Roxane Gay has 10 of them, but how healthy is it to obsess over a rival or enemy? Stylist investigates.

They are our secret adversaries. They make our blood boil on Instagram. Their ever-growing LinkedIn connections really drives us mad. Pit us against them on a sports pitch and we turn gladiatorial. They are our nemeses, and they are also completely normal to have.

Guest editor Roxane Gay is the undisputed queen of conjuring up adversaries. She can have 10 nemeses at any one time, simply because she likes having them. A nemesis is someone for whom you harbour an abiding, relentless dislike, she writes in her essay on the pleasures of having an imagined rival.

They might not know we exist, but that hardly matters. Roxanes primary foe, for example, smiles too much, is thriving professionally and exists to spite me. It is almost too much to bear.

Our rivals exist solely to grind our gears, but we also cant get enough of them. It might not have quite the thrill of Eve versus Villanelle, but more than half of us have a work enemy, according to Totaljobs. And social media has gifted us access to our adversaries out-of-hours. There are close to 300,000 Instagram posts dedicated to the #nemesis.

She smiles too much, is thriving professionally and exists to spite me. It is almost too much to bear.

From YouTube beef to Twitter feuds, nemeses are trending in real life. So why do we have them? Our nemesis often shows what actually matters to us. They reflect back our own values and ideals, says psychologist and life coach Honey Langcaster-James. Its often someone who is doing what we would secretly like to. Or perhaps they appear to be living their life in a way that we aspire to. Your nemesis is a mirror, reflecting back what you want to be doing with your life.

We tend to pick nemeses that are quite similar to us. They are us but with a better CV, #friendshipgoals and great hair (how do they do that?). Social media puts all of this pettiness in the palm of our hands.

Yet nemesis-collecting can be a noble pursuit. We pick workplace nemeses according to how willing they are to throw others under the bus, Totaljobs found, suggesting were keen to protect colleagues who have been wronged. There are other good reasons for having an adversary. Long-distance runners cut five seconds off their race times when competing against an arch-rival, according to a 2014 study from New York University. Nemeses are motivational.

Think of a nemesis as grit in your oyster, Langcaster-James suggests. They might really wind you up, but they also might represent something that is against your own values. They can make us think, What do I want to be doing more of? How should I be investing my time? You can use your nemesis as a springboard to differentiate yourself from. You can even turn a nemesis into an inspiration.

Here,four women offload about their arch-nemeses.

Jen Corrigan - Writer and Tech Worker

I met Diane in a poetry workshop in college. She was the best poet in class, so I was already impressed by her, but what really got under my skin was that she had faith in her abilities. I had never met a writer my age who was comfortable with her own voice, something that I was struggling with. When I met her, I was instantly jealous that I didnt have her skills or her confidence.

A nemesis has to be someone I respect, even just a little bit, otherwise I wouldnt care what they think of me or if theyre better than me in some way. I tend to care too much about what people think of me, even the people I dont like. My nemeses are always a projection of my own insecurities.

At the time, in college, I dont think my envy of Diane motivated me in any meaningful way. It was a distraction, because I was young and hadnt yet learned how to use my insecurities as fuel for self-improvement. It was only years later that I was able to revisit those feelings in a way that was more productive.

I have many nemeses of varying degrees now: ex-partners, former friends, smug acquaintances, people who are just better than me at something. They keep me focused on my goals. Some of my nemeses I want to emulate, some of them I want to impress, some of them I want to prove wrong. Im petty, and revenge can be a great motivator.

Marie Le Conte - Political Journalist

Im a big fan of enemies. I still have a nemesis from a previous workplace. The feud started out for quite dull work reasons, we both enjoyed having someone in the office to annoy. It just spiralled. Now, I will celebrate his demise when it comes. If he loses his job, I will be buying champagne in the pub.

These feuds motivate me. I think, Ill prove them wrong. I work best out of spite, when someone doesnt think I can do this. Im also proving to myself that I can do it. Having nemeses makes life more fun. I dont follow people I dislike on social media, but once a week I will go on my nemeses profiles, screengrab their posts and send them to friends.

I work in Westminster, where people hold grudges over the tiniest things. Youre quite free and expected to act like a wronged teenager even if youre a 47-year-old man. One of my nemeses said that she would never attend the same events I would go to, and so I made a point of ticking attending on every mutual Facebook event invitation, just so she didnt go. It was a proper dick move.

Im a Marmite person. People will dislike me no matter what I do. I suspect this happens a lot, especially to women who are outspoken, people of colour and LGBTQ+ people. Youre disliked for who you are. You can agonise over the fact that they hate you, or you can say fuck that, Ill hate them as well. Ill hate them first. And Ill hate them better.

Sally Thorne - Author

A friend requested I write a fiction piece as her birthday gift. When asked for a prompt word, she offered nemesis. That resulted in The Hating Game, an office romcom about two publishing assistants who play juvenile games of one-upmanship until it becomes clear the fighting is a cover for their attraction. The hate-to-love trope was fun to write.

A nemesis stirs powerful emotions: jealousy, sabotage and a strange kind of obsession. Its compelling in fiction, particularly the romance genre, because if its written right, all of these negative feelings can unexpectedly boil over into passion. Then we ask ourselves, how can they ever move past hate?

I do have flashes of envy when I see another writer hit the New York Times bestseller list. But I remind myself Ive had achievements that others would envy. I wrote about nemeses and it changed my life in the best way.

Vivienne Jeffers - Football Coach and Founder Of East London Ladies Fc

My nemeses are womens football teams who use grassroots football as a vanity project; hip teams born from the hype and opportunities in women and girls football. They take money and attention from clubs like ours, teams that provide proper grassroots opportunities for women and girls to build confidence and self-esteem.

