represents the interests of all classes, which are irreconcilable with the interests of the working majority. While there can be tactical agreements for campaigns with bourgeois feminists (eg, against the Hudood Ordinances), the working woman needs her own organisations, meetings, campaigns and programme simply her own movement for liberation, which is independent of the limitations that her bourgeois and petty-bourgeois feminist allies would like to impose on her in simply a cross-class movement.

Many radicals and liberals, usually from middle- and upper-class backgrounds, tend to see this as a question of individuals from different classes joining a movement to fight together for individual rights as citizens. Socialists see this as a question of social relations with a material basis that forms the foundation of womens oppression. They fight against reactionary laws as well as for a change in the consciousness of individuals. But they do so while recognising that these are finally expressions of that very foundation. Gender-based oppression is not simply a question of wrong consciousness on an individual level. It is a question of the wrong conditions of our society.

In contemporary class society, revolutionary Marxism locates the origins of gender-based oppression in the public-private divide, wherein the man goes out to work in the public productive sphere while the woman is responsible for reproductive work. This keeps particularly working-class women responsible for privatised household management, depriving them of interaction with other women of their class. In this way, a major chunk of the working class working women is deprived of organising itself.

Regarding this, the Women Democratic Front has a revolutionary demand: the socialisation of household work which is: bringing it into the social sphere of life. It does not want to maintain this gender-based division of labour, and recognises that there can be no end to gender-based oppression within capitalism and that the working class is the only force that can change this.

The middle classes will always spontaneously oscillate between the ruling class and the working class. Particularly in a country where there is no organised working class force, they will in the final programmatic sense but also in the way how radical activists from middle-class backgrounds behave be inclined towards, at best, a radical, democratic bourgeois programme. It is not excluded that one wins sections of the middle classes for a working-class programme and for the revolution. But they have to be won. And they can only be won if the working class becomes a factor and a force, on its own. One has to think it in dimensions of big numbers, not in terms of a few radicals who meet to think and occasionally organise a protest together.

Right now, socialists cannot and should not start telling people: No, you are not working class, you cannot join us. It is important that this be made clear. They should aim to win every radical but every radical who agrees to break with their own class privilege and agrees to a programme of building a socialist working womens movement, not just in words but in deeds.

In short, this means that socialists do not deny individuals from classes other than the working class to join and fight against patriarchy and capitalism. But they do so without making programmatic concessions in terms of which class it is whose interests we will defend. The reason for this is simple. The defence of the interests of any class other than the working class means, in the final sense, the defence of patriarchy and capitalism.

We, as women and gender and sexual minorities who together organise womens marches across Pakistan, are confronted with a choice. Either, we adopt a defensive approach and refuse to engage with any criticism about our movements class character. Or we engage critically and reflect internally to better our campaigns, struggles and movements and let a working-class programme lead the way to victory in our goal of smashing patriarchy and capitalism.

The writer is a member of the Women Democratic Front.

Twitter: @minerwatahir

Originally posted here:

What kind of movement? - The News International

Tuesday, 31 December 2019, 8:53 amPress Release: International Trade Union Confederation

On 27 December, the neo-liberal Cabinet of Ministers ofUkraine submitted to the Verkhovna Rada(UkrainianParliament) a new draft law on labour published earlier inthe month which will strip workers of legal protections, andunions of their ability to protect them. In doing so, theUkrainian government sided decisively with oligarchs andmultinational enterprises against its ownpeople.

Ukrainian trade unions believe the new draft lawwill result in:

1. easy dismissal of employees at anymoment, on employers whim;

2. short-term individuallabour contracts and zero hours contracts;

3. overtimebecoming the norm, paid at a fifth of current rates, withnormal working hours likely to exceed eight hours aday;

4. abolition of some social guarantees and reducedprotection for mothers with small children, making theirdismissal even easier;

5. the possibility to transfer anemployee to another workplace without their consent; and

6. no collective bargaining, excluding unions from theworkplace.

Further details can be found here: https://www.epsu.org/article/update-situation-ukraine

Thedraft law was introduced without consultation with tradeunions, and has been drafted to contain only 99 articles, sothat it receives only limited consideration in theParliament. The government has refused to seek theassistance of the International Labour Organisation, nodoubt because the draft law breaches several ILOconventions.

