Find a show you like and click the 
button. The show will be added to your My Playlist page and updated 24/7 with new videos.
Search Results
5 Views
20:00:00 12/19/11
Havel the Dissident: A Legacy Worth Claiming
[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 20:00:00 12/19/11
Former President Havel addresses a European cultural congress on the economics of culture
On a warm evening in 1991, a colleague and I found an out-of-the-way café in the old part of Prague. Two men with blank expressions stood outside. The interior was dim and close, with room for only eight or nine tables. The place was almost empty. Just a sleepy waitress, a bartender polishing glasses, and a single patron who sat alone drinking wine and chain-smoking cigarettes.
The President of Czechoslovakia wasn't reviewing official papers. He was reading a book, a startlingly un-Presidential act to our American eyes. My companion, a neoconservative State Department official, already admired him for defying and defeating a Communist state. He'd impressed me by bringing a writer's sensibility and an affinity for true underground culture to his role as head of state.
Václav Havel even tried to appoint Frank Zappa as his Minister of Culture. "We're not rock musicians," Zappa told a reporter back in the sixties. "We're electronic social workers." The State Department wouldn't let Zappa assume the post, but Havel had made his point to the Czech public by offering this apparatchik's position to the composer of songs like "What's the Ugliest Part of Your Body?" ("Some say your nose, some say your toes, but I think it's your mind .")
We never spoke to Havel that night. It didn't seem polite to offer anything more than the curt nod of acknowledgement any café patron gives another at that hour. But Havel spoke to us, to all of us. And on the occasion of his death, the real lessons of his life's work are in danger of being lost.
Today we're told that the Occupy movement is too idealistic, too naïve. Naïve? Try Havel's words if you want naïve: "May truth and love triumph over lies and hatred."
Think of that as the Velvet Revolution's "one demand."
Portrait of the President as a Young Freak
As millions of people know, the underground playwright Havel first made his political mark in Charter 77. That group was formed to defend the Plastic People of the Universe, a banned and imprisoned rock band working in the Zappa mold of musical dissonance and cultural dissidence.
The Occupy movement is not on the cultural fringe, despite what its detractors say. But Havel's movement began as a Yippie-like creature of the underworld. Charter 77 rarely had more than a thousand members. It was a strange blend of political idealism and the hippie subculture where people proudly labeled themselves "freaks" to the conventional world. Despite its later alignment with economically conservative forces, it was more Allen Ginsburg than Alan Greenspan.
And it was created to defend the Plastic People of the Universe, whose grating music makes Occupy's drum circles seem like a children's choir serenading the bored residents of a home for aging veterans.
Words
Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité - what wonderful words! And how terrifying their meaning can be! Freedom in the shirt unbuttoned before execution. Equality in the constant speed of the guillotine's fall on different necks. Fraternity in some dubious paradise ...
Havel addressed the liberal democratic West on words in the 1970s, noting that the suppression of speech can give language enormous power: >
I ... live in a country where a writers' congress speech is capable of shaking the system ... a manifesto served as one of the pretexts for the invasion of our country one night by five foreign armies ... a system in which words are capable of shaking the entire structure of government, where words can prove mightier than ten military divisions.
When a system has become inflexible and is in danger of collapsing, what it fears most is words. Think about that the next time you see a phalanx of cops tear down a tent city on television.
Havel had been burned by language, too: >
The same word can at one moment radiate great hope, at another it can emit lethal rays ... true at one moment and false the next, at one moment illuminating, at another, deceptive. On one occasion it can open up glorious horizons, on another, it can lay down the tracks to an entire archipelago of concentration camps.
And as we approach an election year that will be filled with the rhetoric of freedom, this observation still resonates: >
The same word can at one time be the cornerstone of peace, while at another time machine-gun fire resounds in its every syllable.
Control
In 1975 Havel had the presumption to write directly to Czechoslovakian head of state Gustáv Husák with a few suggestions. There's more than a passing resemblance between the fear-driven Communist society Havel condemned in that letter and the financial anxiety many Americans endure today: >
The technique of existential pressure is ... universal. There is no one in our country who is not, in a broad sense, existentially vulnerable. Everyone has something to lose and so everyone has reason to be afraid. The range of things one can lose is broad, extending from the manifold privileges of the ruling caste... down to the mere possibility of living in that limited degree of legal certainty available to other citizens.