Our team, East London Ladies, started from nothing and continues to grow without big endorsements from sports brands, who focus their attention on the teams with the trendy-looking girls without a hair out of place. These teams dont know they are my nemeses. Ive tried to get to know their story rather than judging a book by its cover, however, Im not sold on what they are selling. Some may call it jealousy, but when youve been grafting, providing opportunities for over 120 girls and women a week, and it goes unnoticed to the point where you cant even get equipment, its disheartening.

At the same time, it becomes your driving force. Its healthy competition. Every Instagram post of their fresh new kit from a well-known brand motivates me to go that bit extra.I meet my nemeses at games. Sometimes they cant fulfil all the opportunities thrown their way and we are asked to step in. So why not take that moment to show what you do? A nemesis keeps me pushing and driving, but it is not as important as what happens on the pitch.

Roxane says:

I have several nemeses people who have slighted me in ways both real and imagined who are now mortal adversaries. May they be forced to fly only United Airlines for the rest of their days

Photography: David Harry Stewart/Trunkarchive.com

Go here to read the rest:
Healthy rivalries: is it good to obsess over a nemesis? - Stylist Magazine

Themed "Decoding Life", the first Tencent ME Summit aimed to grasp the light of medical enlightenment by exploring the microscopic world of human body and tracing the tracks of humankind's evolutionary journey. In his congratulatory note for the conference, Pony Ma, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Tencent, said the mission of the Summit is to "encourage more people to care about life and have better self-awareness, promote public health through authoritative popular science and reduce suffering from illness."

In her congratulatory letter for the Summit, Tu Youyou, the first ChineseNobel laureate in physiology or medicine, also said, "Apart from focusing on their own fields of research, medical professionals should also bear the responsibility of popularizing accurate and authoritative medical knowledge among the public. As health and wellness are critical issues to human being, the medical community and enterprises' joint attention to medical science is in line with this development trend."

Xiao Ruiping, Chair Professor and Director of Institute of Molecular of Medicine at Peking University, Associate Editor of NEJM, Managing Editor of NEJM Frontiers in Medicine, said, "Cardiovascular disease, stroke and other chronic diseases have become the biggest health threat in China. Clinical research in China has improved significantly in recent years. We aim to introduce the most advanced international medical research and clinical practice to China, not only for the use of medical experts, but also for the benefit of general public who can access translated medical information through a reliable popular science platform."

Speakers at the conference include:

At the Summit, Zhang Meng shared Tencent's progress in popularizing medical science. "As we know, popularization of medical science and knowledge is a mission Tencent cannot accomplish on our own. We can provide an open platform, condensing the wisdom of experts, and with the power of Internet technology, we can jointly build a bridge of trust between physicians and the public," added Zhang.

Launched in 2017, Tencent Medipedia is designed as an authoritative, professional and practical platform sharing healthcare information. Users are provided with knowledge from prevention, diagnosis, treatment of disease to rehabilitation. Through texts, photos, videos, interactive activities, AI assistant and 3D visualization, Tencent Medipedia brings high-quality original healthcare content from around the globe and localizes it to best suit the Chinese audience. It has a systematic and holistic approach to translate obscure medical knowledge into more reader-friendly information for the general public, enhancing their abilities to take care of their health and reducing their panic when facing diseases.

At the Summit, Tencent also announced the "Young Doctor Short Video Popular Science Competition", encouraging young medical professionals to open the door of medical science with rich Internet communication tools, with a view to bringing high-quality medical knowledge to the public.

Pony emphasized at last, "I hope 'Tech for Good' will become part of Tencent's mission and vision, guiding us to make the best use of technology, avoiding any misuse or inappropriate use of technology, and driving innovations and breakthroughs for the benefits of humanity."

SOURCE Tencent

Continue reading here:
Tencent and NEJM Yi Xue Qian Yan Host ME Summit to Promote Medical Science and Healthcare - PRNewswire

USC Dornsifes Kelsey Rubin-Detlev argues that 18th-century Russian ruler Catherine the Great offers an example of how modern leaders could use wit, reason and science to advance a nation. [6 min read]

There are unscrupulous people in Russia. Fortunately, Im one of them, says Catherine the Great, played by Helen Mirren, as she stands above the corpse of a rival to her throne. For those following present day politics, this memorable moment from HBOs new, eponymously named series might feel familiar.

Little else in Catherines historic rule as Russias empress seems to align with the strategies of present-day politicians, however.

Fascinated by Enlightenment ideals of science and reason, and eager to thrust the country into the modern era, Catherine used precise strategy, charm and her considerable networking powers to rule Russia for 34 years and establish the nation as a powerful force in Europe. For those bemoaning a lack of, well, most of these traits in those holding office today, perhaps her onscreen reintroduction to America could serve as a timely reminder of an alternative mode of rule.

Kelsey Rubin-Detlev, assistant professor of Slavic languages and literatures, says, Catherine didnt just interact with public intellectuals: She was a public intellectual herself. She was a playwright, a journalist, a historian, a political theorist and much more. This is what being a great monarch in the Enlightenment was all about: combining ideas with power.

Friends and frenemies

Catherine the Great came to power in 1762 after successfully tossing her husband, Peter III, whom she considered an unbearable spouse and weak ruler, from the throne in a coup.

Her reign was perilous.

She was not Russian, but German, marrying into the Russian imperial family through a political alliance. Although Russia had a history of women rulers (Peter IIIs aunt, Elizabeth, had run the country for two decades), maintaining the respect of her male peers was a constant battle. Various usurpers, including her own son, were vying for the crown.