The Pan-European Regional Council of the ITUCadopted a resolution https://perc.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/statement_4th_perc_ga_on_ukraine_161219-2.pdfcondemning the proposals in mid-December, calling on thegovernment of Ukraine to withdraw the draft and seek ILOtechnical assistance. And just days later, the EuropeanTrade Union Confederation pledged https://www.etuc.org/en/node/18514 toraise the issue with the European Commission and Parliamenton the basis that the draft law contradicts the EU-UkraineAssociation Agreement.

ITUC General Secretary SharanBurrow said:

Ukraines government is siding witholigarchs and multinational corporates against workers, thepublic and unions. Global unions will stand shoulder toshoulder with our sisters and brothers in Ukraine. Theydeserve decent work, living wages and control over theirwork-life balance. We condemn the Ukrainian governmentsreckless breaches of its international obligations, whichrisk losing the country crucial support in Europe and theglobal community.

Read this article online

TheInternational Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) represents200 million members of 332 affiliates in 163 countries andterritories.

Follow us online, on Twitter and on Facebook

Scoop Media

Scoop Citizen Membership ScoopPro for Organisations

Go here to read the rest:

Ukraine's government puts oligarchs ahead of people - Scoop.co.nz

Since the overthrow of Omar al-Bashir in April last year, Sudan has seen months of constant upheaval and tumult. As expected, the overthrow of Bashirs regime did not simply signal the end of one era and the start of another. Instead, it left a void that the Transitional Military Council (TMC) scrambled to fill. Led by Lt-Gen Abdel Fattah Abdelrahman Burhan, and his deputy, Mohamed Hamdan Dagolo, or Hemeti as he is commonly known, what essentially followed Bashirs fall was a military coup. Protesters, organised by the Sudanese Professionals Association (SPA), demanded a transfer of power to civilians. The response a massacre.

The massacre on June 3rd made it clear that this would not be a pain-free transition. The Rapid Support Forces are accused of brutal violence, with reports of rape, torture and the dumping of bodies in the Nile. But this group did not emerge from nowhere. Their leader is Hemeti, and they were established by Omar al-Bashir. Whilst he may have been overthrown, his suffocating grip on the country would not be easily removed. Eventually, the TMC bowed to international pressure and a constitutional declaration was signed. A few tense moments ensued, but now Sudan emerges, fragile, but intact, with new Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok.

Why is all this background information necessary if we are to look at Sudans future? The answer is that the trajectory of Sudans most recent revolution is not only down to the commitment, resolve and patriotism of the civilian protesters, but also the forces they were battling, and not just the TMC or RSF. These same forces still lurk and will determine Sudans future.

Much mainstream media coverage of the events in Sudan rightly focused on the various domestic parties and their roles. However, the likes of Hemeti, a warlord and at one point Sudans most powerful general (he possibly still is), did not command the power they did without external support. The relationship between Hemeti and regional powers Saudi Arabia and the UAE goes back to Sudans gold rush of 2012 when Hemeti was keen to control Sudans gold sales. By 2017, the RSF, and Hemeti, had seized control of Sudans most profitable gold mines.

Whilst Dubai was at first just a location for Sudans gold legally or illegally acquired the nature of their contact changed when a deal was struck for Hemeti to provide units at the Saudi Arabian border with Yemen, with the UAE being provided with RSF fighters to fight in South Yemen. Hemeti is also reported to have sent child soldiers into the war zone.

From the moment Bashir fell and the TMC took power, Saudi Arabia was keen to support it, pledging a $3bn aid package to support the military generals. One thing should be clear Saudi Arabias interests do not lie with the Sudanese people, or their aspirations for a democratic country, but with their own self-preservation. Change, or any form of instability is not appreciated by the Saudis. This is not only true within the Kingdoms borders, but the surrounding region too.

But what of the other influencers? Whilst protesters did not receive official support from any government during the uprising, the Sudanese diaspora and fellow citizens around the world showed solidarity on social media and donations were made to help treat the wounded. However, there was still an absence of international action, with the US calling on Riyadh to end the military crackdown under the TMC, with no direct action itself. But perhaps this step makes a key point Sudans future is not simply its own, and the US plea with Riyadh shows who is pulling the strings. As we end one decade and start a new one, Sudan lingers in the middle of a complex geopolitical situation that it must navigate its way through.