Today, one out of two Americans lives in financial insecurity. Even many upper-middle-class citizens live from month to month, just one layoff notice away from medical bankruptcy or home foreclosure.
"Everyone has something to lose," observed Havel.
Havel's description of his 20th Century Communist society echoes our own: >
The more completely one abandons any hope of general reform, any interest in suprapersonal goals and values, or any chance of exercising influence in an 'outward' direction, the more one's energy is diverted in the direction of least resistance, that is, 'inwards.'"
People today are preoccupied far more with themselves ... They fill their homes with all kinds of appliances and pretty things, they try to improve their accommodations, they try to make life pleasant for themselves, building cottages, looking after their cars, taking more interest in food and clothing and domestic comfort ...They turn their main attention to the material aspects of their private lives.
Havel concluded that "Despair leads to apathy, apathy to conformity, and conformity to routine (political) performance - which is then quoted as evidence of 'mass political involvement.'"
Ambition
Havel understood the psychology of greed and power, too. From his letter to Husák: >
If it is fear which lies behind people's defensive attempts to preserve what they have, it becomes increasingly apparent that the chief impulses for their aggressive efforts to win what they do not yet possess are selfishness and careerism.
It is not surprising that so many public and influential positions are occupied more than ever before by notorious careerists, opportunists, charlatans, and men of dubious record.
From Prague to Washington, from Moscow to lower Manhattan, the opportunities change. But human nature never does: >
Seldom in recent times has a social system offered scope so openly and so brazenly to people willing to support anything as long as it brings them some advantage; to unprincipled and spineless men, prepared to do anything in their craving for power and personal gain; to born lackeys, ready for any humiliation and willing at all times to sacrifice their neighbors' and their own honor for a chance to ingratiate themselves with those in power.
Technocracy
It's a historical irony that those who claim they'll govern with the most efficiency usually wind up governing with the least effectiveness. Today corporate-funded politicians from both parties argue that the country should be led by "technocrats' who'll govern without messy "ideologies."
That's a false premise Havel knew well. He called it the "process by which power becomes anonymous and depersonalized, reduced to a mere technology of rule and manipulation."
Washington's technocratic "bipartisans" dream of a world where, in Havel's words, the "professional ruler is (seen as) the 'innocent' tool of an 'innocent' anonymous power ... legitimized by science, cybernetics, ideology, law, abstraction, and objectivity - that is, by everything except personal responsibility to human beings as persons and neighbors." Havel's Prague is our Beltway: >
States grow ever more machinelike; people are transformed into statistical choruses of voters, producers, consumers, patients, tourists, or soldiers, (where) in politics good and evil, categories of the natural world and therefore obsolete remnants of the past, lose all absolute meaning (and where) the sole method of politics is quantifiable success.
Havel condemned a system of state-orchestrated political theater, and the self-perpetuating failures of imagination which mistook the indifferent and pro forma participation of its citizens for genuine democracy. And he saw its universal nature: >
(It) has a thousand masks, variants, and expressions. Essentially, though, it is the same universal trend ... the essential trait of all modern civilization, growing directly from its spiritual structure, rooted in it by a thousand tangled tendrils and inseparable even in thought from its technological nature, its mass characteristics, and its consumer orientation.
"The contemporary concept of 'normal' behavior is," Havel wrote, "deeply pessimistic."
Responsibility
"I favor 'antipolitical politics,'" said Havel, "politics not as the technology of power and manipulation, of cybernetic rule over humans or as the art of the utilitarian, but politics as one of the ways of seeking and achieving meaningful lives, of protecting them and serving them." >
I favor politics as practical morality, as service to the truth, as essentially human and humanly measured care for our fellow humans.
None of us--as an individual--can save the world as a whole, but . . . each of us must behave as though it were in his power to do so.
Decades later he said this to the leaders of Western countries: >
Today, more than ever before in the history of mankind, everything is interrelated ... Because of this, the future of the United States or the European Union is being decided in suffering Sarajevo or Mostar, in the plundered Brazilian rain forests, in the wretched poverty of Bangladesh or Somalia.
Havel had glaring faults. American neocons offered him small favors during his final rise to power. He reciprocated, consciously or unconsciously, by aiding their destructive military ventures and adopting their foolish economic policies. He succumbed to the politics of personality, both his own and those of the leaders who courted him. But it would be a shame if that's all the world remembered.