In response to these challenges, she cultivated a canny ability to network and turn enemies into allies without upsetting the delicate aristocratic ecosystem that kept her in power.

To paraphrase Mirrens Catherine, always keep the awkward ones busy, and then get rid of them if they actually mess it up. For Rubin-Detlev, this was a core strategy for Catherines rule.

Catherine knew better than to avoid or mistreat people whom she didnt like. Instead, she often gave potential enemies a role in her government and treated them with respect. This way, she took away any grounds they might have to complain and made their success inseparable from hers.

Keeping her detractors loyal was just one part of her strategy. Catherine was also extremely savvy in choosing her friends and correspondents, says Rubin-Detlev.

Catherines dramatic arrival on the throne and early pronouncements of her intent to rule according to Enlightenment principles attracted a great deal of attention in Europe, but many, including the leading French philosopher Voltaire, were skeptical about her ability to hold on to power. Catherine managed to overcome his doubts: When he dedicated his Philosophy of History to her a few years after her accession, she wrote a witty note back, sparking a correspondence that went on for 15 years and covered topics like politics, morality and Russias place in the Enlightenment.

The relationship was strategic.

Besides the fact that she genuinely admired his writings, [Catherine] knew that by befriending [Voltaire], she was joining a network of highly influential people, says Rubin-Detlev. She could count on Voltaire not just to publish good things about her in his very popular writings, but also to talk about her with other intellectuals and with people like the duc de Richelieu, an advisor to the king of France.

On Voltaires part, it reflected well in social circles that he was pen pals with the empress of Russia. They never met in person but Voltaire kept a portrait of Catherine in his bedroom.

Catherine II ruled Russia from 1762 until 1796. (Image: Catherine II by Fyodor Rokotov.)

Catherine the clown

Mirren successfully captures Catherines intelligence, but to Rubin-Detlev, the depiction misses Catherines signature sense of humor.

Catherine was not afraid to clown around, she says. The real Catherine learned very early in life that she could get ahead only by being likeable and making people laugh.

Before Catherine came to power, the reigning ruler, Empress Elizabeth, assigned hostile courtiers to Catherines staff to keep tabs on her. Catherine set about keeping them entertained, throwing parties and telling jokes, eventually winning her spies over to her side.

Once on the throne, Catherine hosted intimate dinner parties where guests were expected to lay aside rank and participate with whatever ridiculous games the group invented.

Making herself approachable was a way to form alliances and also a way to learn. By listening to her guests, who felt comfortable in her presence, she could find out information that may have been kept from a more imperious ruler.

She also wrote silly love letters to her partners. In one to her lifelong friend, trusted deputy and possible secret husband, Grigory Potemkin, she writes that she had seen a beautiful man the night before: You might run into him if, when you get up, you turn to the right and look at the wall. She wrote this knowing that a mirror hung to the right of his bed.

Catherine was careful, however, to maintain her position as head of state. Unlike her contemporary Marie Antoinette, who playacted as a common person and built a faux country hamlet in which to stage life as a shepherdess, Catherine knew that becoming too earthy would strip her of necessary mystique (and her head).

Catherine maintained her grip on power, no one could ever forget that she was the empress, says Rubin-Detlev.

Reason, individualism, skepticism, science

Catherine was immensely attracted to the Enlightenment movement of Western Europe, which emphasized reason and individualism above tradition and which saw science as a means to advance society.

The Enlightenment was a big, international conversation about what it is to be human and how we can make our lives better in this world. It was an absolute priority for Catherine that Russia be a part of that conversation, says Rubin-Detlev.

Catherines allegiance with these philosophies is perhaps best embodied in her push to inoculate the Russian population against smallpox.

The disease had ravaged Europe for centuries, badly disfiguring Peter III. Determined to rid her countrymen of the scourge that was killing tens of thousands, in 1767, she summoned Thomas Dimsdale, a British physician, to court. Dimsdale had developed a hotly debated early vaccination method. By dipping a knife into the smallpox pustule of a victim with a mild strain of the disease, the strain could then be transferred to a healthy patient via a small cut on their arm. Patients infected with this milder strain developed immunity, and could fight off more deadly strains in the future.

When Thomas arrived at court, Catherine insisted that she receive the innoculation, despite heavy protest from Dimsdale and the rest of her courtiers, who were concerned should the still experimental treatment fail. After inoculation, she fell ill for a few weeks and then recovered (much to the relief of Dimsdale, who had passports and swift horses at the ready to escape an irate court). The experiment was a success, and by 1800, millions of inoculations were administered to Russian citizens.

Its pretty amazing that, in the 18th century, the best publicity strategy for Catherine was to show everyone that she was planning laws and reforms by thinking about concepts like justice and natural law and by talking to the best European thinkers about Russias needs. Wouldnt it be great if political leaders today could win votes by appealing to reason and research? says Rubin-Detlev.

Modern politicians, take note. The next episode of Catherine the Great airs Nov. 4.

Read the rest here:
Modern politicians could learn a thing or two from this Russian empress > News > USC Dornsife - USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and...

I have a piece on the home page on the importance of the American cultural nation, in the context of a discussion of civic nationalism:

It is certainly true that different forms of nationalism can be more or less inclusive and democratic. But no nation has ever been entirely civic in this sense, and its foolish to consider the United States any different.

Our cultural nation was extremely important at the outset, and remains so today. At the time of the Revolution, the colonists were 80 percent British and almost entirely Protestant. As John Jay wrote in theFederalistNo. 2, Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.