The countrys protests a few months earlier may have been triggered by the price of bread, but the economic crisis in the country was a symptom of the disease that had paralysed it for 30 years under Bashirs rule. The corruption, exploitation and greed of a few individuals was aided by not only the support of other countries, but a shared belief that oppression was the price that had to be paid for stability. Hence the Sudanese population were not merely fighting to take back control from the leaders of their own land, but the powers beyond their borders too. But perhaps it is not surprising that Sudan fell into the hands of the autocrats when the US, leader of the free world, froze it out. Whilst economic and trade sanctions on Sudan were lifted in 2017, Sudan is still a designated State Sponsor of Terrorism. Meanwhile, the UK still subjects Sudan to financial sanctions.

The appointment of new Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok is no doubt a hugely positive step forward for the battered country. A wave of reforms have taken place, with the abolition of the Moral Policing Law, and the approval of a law to dismantle Omar al-Bashirs regime, including the dissolution of his party, and the seizure of its assets.

We should not, however, be blindsided by these sweeping reforms. They are no doubt indicative of the country that the Sudanese people crave, the future that the Sudanese youth 60 per cent of the population are under 24, and they were a key driving force behind the protests want and deserve. But lets not forget that the current government is the product of a power sharing deal between anti-Bashir groups and the TMC. There were grumbles from Bashirs old party when the law to dismantle it was announced. Hamdoks government was denounced as an illegal government.

Meanwhile, what has come of Hemeti? He is reportedly learning English and has hired a Canadian PR firm to help him polish his image. He is deputy chairman of Sudans Sovereign Council, representing the government in an official visit to South Sudan, with the RSF launching a PR campaign to project a statesmanlike image to the domestic population, and the international community. Despite being accused of massacres and genocide throughout its bloody existence, the RSF is promoting its apparent work in sorting out social and health services and public transport. In a matter of months this paramilitary group has gone from being a death squad to portraying itself as Sudans saviour.

Prime Minister Hamdok may be the countrys global spokesman, but the TMCs sinister leader and deputy are undertaking their own microcosmic campaign for public support. There isnt a suggestion that the RSF may at all be trying to regain full control, but at the very least they do not want to disappear from the publics consciousness, and this is not surprising. For years they have had it their way, stealing from the country they now claim to be protecting, and slaughtering the people they now grovel to.

This deal between the civilians and the TMC (and by default, the RSF), should not be overestimated. They perhaps tolerate each other more than collaborate. But I would argue that every last remnant of Bashirs brutal regime should be removed from positions of power. Those who inflicted decades of suffering on the people of Sudan should not be granted a say in its recovery from their ruthlessness. I do, however, understand that compromise for now allows for peace, and its certainly better for my grandmother to call me from Khartoum and say that there is nothing going on, its quiet.

That being said, Hamdoks words of warning should be heeded. Before flying to Washington to meet President Trump, the Prime Minister noted that the remaining US sanctions are accelerating Sudans collapse. Hamdok acknowledged what many regional players do too Sudan is key to the areas stability. The fate of nearby failed countries is a forceful reminder of one way in which Sudan could go if it is not embraced by the international community and supported in its attempt to reorganise and rebuild. Indeed, during the protests, many Arab social media users were not supportive of the efforts of the protesters, citing Libya and Syria as the consequences of rising up against your leaders.

Of course, Sudan is fragile and vulnerable right now, and whilst the shine of a new diverse cabinet including women and Christians sends a loud signal of the direction Sudan wants to go in healing its wounds, we come back to the point made at the start. Its not all in Sudans hands. Whilst Hamdok fights to get the country a fair chance at survival as he garners support and investment, Hemeti and the RSF position themselves as a credible replacement if he fails.

And what about that promised $3bn from Saudi Arabia and the UAE? The Sudanese finance minister has said Sudan has received half of it, with the remainder set to be paid by the end of this year. Its not yet clear if these two regional powers will fully get behind Hamdok. On his recent visit to Riyadh, Hamdok was accompanied by the one and only General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. Time will tell if the TMC duo are really accepting the will of civilian rule, or if they are simply making themselves seem more palatable as a possible alternative.

Away from the gulf, China and Russia have also long shown an interest in Sudan, and this has not wavered throughout the countrys recent upheaval. Even after Bashir was overthrown, his Russian allies continued operating in Sudan. Bashir said of a vast deal with Russia, including weapons, that it was giving keys to Africa in return for protection from aggressive US actions. And now, General Abdelfattah El Burhan has said that the economic and military cooperation with Russia will continue. Meanwhile, China has long been involved in projects throughout Sudan, including constructing the presidential palace, and has recently launched Sudans first satellite.