Havel seemed unhappy in the role of leader. It's possible than he lost sight of his deepest insights, his truest gifts. It was the outsider Havel, the dreamer of the impossible, the surrealist and absurdist, we should remember. That's the Havel who can and should inspire dissidents everywhere.
"Is the human word truly powerful enough to change the world and influence history?" he once asked. With his life and his words, Václav Havel gave us his answer. He showed us the power in each individual and the responsibility that accompanies that power.
At his best, and above all else, Havel was a dissident outsider who realized his power and used it. Now it's our turn.
65 Views
18:49:39 08/05/11
Hugh Mackay on the Human Desire to Be Taken Seriously
[LESS INFO] 65 VIEWS | ADDED 18:49:39 08/05/11
Hugh Mackay, author of What Makes Us Tick?, examines how the desire to be taken seriously affects human behavior. "If we're not taken seriously enough it usually brings out the worst in us," says Mackay. "Much anger in humans individually, and in entire nations comes from feeling as if we haven't been taken seriously."
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2011/03/22/Hugh_Mackay_What_Makes_Us_Tick
Hugh Mackay has been making notes and taking the pulse of the Australian psyche for several decades now. His latest book illuminates how our desires, such as "being taken seriously" and "a place to call home" are linked to personal identity and relationship satisfaction.As much as Mackay has been able to come up with a broad list, his refreshing humility on the subject of human "rationality" allows room for a good chuckle, if at least in hindsight. - Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Hugh Mackay is a psychologist, social researcher and novelist. He is the author of thirteen books, including six bestsellers. His latest book, What Makes Us Tick?: The Ten Desires That Drive Us, came out last year. In recognition of his pioneering work in social research, Hugh has been awarded honorary doctorates by Charles Sturt, Macquarie, NSW and Western Sydney universities.
0 Views
21:17:31 08/02/11
Hugh Mackay: The Human Desire to Be Taken Seriously
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 21:17:31 08/02/11
Hugh Mackay: The Human Desire to Be Taken Seriously Australian Broadcasting Corporation - Sydney Institute Hugh Mackay has been making notes and taking the pulse of the Australian psyche for several decades now. His latest book illuminates how our desires, such as "being taken seriously" and "a place to call home" are linked to personal identity and relationship satisfaction.As much as Mackay has been able to come up with a broad list, his refreshing humility on the subject of human "rationality" allows room for a good chuckle, if at least in hindsight.
2 Views
09:59:26 11/25/10
Estiva - Festival ASOT 484
[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 09:59:26 11/25/10
Estiva - Festival ASOT 484
OUT NOW! iTunes: itunes.apple.com Beatport: www.beatport.com Audiojelly: www.audiojelly.com DJDownload: www.djdownload.com Trackitdown: www.trackitdown.net Junodownload: www.junodownload.com Cat. Number : ENHANCED078 Label : Enhanced Recordings Dutch prodigy Estiva delivers what will be his final EP for some time, as the focus turns to singles and his long awaited debut album in 2011. We've been utterly blessed with seven first class EP's from Estiva over the past few years, establishing himself as not only a true favourite at Enhanced, but a key player in today's trance scene winning a long list of A-List fans such as Markus Schulz and touring the globe as a DJ with his unique blend of trance. The eighth EP from Steven 'Estiva' Baan lands in January, and for those of you living in the southern hemisphere this is perfect, sun drenched trance to put a broad smile on your face in the summer sun; as with all Estiva productions. For those of you residing in a currently colder climate, we suggest you shut your eyes and let the warm swells of synths wash over you whilst you dream of the hotter months! Leading the EP is Festival - a track that conjures up thoughts and feelings of exactly that setting; feel good trance made for that big room/tent environment. Lotus positions itself as the second track on the EP, and again this is classic Estiva; blissed out melodies, beautiful piano lines, huge synth stabs and his wonderful percussion making this another stand out production ... From: EnhancedRecordings Views: 12727 87 ratings Time: 04:37 More in Music
0 Views
15:52:08 08/18/10
Lincoln Driving You Forward
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 15:52:08 08/18/10
Broad Spectrum Studios recently developed a promotional ad video for Lincoln automobiles, to be featured in show rooms, presentations, conventions, and other events. Emphasizing a "return to sophisticated elegance," the creative staff thought it would be most effective to illustrate how the company's heritage continues to drive them into the future. Thus, the stylistic and musical references herald imagery that is at the same time retro and modern, reminding us that the past is the foundation upon which great futures are built. You can view more Broad Spectrum productions, as well as commission us for your next entertainment production/promotion project at: http://www.broadspectrumstudios.com