The fact is that culture is seeded with ideas. Would America be the same if its people spoke Russian the language of a country that has never effectively supported property rights, the rule of law, or limited government rather than English? Would our political culture as we know it have emerged if practically every home in America a couple of hundred years ago had had a Koran on the nightstand rather than a King James Bible? Of course not.

At the beginning, this was a country not necessarily for Englishmen but by Englishmen, including their notions of liberty, which defined the American experience from the outset. Tocqueville famously wrote that the American was the Englishman left alone. If the eastern seaboard had been settled by Spaniards, you could have left them alone for a very long time and marinated them in all the Enlightenment philosophers, and they still never would have come up with the American founding.

Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via email: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com.

More here:
Not Necessarily for Englishmen but by Englishmen - National Review

Dear Academy Members,

Last year, the Academy faced widespread criticism after announcing a new Oscar category for outstanding achievement in popular film. The category was quickly tabled, with critics saying the award was a lackluster attempt to boost telecast ratings and appease some studios. But I am hoping that after a year of reflection, Academy members will rally around the idea. Allow me to explain.

Before the 1980s, Main Street and Academy tastes were mostly aligned as nearly all winners of the best picture Oscar were among the top 10 highest-grossing films that year. Preferences began to diverge in the 1980s, as smaller prestige films would find the Oscar spotlight over larger box office spectacles. Since 2010, no best picture Oscar has gone to a top 10 box office hit.

While mainstream moviegoing audiences broadened their tastes to include superhero, fantasy and sci-fi themes, the preferences of Academy members narrowed to sobering, real-life dramas often laced with timely political and social messages. We need to recognize that both types of films are outstanding achievements, each in its own unique way.

Some legendary filmmakers are critical of this art form. While promoting his latest film, Netflix's The Irishman, Martin Scorsese said Marvel movie storylines are not cinema because they do not "convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being." In interviews with French press soon after, Francis Ford Coppola added fuel to the discussion by calling Marvel pictures "despicable" because they do not provide learning, enlightenment or inspiration.

They are wrong. Having conducted more than 1,000 audience studies for major entertainment companies, I know blockbusters achieve success by creating a deep emotional connection across an immense range of audiences. It's not just about special effects, explosions or vast merchandising opportunities. Anyone paying attention appreciated that 2018's Avengers: Infinity War and this year's Avengers: Endgame masterfully wove multiple storylines and characters together into a seamless, suspenseful narrative of empowerment, fear, bravery, love, loss and inspiration. In so doing, Endgame alone made $2.8 billion worldwide that equates to roughly 280 million people eagerly paying $10 each to experience the saga at the theaters. In comparison, Barry Jenkins' Moonlight was one of the narrowest appealing recent best picture winners, drawing about 6.5 million people.

Academy members need to accept that Avengers and Moonlight represent different yet both highly deserving categories of artistry. Unfortunately, when prominent filmmakers voice opposition to this category of artistry, they are undermining the achievements of a vast number of the Academy's talented members, from producers, directors and screenwriters to crafts and production teams. These films also help keep the industry afloat, often allowing studios to take subsequent risks on funding smaller movies that then often find their way to Oscar recognition. Thus, these blockbusters also deserve your respectful recognition.

The Academy recognized the dichotomy of tastes between its members and the general moviegoing audience when it increased the number of best picture contenders from five to as many as 10 nominees in 2010, with hopes that more popular films would be nominated. But the added slots were quickly filled with mostly smaller and mid-sized prestige films. Even when Marvel's $1.3 billion worldwide hit Black Panther was nominated for best picture this year, it lost to Green Book, a film grossing $322 million worldwide a quarter of Black Panther's box office haul.

The fix is simple. The Academy should reconsider an Academy Award for outstanding achievement among blockbusters call it best blockbuster. With that, the Academy would verify the top 10 highest-grossing worldwide box office films and then members would vote for the one that displays the greatest unique achievement. Awards might have gone to Avatar or Wonder Woman. This year, nominations might include Endgame, Spider-Man: Far From Home, Chinese sci-fi hit The Wandering Earth, Joker and the upcoming Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. What a race!

Some are concerned that if a film is nominated for best blockbuster, then Academy members might not include it for best picture. I believe a truly great film would make both lists. The new category might also net a larger audience for the Oscars. This year's viewership on ABC grew to 29.6 million, likely boosted by Black Panther's seven Oscar noms, including best picture.

While some might question that a blockbuster award would be a grab for TV ratings and advertising cash, that ignores the issue of the Academy's cultural relevance. The 33 percent ratings drop of this year's Emmy Awards, partially because of the vast number of nominated shows that few viewers watch, is an ominous message for the 2020 Oscar telecast: Be culturally relevant or die.

I hope many of you agree. If so, reach out to Academy president David Rubin and the board to share your views.

Thank you,

Gene Del VecchioAuthor of Creating BlockbustersFaculty, USC Marshall School of Business

This story first appeared in the Oct. 30 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine. To receive the magazine, click here to subscribe.

Link:
Why the Oscars Should Revive the Best Blockbuster Idea (Guest Column) - Hollywood Reporter

Maliks work, in many ways, defends the values of Enlightenment of the 18th century

Kenan Malik is an Indian-born British writer, lecturer and broadcaster. He had studied neurobiology and the history of science. As an academic author, his focus is on the philosophy of biology, and contemporary theories of multiculturalism, pluralism and race. These are the subjects he draws on elaborately in his books. Maliks work, in many ways, defends the values of Enlightenment of the 18th century as he seeks to show through his writing that the ethos of Enlightenment has been distorted in recent political and scientific discourses. He writes for many newspapers and magazines including the Observer, the New York Times, the Guardian, the Financial Times and the Independent.