It would be reasonable to say that both China and Russia are interested in Sudan for purely economic reasons (part of a wider campaign to increase economic ties in the region), with the former operating on a non-interference policy. But, whilst they may not actively be hindering the countrys progress, their sales of arms could be troubling. After all, they didnt mind providing Bashirs regime with deadly force. Chinas non interference policy may refer to political matters, but under Bashirs regime violence and brutality were intertwined with his governance, so handing over weapons to him and his private armies renders the non interference policy somewhat redundant. It should also be noted that both Russia and China blocked an attempt by the UN Security Council to condemn the killing of civilians by the TMC, and call for an immediate end to the violence.

So Sudan is perhaps now in a precarious position. Its people have done their part. There is not a section of society that wasnt touched by these protests. It may have been mobilised by an organisation of middle-class professionals, but every part of society united. They stood up and they died for change. The Sudanese people should be praised for the remarkable restraint they showed in their fight, even when faced with the brutality of the RFS. Now they watch intently, and wait for the international community to extend a hand to them.

Sudan is full of bright young minds. It has doctors and lawyers, farmers and engineers, journalists and writers, musicians and artists. Its culture is rich and its people are some of the most hospitable you will find. The members of the vast diaspora scattered across the world wait with bated breath as the path of their beloved homeland is etched out. But for all it has to offer, there are vultures circling it. The countrys history cannot, unfortunately, simply be written out with the abolition of laws and a shiny new front. Whilst they are currently subservient, I cannot believe that the sinister characters from Sudans past will so easily let go of all the power and fortunes they have amassed, and that their power will dissipate as long as they have the support of some of the worlds most powerful. But I also know that Sudanese people everywhere love their country, and they will not be fooled, they will not give up.

Read the original post:

Will the international community help Sudan become free? - Shout Out UK

Genesis 38:9-10: But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brothers wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. 10 And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also.

It is an historical fact that no Christian communion sanctioned contraception until the Anglican Lambeth Conference in 1930. Protestant historian Roland Bainton states casually that the Church very early forbade contraception (Early Christianity, 56). According toThe Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, many Christian moralists . . . repudiate all methods of family limitation (Cross, 889). Ronald Knox eloquently recounted how Christians used to detest contraception:

Practices hitherto connected with the unmentioned underworld have found their way into the home . . . it is not merely a Christian principle that has been thrown overboard . . . Ovid and Juvenal, with no flicker of Christian revelation to guide them, branded the practices in question with the protest of heathen satire. It is not Christian morality, but natural morality as hitherto conceived, that has been outraged by the change of standard.(Knox, 31-32)

Christianity (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism alike) had always opposed contraception as gravely sinful. When I first learned of this in 1990 (as an inquiring evangelical pro-life activist curious about the odd and inexplicable Catholic prohibition) it was a shocking revelation to me and the first step on my road to conversion to Catholicism.

Today, probably upwards of 90% of Protestants and 80% of Catholics use contraceptives. It is a mortal sin in Catholicism, and used to always be considered an extremely serious sin in Protestant circles. How things change. The great Anglican apologist C. S. Lewis, for example, opposed contraception:

As regards contraceptives, there is a paradoxical, negative sense in which all possible future generations are the patients or subjects of a power wielded by those already alive. By contraception simply, they are denied existence; by contraception used as a means of selective breeding, they are, without their concurring voice, made to be what one generation, for its own reasons, may choose to prefer. From this point of view, what we call Mans power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument.(The Abolition of Man, 68-69)

Genesis 38:9-10 (about Onan) has been one of the main prooftexts traditionally used to oppose contraception. Observe how Martin Luther interpreted this biblical passage:

Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed . . . He was inflamed with the basest spite and hatred . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore God punished him . . . That worthless fellow . . . preferred polluting himself with a most disgraceful sin to raising up offspring for his brother.(Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 38-44; 1544; LW, 7, 20-21)

John Calvin, in hisCommentary on Genesisis no less vehemently opposed to the practice (what would he think if he knew about the vast majority of Calvinists today who regularly contracept?):

I will contend myself with briefly mentioning this, as far as the sense of shame allows to discuss it. It is a horrible thing to pour out seed besides the intercourse of man and woman. Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race. When a woman in some way drives away the seed out the womb, through aids, then this is rightly seen as an unforgivable crime. Onan was guilty of a similar crime, by defiling the earth with his seed, so that Tamar would not receive a future inheritor.