2 Views
10:55:24 06/02/10
Duties Of Young Muslims
[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 10:55:24 06/02/10
2. Duties of Young Muslims The first duty of the Muslim youth is to rectify their views and thoughts with a view to knowing their din on the basis of clear evidence and Understanding and according to a proper methodology. The right start is acquiring the proper methodology of comprehending Islam, and of dealing with themselves, people and life. Historically, Muslim scholars have established certain principles and methods which have enhanced the proper comprehension, and deduction of matters and issues whether supported by texts or not. This led to the establishment of the science of usul al fiqh: a discipline which studies the methodology of deriving laws from the sources of Islam and of establishing their juristic or constitutional validity. Thus, they established the principles of the controlling and controlled evidence, the subject and object of controlling aspects of evidence: the main and the subsidiary, the imperative and the negative, the general and the particular, the absolute and the restricted, the pronounced and the comprehend. They also established the total aims of the Shariah, such as safeguarding people's welfare, counteracting evil and harm; they divided needs into: essential, necessary and comforts. This is indeed a unique science of which there is no equal, and of which Muslims have the right to be proud. In addition, there are other principles and rules of fiqh which may not be available in the books of usul but are found in various books on usul al tafsir and Qur'anic sciences, as well as usul al hadith, and Hadith sciences. In addition to these, there are various rules and principles scattered in books of beliefs, hadith interpretation, and jurisprudence which can be observed by those who have acquired an insight into the purpose of Shariah and its innermost recesses. What is required, therefore, is not a shallow understanding of the texts but rather a deep knowledge and a genuine comprehension of the purposes of Qur'anic verses and the ahad'ith. The fiqh, the awareness, and the knowledge required must take the following into consideration First: Knowledge of and insight into Shariah cannot be complete without considering all the particular aspects in relation to the general context of the entire truth of Islam. To issue a judgment a Quranic verse or a hadith must be interpreted in the light of other ahadith, the Sunnah of the Prophet (.SA'AS) as well as the practice of the companions (RA'A), and must be understood in the light of the Qur'an and the general context and purposes of Shariah. Otherwise there will be a defect in this understanding, and a confusion in deduction and derivation which could create contradictions in Shariah and subject it to ridicule and to calumniations. For this reason, Imam al Shatibi set two conditions for ijtihad: (1) understanding the purposes of Shariah in its totality, and (2) the ability to derive and to draw conclusions on the basis of this understanding.' This can only be fulfilled when there is a deep and wide knowledge of the texts, especially the ahaith and the traditions, in addition to an insight into the reasons, the events, the circumstances, and the purposes of each text, as well as an ability to distinguish between the eternal and unalterable and those formulated to meet a temporary need, an existing custom or tradition, or certain transient circumstances which can be changed when the latter change. One day I was lecturing on proper Islamic dress for women, according to the Qur'an and Sunnah, when a person in the audience said that the hijab mentioned in the Qur'an must include an additional outer covering. I replied that the hijab is not an end in itself, but rather a means for decently covering those parts of the body which the Shariah prohibits to be exposed. In this sense, it can differ from one place and time to another. But the man shouted furiously that the garment required is very clearly specified in a Qur'anic text, and we therefore have no right to change it. He cited the following verse: O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad). That is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. I replied that the Qur'an sometimes specifies certain means and methods that were suitable and common at the time of the revelation, but were never meant to become permanently binding if better or similar ones are found. The following example is sufficient enough to demonstrate my point. Allah (SWT) said: Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies. The steed is specifically mentioned above because it was?at the time of revelation-one of the most powerful means known at the time. But there is indeed no reason why Muslims in our times and in earlier days should not use tanks and armored vehicles to achieve the end referred to in the above verse, i.e., to strike fear into the hearts of the enemies of Allah (SWT) and of the enemies of Muslims. Similarly, the woman's outer garment could be any dress which satisfies the objective expressed in verse that Muslim women should be recognized and not molested. If such is the case of the Qurian, which has an eternal and comprehensive nature, it is only logical that the Sunnah is even more open to such an