'From Fatwa to Jihad: The Rushdie Affair and its Legacy' (2009)

From Fatwa to Jihadwas released to coincide with the twentieth anniversary of the Fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie. In this book, Malik recounts the events of the Bradford protests, the fatwa, the Indian riots, as well as government and media responses. Apart from this, Malik also focuses on South-Asian British immigrants, and how they shaped the British-Asian identity. He describes the increase in state multiculturalism and its long-term effects, and also analyses the culture of censoring yourself and fearing the media.

'Multiculturalism and its Discontents: Rethinking Diversity After 9/11' (2013)

After 9/11 and the subsequent terrorist attacks that followed in some parts of Europe, a frequently asked question was to what extent the west can tolerate cultural diversity. InMulticulturalism and its Discontents,Malik examines how multiculturalism affects terrorism and social discontents, and analyses the history of the idea of multiculturalism with its political roots and social consequences. He discusses if people can, and should, try to build a society that has common values.

Awards

Books written

Read more:
Kenan Malik: Philosophy of science and cultural theories - Dhaka Tribune

Although the Founders wrote and spoke with clarity and brilliance, it is evidently easy for us today to misunderstand them. The evidence is all around us.

David Boaz gives us a particularly vivid and therefore useful example of how its done in his book The Libertarian Mind.

Introducing the American cause to the world, Jefferson explained:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Lets try to draw out the implications of Americas founding document. Many libertarian scholars have joined Jefferson in making the case for natural rights to life, liberty, and property. (Emphasis mine.)

You saw it happen, didnt you? Jefferson did not declare that we have natural rights to life, liberty, and property. According to the Declaration, we have unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.Boaz has Jefferson making the case for natural rights to life, liberty, and property, but it was John Locke, not Jefferson, who did that. Had Boaz written that many libertarian scholars have joined Locke in making the case for natural rights to life, liberty, and property that claim would have been simply true.

My point is not to pick on Boaz or his valuable book. Because there are so many examples of Americans of all persuasions offering interpretations of the Founders which differ fundamentally from the Founders understanding of themselves, anyone whom I select for this discussion can seem to be unfairly singled out.

Christopher Hitchens offers another example. Although Hitchens was no libertarian, he also made Jefferson sound like Locke. In this passage from his well-received 2005 biography of Jefferson, Hitchens, like Boaz, dropped out unalienable rights and in addition managed to get both property and natural rights in the same sentence as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Watch closely to see how it is done:

And where Locke had spoken of life, liberty, and property as being natural rights, Jefferson famously wrote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In fairness to Hitchens and to Boaz, their depiction of Jefferson relying on Locke is standard fare. Open a book or article which discusses the Declaration and there is a good chance you will read that Jefferson put the pursuit of happiness where Locke had placed property. But stating it that way completely misrepresents the logic of what Jefferson did. Making it seem that Lockes list and Jeffersons list are essentially the same, that Jefferson only changed the last item of a list of three, leaves out the most important point. For Locke, property is the overarching concept:

Manhath by nature a power to preserve his propertythat is, his life, liberty and estate.

Glossing over the antecedent of Lockes list creates a false impression. To make that clear, lets put Lockes list and the Declarations list side-by-side:

Manhath by nature a power to preserve his propertythat is, his life, liberty and estate.

Menare endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Lockes triad is appended to property. The Declarations triad is appended to unalienable rights. These are two fundamentally different accounts.

For the American Founders, unalienable rightsnot propertyis the overarching concept. Here is John Adams in the Massachusetts Constitution:

All people are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

According to the Founders, our property rights are among our unalienable rightsand securing our unalienable rights is the very purpose of government:

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rightsThat to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.

To provide an account of the Founders ideas which leaves out unalienable rights is to not account for them at all.

Jefferson was not following Lockeand he was also making it perfectly clear that he was not following Locke. Yet Boaz and Hitchens and scholars of every stripe and persuasion who already know going in that the Founders followed Locke always manage to find that the Founders followed Locke.

Of course, if you bring other convictions about the nature of things to your understanding of the Founders, you can manage to find other ways to misunderstand them. Here, for another example, is W.H. Auden in his book The Dyers Hand:

It was then [during the administration of Andrew Jackson] that it first became clear that, despite similarities of form, representative government in America was not to be an imitation of the English parliamentary system, and that, though the vocabulary of the Constitution may be that of the French Enlightenment, its American meaning is quite distinct.

Of course, representative government in America was never an imitation of the English parliamentary system, nor was the Constitution written in the vocabulary of the French Enlightenmentand all that was perfectly clear from Americas beginning. The vocabulary and ideas of the French Enlightenment were a far cry from those of Americas Founders.

Voltaires enlightened despotism and Rousseaus general will came together in a constitutional referendum by means of which the French imposed a new tyranny on themselves by granting Napoleon unlimited political power as their emperor. Americans, operating according to very different ideas and using a very different vocabulary, ratified the Constitution and then elected Washington to an office of limited powers in a government of limited powers.

Auden simply read into the Founders what he knew, the English parliamentary system and the ideas of the French Enlightenment, just as Boaz and Hitchens and others read Locke into the Declaration. Because our forgetting of the ideas of the Founders is widespread and very far advanced today, mistakes of this kind are frequently madeand usually go undetected. There was a time not so long ago when the ideas of the Founders were better remembered and more generally understood. Mistakes like these once would have been unlikely and, if made, quickly recognized.