The New Bible Dictionaryconcludes, on the other hand, this verse does not pass any judgment on birth control as such (Douglas, 789). The reasoning often used to overcome the force of the verse is that Onan was punished by God (with death) for disobeying the levirate law, whereby a brother of a dead husband was to take his sister-in-law as his wife and have children with her (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

But that cant apply in this case (or any other) because the same work informs us that the law allows the brother the option of refusing. Thus we find in Deuteronomy 25:9 that a sister-in-law so refused should spit in his face, but there is no mention of any death penalty or the wrath of God.

How then, can theNew Bible Dictionarybe so sure that the slaying of Onan by God had no relation to contraception? God didnt command Onan in this case another argument sometimes heard , so he wasnt directly disobeying God (it was his father Judah who asked him to do what he didnt want to do: Gen 38:8).

Whatever was displeasing to God couldnt have been disobedience regarding the levirate law, since He allowed people to disobey it and recommended that they suffer only public humiliation, not death, which is not nearly as serious as being wicked the reason God slew Onans brother Er (Gen 38:7).

Moreover, the passage which teaches about the levirate law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) is from God, as part of the covenant and the Law received by Moses on Mt. Sinai, and proclaimed by Him to all of Israel (see Deut 5:1-5, 29:1, 12).

If God Himself did not say that the punishment for disobeying the levirate law was death (in the place where it would be expected if it were true), how can modern commentators know this? Can it be that their knowledge exists in order to avoid uncomfortable implications concerning a prohibition of contraception? Might there be a little bit of bias at play?

Yet the article on Onan in the same dictionary (the earlier comment was in the article, Marriage), written by the editor, J. D. Douglas, states:

Onan . . . took steps to avoid a full consummation of the union, thus displeasing the Lord, who slew him.(Douglas, 910)

Douglas appears to contend that Onan was killed for the contraceptive act, not disobedience to the levirate law. If so, his opinion contradicts the view expressed in the other article by J. S. Wright and J. A. Thompson.The Eerdmans Bible Dictionaryconcurs:

. . . whenever Onan and Tamar had intercourse he would spill his sperm on the ground to prevent her from conceiving; for this the Lord slew him.

Onans tactic of withdrawing before ejaculation . . . costs him his life.(Myers, 781, 653)

In its article on Levirate Law, we are also informed that the brother had the option of refusing to take his sister-in-law in levirate marriage (652). The logic is apparent: if refusal alone was not grounds to be killed by God or by capital punishment issued by his fellows, then there must have been something in the way Onan refused which was the cause. This was the withdrawal method, a form of contraception (probably the one most used throughout history). Therefore, Onan was killed for doing that, which in turn means that God didnt approve of it.

One might still retort as follows: it is not contraception per se that was wrong in Onans case, but the fact that he wanted to have sex with the woman but not to have children. He had the right to refuse the levirate marriage, but once he agreed to it he was obligated to produce the children which was the purpose of it.

I would agree with this hypothetical objection prima facie, but (upon closer inspection) I would add that it actually confirms the central moral point on which the moral objection to contraception is based: the evil of separating sex from procreation. It is precisely because the central purpose of marriage is procreation, that the levirate law was present in the first place. If one married, they were to have sexual relations, which was (foremost) for the purpose of having children.

If a husband died with no children, it was so important for children to be born that God commanded the mans brother to take his wife after he died. But Onan tried to separate sex from procreation. He wanted all the pleasure but not the responsibility of fatherhood or to help perpetuate his brothers family. He possessed the contraceptive mentality which is rampant today, even among otherwise traditional, committed Christians.