examination. The Sunnah comprise a multitude of teachings, the legislative and the nonlegislative, the general and the specific, the eternal and the changeable: a change necessitated by a change in the reasons and the exigencies. In issues and matterrelated to eating, drinking, and dressing, for example, there are legislative as well as nonlegislative Sunnah. Eating with the fingers rather than with silverware is not compulsory. The former method was more natural and suitable to the simple life and nature of the Arabs at the time of the Prophet (SA'AS). However this does not mean that using a spoon is haram (unlawful) or makruh (condemned or discouraged), since it is now so widely available that it in no way indicates any extravagance or excess. But this does not apply to silver or gold tableware, the use of which has clearly been forbidden. Similarly we have to abide by the injunction to eat with the right hand as the purpose of this teaching is fundamental and unalterable, and because it seeks to establish a uniform custom among Muslims, directing them to follow a right?hand approach in everything. The Prophet (SA'AS) ordered us: "Say bism Allah [before you begin] and eat with your right hand." In another hadith he said: "None of you should eat or drink with his left hand, because Satan eats and drinks with his left hand." Furthermore, during the Prophet's time, Muslims had no idea whatsoever of sieves, which were later known and used to advantage. Could this be regarded as a prohibited innovation or a hateful practice? of course not. Another example is the issue of wearing a short thawb (garment), which pious young Muslims adhere to and insist on wearing despite the problems which it creates for them, as if it was one of the fundamentals of Islam. These young people put forth two arguments: (1) The dress has to be a short thawb because this is the type of dress the Prophet (SA'AS) and his companions (RAA) used. They further believe that other costumes lead us to imitate the kufar, a practice prohibited in Islam; and (2) It has to be short because there are ahadith which prohibit wearing below?the?ankle izar or thawb such as: "The part of an izar which hangs below the ankles is in the Fire. With regard to the first argument, the Prophet's Sunnah knawn to us is that he wore whatever was available to him. For this reason, he wore shirts, robes, and izars. The Prophet (SA'AS) also wore garments and garbs made in the Yemen and Persia, which were embroidered on the sides with silk. He also wore Tmarnah (cap) with or without a turban. Al Imam Ibn al Qayyim says in Al Hady al Nabaw': The best guidance is the Sunnah of the Prophet (SA'AS), the things he regularly practised, ordered, and encouraged people to do. His sunnah in dressing is that he used to wear whatever was available for him whether made of cotton, wool, or linen. He is known to have worn cloaks from the Yemen, green cloaks, jubbah, garments with full?length sleeves, shirts, pants and robes, shoes and slippers. . . He used, sometimes, to grow a plait in the back. The textile industry was unknown then, so people used to wear clothes imported from the Yemen, Egypt, and Syria. In our time, we wear- without any inhibition-underwear, head coverings, shoes, etc., which were unknown during the Prophet's time. Why then this excessive fuss about the thawb in particular? As for the argument of imitating the kuffar, we are actually prohibited from imitating their distinguishing characteristics ? as followers of other religions-such as sporting the cross, wearing ecclesiastical costumes, celebrating non?Muslim festivals, all of which indicate adherence to a different religion. Ibn Taimiyah explained all this in detail in his book: Iqti'al Sirat al Mustaqim fi Mukhalafat Ahl al Jahim. With the exception of such conspicuous matters, judgment is made on the basis of intention and purpose. If a Muslim deliberately imitates the kuffar, he would be held blameworthy on the basis of his intention. But if a person unintentionally does things which the kuffar do, or chooses something which is easier for him, or for his job such as wearing the "overalls" by a factory worker or an engineer, he is not to be held blameworthy. Nonetheless, it is more becoming of a Muslim to distinguish himself from non?Muslims in all material and spiritual matters to the best of his ability. The gist of the matter is that wearing a short thawb is more desirable' but wearing a long one is not prohibited if it is just a habit and is not meant to show arrogance, as has already been pointed out. All the examples given above pertain to purely personal behavior. In that capacity they are less serious than the issues related to the community as a whole, the affairs of the state, and international relations which are more complex and constitute a danger to the community, the state, and humanity at large in the absence of an insightful jurisprudence which takes into consideration the proper dimensions of human needs and social interests. When we ca]l for the resumption of a true Islamic lifestyle and the establishment of a truly Islamic society led by an Islamic state, we must recognize the fact that we live in a world in which human relations are interrelated and complex, ideologies are numerous, distances are shrinking, and barriers are beginning to collapse. It