I quote Auden as a reminder that we can encounter pronouncements about America almost anywhere, even in a book about poetry and literature. If we pay careful attention to these assertions wherever we encounter them, we will often find that they are mistaken, misguided, or misleading.

Go here to see the original:
How To Misunderstand And Misrepresent The Founders - The Federalist

TE Jake Hollister was the final-play hero after his game-winning touchdown reception. / Drew McKenzie, Sportspress Northwest

Russell Wilson. Fercripesakes.

In terms of mastery of craft, the Seahawks quarterback is approaching a level of enlightenment that is thrilling to the point of chilling.

On the final three possessions of a preposterous 40-34 overtime win over Tampa Bay Sunday, he took the Seahawks on scoring drives of 75, 48 and 70 yards. Except PK Jason Myers missed a potential game-winning field goal on the middle drive, necessitating the third drive in OT.

On those three drives, he completed nine of 13 passes for 166 yards, and added a 21-yard scramble his only rush of the game that might have been the most critical improvisation of the afternoon.

Thats 187 yards of offense that produced 13 points to beat the 2-6 Bucs, who probably thought they had won the game at any of a half-dozen junctures, especially since coach Bruce Arians was 4-1 at the Clink from a previous coaching life in Arizona.

But no.

If there was any question that Wilson is the leading candidate for the Most Valuable Player award, it vanished faster than one can say, Jacob Hollister. Wilson found one of Seahawks most obscure players twice for touchdown passes, including the 10-yard game-winner in overtime.

You know, said a grinning Hollister, you have to expect (the ball) every play.

Since its possible, seeing him week after week, year after year, to take Wilson a bit for granted, one of the beneficiaries of his largesse, WR DK Metcalf, shared a bit of post-game conversation he had with the other side, which explained part of why the Seahawks in the off-season made him the games highest-paid player.

He tells me, said Metcalf of rookie CB Sean Murphy-Bunting, that Im lucky I have a guy like Russ running the show back there.

True that.

Wilson has floated an NFL-average team to 7-2 mostly on his absolute conviction and skill that the offense will score when it matters most. Doesnt always happen, but the belief in him remains rock-hard around the team. When the coin flip for overtime was won, the game was bank.

With Russell back there, it dont matter, said coach Pete Carroll, unleashing from the grip of grammar. You have a chance no matter whats going on. He played phenomenal football today.

Hes done it so many times. You cant have a better guy, almost in the history of ball, doing it.

Some will challenge Carrolls hyperbole. But Sunday, it was hard to argue with a passer rating of 133.7.

The Seahawks were up against the NFLs top run defense, so more air ordnance was ordered up in the game plan. Against a team that blitzes more than any other in the NFL, Wilson delivered 29 completions in 43 passes for 378 yards and five touchdowns with no turnovers.

His counterpart, Jameis Winston, was nearly as good statistically 29 of 44 for 335 yards and two touchdowns. But he had one error, which was hardly his fault.

With 10:48 remaining in a tie at 24, Winston dropped back on a third-and-five at Seattle 40 and was was bumped by his left tackle, Donovan Smith, who had been shoved by LB Mychal Kendricks. The loose ball, Tampas only turnover, was scooped by Seahawks DE Rasheem Green and returned 36 yards.

The possession produced a Seattle lead from a field goal, which began a fourth-quarter cavalcade of 29 combined points. Winston might have answered, but OT rules say first TD wins.

Despite being unable to draw from his holster, Winston was effusive in his praise of Wilson.

I just have so much respect for that guy hes a winner, Winston said. Hes an amazing quarterback. Hes been an amazing help to me with my development as an NFL quarterback. I just thank him for that.

I wish we were on the winning end, but he went out there and did his job.

As always, Wilson had sidekicks: WR Tyler Lockett had career highs in receptions (13) and yards (152), along with two touchdowns, and Metcalf had the best game of his rookie season with six catches and 123 yards, including a spectacular 53-yard TD. Against a stout run defense, RB Chris Carson had a surprising 105 yards in 16 carries, including a 59-yard run that went through four would-be tacklers. He also had two fumbles, one lost.

A partial reason for the gas-pump numbers were due to several in-game injuries that at one point had six rookies populating Tampas defense.

To have the injuries we had at the last second and to take this team to overtime, said Arians, Im really, really proud of our guys. Im not used to losing here.

All of Seattles firepower was necessary because the defense couldnt keep up its end. A bad second half against Atlanta the previous week carried into Sunday, allowing in the Bucs first four possessions hree touchdown drives of 75, 69 and 63 yards for a 21-7 lead. Tampas 34 points were a season high against Seattle.

We struggled quite a bit, Carroll said. We thought we would find more ways to get to the quarterback, and we only got him a couple times. We thought we would make more plays on the ball as well.

Through nine games, it hasnt happened for the defense, despite Sundays debut of what figures to be the safety tandem of the near-term future, with rookie FS Marquise Blair joining veteran SS Bradley McDougald.

Another 418 yards surrendered says that if the Seahawks are to progress in the toughest part of the schedule, including a Nov. 11 Monday night game in Santa Clara against the undefeated 49ers, it will happen because Wilson wills it. Nor is it likely to be helped by Myers, who missed two field goals and an extra point.

I want to say this: Jason is our kicker, Carroll said. It didnt go right today for him, but its going to. Hes a magnificent talent. But we won anyway. Our guys won for him.

As the media began entering the locker room, Wilson turned to Myers, who dresses next to him, and delivered a bro-hug.

A courtesy gesture, perhaps, but after watching Wilson on the final three Seahawks possessions, there figures to be a line of teammates seeking a laying of hands.