This is what is evil: an unnatural separation of what God intended to be together. If Onan didnt want children, he shouldnt have agreed to the levirate marriage. Once married, he should have agreed to having children. But he tried the middle way of having sex but willfully separating procreation from it. This was the sin, and this is why God killed him. Martin Luther understood the fundamental evil of contraception and the anti-child mindset:

Today you find many people who do not want to have children. Moreover, this callousness and inhuman attitude, which is worse than barbarous, is met with chiefly among the nobility and princes, who often refrain from marriage for this one single reason, that they might have no offspring. It is even more disgraceful that you find princes who allow themselves to be forced not to marry, for fear that the members of their house would increase beyond a definite limit. Surely such men deserve that their memory be blotted out from the land of the living. Who is there who would not detest these swinish monsters? But these facts, too, serve to emphasize original sin. Otherwise we would marvel at procreation as the greatest work of God, and as a most outstanding gift we would honor it with the praises it deserves.(Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-5, 1536; LW, I, 118; commentary on Genesis 2:18)

The rest of the populace is more wicked than even the heathen themselves. For most married people do not desire offspring. Indeed, they turn away from it and consider it better to live without children, because they are poor and do not have the means with which to support a household. . . . But the purpose of marriage is not to have pleasure and to be idle but to procreate and bring up children, to support a household. . . . Those who have no love for children are swine, stocks, and logs unworthy of being called men and women; for they despise the blessing of God, the Creator and Author of marriage.(Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 26-30; LW, V, 325-328; vol. 28, 279; commentary on the birth of Joseph to Jacob and Rachel; cf. LW, vol. 45, 39-40)

You will find many to whom a large number of children is unwelcome, as though marriage had been instituted only for bestial pleasures and not also for the very valuable work by which we serve God and men when we train and educate the children whom God has given us. They do not appreciate the most pleasant feature of marriage. For what exceeds the love of children?(In Plass, II, #2834)

Lets examine more traditional Protestant commentary on Genesis 38:8-9. Matthew Henry decries the great abuse of his own body and sins that dishonour the body and defile it which are very displeasing to God and evidences of vile affections. John Wesley actually quotes Henry, adds that Onan was abusing his wife, and concludes with this powerful condemnation:

Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord And it is to be feared, thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.

Sources

Bainton, Roland H.,Early Christianity, New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1960.

Calvin, John,Calvins Commentaries, 22 volumes, translated and edited by John Owen; originally printed for the Calvin Translation Society, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1853; reprinted by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan: 1979. Available online:http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment2/

Cross, F. L. and E. A. Livingstone, editors,The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1983.

Douglas, J. D., editor,The New Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962.

Henry, Matthew [Presbyterian],Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible, 1706. Available online:http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc.html

Knox, Ronald,The Belief of Catholics, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1927; reprinted in 1958.

Lewis, C. S.,The Abolition of Man, New York: Macmillan, 1947.

Luther, Martin,Luthers Works(LW), American edition, edited by Jaroslav Pelikan (volumes 1-30) and Helmut T. Lehmann (volumes 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (volumes 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (volumes 31-55), 1955.

Myers, Allen C., editor,The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987; English revision ofBijbelse Encyclopedie, edited by W. H. Gispen, Kampen, Netherlands: J. H. Kok, revised edition, 1975; translated by Raymond C. Togtman and Ralph W. Vunderink.

Plass, Ewald M.,What Luther Says, an Anthology, two volumes, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959.

Wesley, John [founder of Methodism],Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, 1765. Available (online):https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/wesleys-explanatory-notes/

* * * * *

From my book:The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants(published in 2004 by Sophia Institute Press)

For further fascinating exegesis of the Onan passage, see Fr. Brian Harrisons comments:The Sin of Onanism Revisited.

***

Related Reading:

Dialogue: Why Did God Kill Onan? (Contraception)[2-13-04]

Onan, Contraception, & Two Protestant Bible Dictionaries[2-21-04]

Biblical Data Against Contraception: Onans Sin and Punishment: a Concise Catholic Argument [3-7-14]

Bible vs. Contraception: Onans Sin and Punishment[National Catholic Register, 5-30-17]

Dialogue w Several Non-Catholics on Contraception[1996 and 1998]

Contraception: Early Church Teaching(William Klimon) [1998]

Dialogue:Contraceptionvs. NFP: CrucialEthical Distinctions[2-16-01]

Luther and Calvin Opposed Contraception and Fewer Children is Better Thinking[2-21-04; published atNational Catholic Register, 9-13-17]

Biblical Evidence Against Contraception[5-3-06]

Dialogue: Contraception & Natural Family Planning (NFP)[5-16-06]

Divine Family Planning (Unlimited Children / Anti-NFP): Critique[9-20-08]

Bible onthe Blessing of [Many] Children[3-9-09]

Natural Family Planning (NFP) &Contraceptive Intent[8-28-13]

Contraception and Anti-Procreation vs. Scripture[National Catholic Register, 6-6-18]

A Defense of Natural Family Planning[National Catholic Register, 5-25-19]

***

*

*

*

***

(originally 2-9-04)

Photo credit:Judah and Tamar(anon., Italian, 17th c.)[public domain /Wikimedia Commons]

***

Read the original here:

Why Did God Kill Onan? (Bible and Contraception) - Patheos

While theres never been a shortage of compelling dramas set on death row Dead Man Walking and The Green Mile come immediately to mind its rare to have two in cinemas at the same time. So, while this review mainly considers Clemency, its inevitable that some compare/contrast will be made to Just Mercy, too.