DK Metcalf had a bit of trouble getting to the ball through the grip of Tampa CB Jamel Dean. / Drew McKenzie, Sportspress Northwest

The rest is here:
Thiel: Seahawks' good fortune of Russell Wilson - Sportspress Northwest

In the preface to his much admired biography of Alexander Hamilton, Ron Chernow wrote that to repudiate [Hamiltons] legacy is to repudiate the modern world.

Hamilton, of course, was Americas first treasury secretary. He created the framework for an American empire. That anyone would repudiate the modern world was inconceivable to Hamiltons biographer. Times were good in 2004, notwithstanding the lingering shock of 9/11, for which an appropriate response was underway.

And yet, there were heretics, a word the late University of Minnesota history Prof. David W. Noble (1925-2018) often applied to himself. Noble did repudiate the modern world. With painstaking diligence, he investigated cycles of despair and hope that have been repeated throughout human history. Always wary of hyper-rational wishful thinking, he believed that the free-market modernists had gone too far. Hamilton had helped create Americas system of checks and balances, but this no longer mattered, apparently. The neoliberal ideology promised eternal prosperity, the triumph of reason over nature and the end of history.

In Debating the End of History: The Marketplace, Utopia, and the Fragmentation of Intellectual Life, published in 2012, Noble explains why neoliberalism is extravagantly delusional. What the utopians are peddling, he wrote, is the American dream redux. Noble never believed in dreams of any kind. He believed in and wrote about reality.

Born in 1925, Noble grew up on a small dairy farm that failed during the Great Depression. He saw his own immigrant parents belief in the promise of a new and perfect world shattered. The family was rescued from starvation by Franklin Roosevelts New Deal. Noble learned then to be wary of American exceptionalism (any sort of exceptionalism), and as a soldier in World War II he never forgot how the German people were willing to accept their fuhrers megalomania in exchange for modest financial security and a degree of national pride. To Noble, the Third Reich was an exponentially more horrific version of what could happen anywhere, even in America.

Noble attended Princeton on the GI Bill and developed a taste for literature, in particular lost generation authors like William Faulkner and F. Scott Fitzgerald. Nobles parents belonged to that generation. They, too, felt hoodwinked. Another influence was the historian Frederick Jackson Turner, whose theory of American exceptionalism had an outsized impact on the American ego. A prime example was Teddy Roosevelt. The 1898 Spanish-American War was not just this swaggering presidents finest hour (in his own mind) but Americas first foray into European-style imperialism. It ended with Spain handing over the Philippines, which remained a U.S. colony until 1946.

After Princeton, Noble pursued a history Ph.D. at the University of Wisconsin. There he befriended ecologists and learned about the redeployment of war technologies for peaceful purposes. Petroleum-based synthetic nitrogen would feed the world. The ecologists saw this as unsustainable. They predicted overpopulation and soil depletion and the greenhouse effect. They were ignored.

At the University of Minnesota, Noble helped start a department of American Studies. Now he was able to broaden and deepen his inquiry into human nature. He assigned readings on literature, art, science, philosophy and religion. He wrote 10 books. Debating the End of History is his last.

Both memoir and a summing-up of a lifes work, it begins with a critical appraisal of a metaphor known as Platos cave. The cave represents blind ignorance. Dark and suffocating, it is a kind of hell on earth where potentially reasonable people are held captive by nature, the animal nature both within and without. Liberation from Platos cave was the rallying cry of Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers. But the issue most hotly debated then and now is not scientific revelation (e.g., Isaac Newtons law of gravity) so much as methodology specifically, whether truth is mutable or if it can be arrived at through irrational intuition and imagination.

Newton put himself in the former camp. He presented his theories as provisional, fluid. Though a brilliant mathematician, he saw math as a tool, not an end, whereas Cartesian logicians (the so-called positivists) deemed a balanced equation the final arbiter.

That Adam Smith, a staunch Newtonian, also valued subjective reality is largely ignored by free-market purists. In the interests of advancing self-interest theory as seminally explained in The Wealth of Nations, they disregard Smiths call for political systems that would temper animal spirits with what he called sympathy. Noble, for his part, saw the new gospel of enlightened self-interest (unfettered capitalism) as window dressing to mask the animal appetites of a privileged few.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, a world of unfettered excess seemed plausible. Right-wing economist Francis Fukuyama made it sound like a fait accompli in The End of History and the Last Man, published in 1997. After all, a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, was then deregulating Wall Street, cutting welfare and expanding the military to protect U.S. investments overseas. Neoliberalism, as Clinton rebranded neoconservatism to make it sell to social liberals (as if social and economic imperatives were somehow two different things), dodged a bullet just over a decade later, when another obliging Democrat, Barack Obama, signed a taxpayer bailout that left corrupt banks bigger than ever.

Enter the Anthropocene Age. Merit meets money. They fall in love. The union is consummated. The fittest thrive in a dog-eat-dog world, while everyone else well, their demise would prove Platos point. Instead of the meek inheriting the earth, they would be replaced with fewer but higher-quality humans. The modern world is overpopulated anyway. Problem solved.

Noble wrote that historys end would spell doom for an imagination-driven, timeful and artful way of life that modern thinkers associate with primitive peoples and the Dark Ages. He thought humans were happier in a humbler condition, one that acknowledged and embraced the cycles of nature what ecologists call balanced ecosystems and didnt seek to destroy them in the name of individual freedom. His definition of freedom was closer to that of Americas founders than to Ayn Rand. Noble believed that humans would always be conflicted, God love em, because they inhabit two worlds.