If you like more hope in your films, youll probably prefer Just Mercy, which centers on the lifework of attorney superhero Bryan Stevenson (played with earnest gravity by Michael B. Jordan), and his early career battle to spring a wrongly accused Walter McMillian (Jamie Foxx, terrific as usual) from death row. By contrast, Clemency is a grimmer fictional work that focuses most intently on the people who make a living off death row.

However, writer/director Chinonye Chukyu put in a lot of effort to make her film look and feel authentic. Spurred by a Georgia execution in 2011, Chukyu spent what sounds like hundreds of hours with defense attorneys, death row inmates, wardens, and guards. The result is an empathic portrait of people who are usually villainized in prison movies.

Thats not to say that Chukyu lets the warden, guards, and chaplain off the hook. In its own way, Clemency is just as strongly against capital punishment as Just Mercy. Though we never see a prisoner beaten or abused by a guard, Chukyus film implicitly condemns her protagonists for officiously doing their jobs in an immoral system.

Near the start of Clemency, its main character, Warden Bernadine Williams (Alfre Woodard), asks a prisoner strapped to a gurney for a lethal injection if she can get him anything. Bernadines deadpan face doesnt register the cruel absurdity of her question. Later, as another prisoner is prepared for execution, the chaplain clearly unaware of the irony tells him, The love of God is everywhere around you.

After a squirmingly detailed prologue, in which Bernadine presides over a botched execution, the bulk of Clemencys narrative deals with the prisons preparation for their next, hopefully un-botched, lethal injection. The next victim is to be Anthony Woods (Aldis Hodge), an accused cop killer who steadfastly maintains his innocence. We observe Anthonys torment as his execution date draws closer, while his frazzled but caring attorney Marty (Richard Schiff) presses for clemency from the unnamed states governor.

Bernadine is also facing attrition by her loyal troops at the prison. A traumatized guard requests a transfer, her deputy and friend Thomas has applied for a warden position at a jail without a death row, and the warmhearted chaplain is retiring. Clemency generates suspense both through Anthonys appeal to the governor, and in observing Bernadines psyche: will she crumble, quit, or perpetuate the status quo?

Alfre Woodard excellently conveys Bernadines numbed emotional state, only laughing when three sheets to the wind, only expressing affection when Jonathan threatens divorce. Her footsteps through the prison, where she still is dutiful and responsible, are slow and leaden. The color scheme of the film suitably reflects her headspace, beaten down by the sickly institutional paint job and deadening fluorescent lighting at work. Even at home, the soothing browns and reds stay in the dark, the blinds constantly drawn, prison-like.

I do wish that Wendell Pierce, so great in TV series like The Wire and Treme, had been given more to do. As a high school English teacher nearing the end of his career, we see that compassion fatigue is not only for prison workers. Sadly, the film doesnt run far with this comparison.

Aldis Hodge (solid in Straight Outta Compton) didnt convince me as Anthony. He looks too unweathered for a man 15 years on death row, his suffering skin-deep. By contrast, the actors playing death row denizens in Just Mercy wrung more sympathy from me; besides Jamie Foxx, Rob Morgan is powerfully tragic as a Nam vet tormented by both his stateside guilt and wartime PTSD.

Nonetheless, these two films complement each other effectively. Just Mercy argues for the abolition of the death penalty, due to human error, institutional racism, and malfeasance in policing and courtrooms. Clemency shows how death rows crush spirits on both sides of the prison bars. And if anyone doubts the evergreen timeliness of these films, one should read the news a little more: my own state electrocuted a blind man earlier this month, while Florida may well execute an innocent man in the coming year.

(Image credit for star rating:Yasir72.multanCC BY-SA 3.0)

Read the original post:

Clemency Is Hard to Find, on Both Sides of the Prison Bars - Patheos