To Noble, intuition and objective truth are equally valid and symbiotic. Their collaboration can create havoc, but it also fosters creativity, kindness and love.

Neoliberals argue that the private sector can do better than government at everything. This is the overarching theme of the Aspen Ideas Festival, Davos, TED, the Council on Foreign Relations, the WTO. In The World Is Flat, published in 2005, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman declared that free-market globalization would usher in a utopia in which traditional (national) governments had a minimal role. Consumers would be the new voters in a democratic economy. The grow-or-die capitalism that Friedman implicitly condoned ignored natural limits. If resources run out, well, humans will always find a way to replace them.

Among elitist billionaires, colonizing Mars became a legitimate long-term goal, one that Noble found absurd, not to mention immoral given the plight of Mother Earth and the billions of people whom it could no longer support and who would be left stranded.

Then Friedman changed his mind, making a startling discovery: The world is Hot, Flat and Crowded. Published the same year as the bank bailout, his new book was subtitled, Why We Need a Green Revolution and How It Can Renew America. He admits that he had perhaps been premature in predicting historys end. After all, the first Flat, subtitled A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century, was written just five years into the century in question. Now Friedman recommended, astonishingly, a return to nationalism, government-mandated rationing and reinvestment (not just carrots but sticks) in renewables.

Noble commends Friedmans conversion to two-world thinking in Debating the End of History. But in the 11 years since, little has changed in U.S. economic policy. The jury is still out: Will corporations find solutions before consumers are forced to do without such must-have modern amenities as jets, smartphones, SUVs, frosted flakes and disposable clothing?

What goes around comes around. The pendulum swings when youre a mere human with a foot in two opposite worlds. Noble writes that in FDRs world of national interest, politics involved words such as community, equality, social justice and compassion. Sadly, [t]he sacred language of the marketplace could not allow such words. They were replaced by freedom and efficiency [that] expressed the essence of independence, rationality, and objectivity.

Noble died in 2018 at age 92. He lived just long enough to witness the event that proved him right about history having no end: the election of a neofascist climate-denier, Donald Trump, as U.S. president. Market and social chaos look far more likely now than an orderly transition to utopia.

In the interests of efficiency, we must send our political leaders, not our CEOs, to Paris to forge an agreement with other nations that may or may not save the planet. Time is running out. More of the same is no longer an option. History will not end, nor markets prevail over the rule of law. We live on a finite planet, and only government can be the final arbiter of who gets which of the scarce resources left.

A progressive capitalist with experience and vision is humanitys only hope for a soft landing. In my view the likeliest candidate to bring voters to their senses is U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

I wish I could sit down with Prof. Noble and ask him: Is there still time? My guess is that he would answer: Of course there is! Being both a skeptic and an optimist goes with the territory when you live in two worlds, one rational and the other timeful, artful and imaginative.

Bonnie Blodgett, of St. Paul, specializes in environmental topics. Shes at bonnieblodgett@gmail.com.

See the original post:
OPINION EXCHANGE | The two worlds according to David W. Noble - Star Tribune

Anne Nicholas, NBCs vice president of affiliate marketing, has a unique approach to instilling career empowerment in young women: she invites men.

At the Ladies Get Paid event in Brooklyn on Saturday, Nicholas brought her husband, SummitMedias senior vice president and creative director Val Nicholas, to speak alongside her during a panel on personal branding.

At first when I was first doing these things, I only wanted women in the room, said Anne Nicholas in an interview with Know Your Value. And then I realized what a big mistake that was because we cannot do it without our men. We need to have the men understand, and they need to be behind us.

Anne and Val Nicholas spoke to a standing room-only crowd at the Brooklyn Expo Center. The two noted that men are brought up to fight and be confident, while women are taught to be perfect.

Get the knowyourvalue newsletter.

We have to make everyone happy and make sure that everyone is comfortable, Anne Nicholas said to the crowd. ...For us the word courage is scary.

The couple pointed out some alarming statistics: men apply for a job if they feel 60 percent qualified, while women dont apply unless they feel 100 percent qualified.

Whats holding you back? Its nothing more than fear, said Anne Nicholas.

Val Nicholas also urged women to stop apologizing for no reason.

Stop apologizing. Youre not sorry, said Val Nicholas to the audience. [Men] dont do that. When weve done something wrong, we apologize.

The couple asked audience members to consider their career goals, acknowledge their fears and obstacles, then pivot to positive thinking. For example instead of thinking Im going to be destitute if I make this career move, think of a better thought, said Anne Nicholas, such as I will have a more fulfilling career. This can be especially tough for women, who tend to undervalue themselves.

The better thought is a thought that is going to soothe you, said Anne Nicholas during the interview. And it will allow you to think an even better thought after that. So if you have a goal and just keep practicing that courage ... it does propel you forward.

Community is also a critical part of success, according to the couple. They encouraged attendees to talk to connect to the women around them and invoke support, mentorship and sponsorship.

One of the things that we don't do enough as women, is this, said Anne Nicholas during her talk, referring to the gathering. If we can stay in touch with all the women in this room, we would have so much support its unbelievable.

Anne Nicholas noted that while #MeToo culture has brought about a new enlightenment for women, she urged women not to alienate men from the conversation altogether.

This is incredibly important transition time right now, said Anne Nicholas in the interview. And I think that women are the ones who have the knowledge and the experience and the ease with feelings to really understand it and make it happen ... We can't be man haters because they have so much to teach us. As much as we have to teach them, they have to teach us.

Excerpt from:
Why Anne Nicholas brings her husband to women's empowerment talks - NBC News