is a world that has become smaller than ever before due to unprecedented technological progress We must also take into consideration the fact that the community includes the powerful and the weak, men and women, adults and children, the righteous and the transgressor. This diversity must be taken into consideration when we seek to guide, legislate, or give fatiawa. A Muslim who seeks Allah's pleasure may choose to place restrictions on himself and stick to the most extreme and cautious opinions in his endeavor. He can deprive himself of all the means of entertainment such as singing, music, photography, television, etc. But can any modern state afford to do without these? Can any effective journalism do without photography? Can any ministry of Interior?or passport office, immigration or traffic department-or an educational institution do without photography which has become the most important means of discovering and preventing crimes and forgery? Can any contemporary state ignore the times it exists in and deprive its subjects of the invaluable services of television and rely only on the radio, on the grounds that television depends upon photography which is haram as some students of "religious education" argue these days? In short, what I wish to emphasize here is that a person's restrictions on himself may be tolerated and accepted, but it would be intolerable and indeed unacceptable to force these restrictions upon the various groups in the community as a whole. The Prophet said: Whoever leads people in salah should shorten it because among them are the weak, the old, and those who have business to attend to. This guidance on leading people in salah is also applicable to leading people in any aspect of life. One of the most serious problems is the failure of some religious people to take account the fact that the ahkam of Shaniah are not equally important or permanent, and therefore different interpretations can be permitted. There are hypothetical judgments which mainly deal with transactions, customs' and manners. These are open to ijtihad. Disagreement-based on authentic ijtihad-on these issues represents no harm or threat. On the contrary, it is a blessing on the Ummah, and demonstrates flexibility in Shariah and a spaciousness in fiqh. There were indeed differences of opinion and disagreement among the Prophet's companions (RA'A)-as well as their successors ? on various issues. But such disagreement never caused or created ill?feelings or disunity among them. On the other hand, there are a.hkam dealing with matters of faith, belief, and 'ibadah which are firmly established in the Qurian and Sunnah and ijma'(consesus), and which have become definitive and categorical. Although they are not requirements of din, they represent the intellectual and behavioral unity of the Ummah. Deviation from these ahkam is a deviation from Sunnah: it is sinfulness, prohibited bida (innovation), and could lead to kufr. In addition, there are those a,hkam which must be necessarily known and obvious toall people, learned or otherwise. Rejection of these ahkam is a clear denial of Allah (SWT) and of His Prophet (.SA'AS). There should be differention between ahkam based on fundamental or subsidiary issues, whether proven textually or by ijtihad; there should also be differentiation between the categorial and the hypothetical ahkam in texts, and between the necessary and the unecessary ahkam in din. Each has its status. Our great fuqaha have differed widely in their interpretation of some issues, and one can indeed ftnd various opinions on a single issue. There is disagreement, for example, on the heinous sin of murdering a Muslim under duress. Should the punishment fall upon the murderer or upon one who compelled him to do it? or should it fall upon both or neither, since the crime was not completely premeditated and committed by a single person? All these possibilities were voiced and supported by some fuqaha' Even within each madhhab we find different opinions, narrations, ways, and approaches among the 'ulama' Suffice it to say that the subject of that disagreement within Imam Ahmad's madhhab-which is established on and follows tradition-has included enough opinions and narration to fill a twelve?volume book, al In.saf fi al Rajih min al Khilaf. In view of this, young Muslims should be fully aware of the issues which are open to disagreement and those which are not. But more importantly' they should know the standard norms of behavior practised in settling differences and disagreements. They must learn adab al khilaf (ethics of disagreement),'! which we have inherited from our a'immah and 'ulama' We must learn from them how to be open?minded and tolerant toward those with whom we disagree about subsidiary religious matters. How can we differ and disagree yet remain united brothers who love and respect each other and who refrain from exchanging accusations? First of all, we must realize that disagreements on marginal and subsidiary matters and issues are natural. There is indeed a Divine wisdom in making a few a,hkam in Shari'ah categorical in both their definitiveness and meaning, and in making hypothetical ones which constitute the bulk of a,hkam and on which there is broad scope for fruitful disagreement. It is a blessing that Allah (SWT) has bestowed on some Muslim ulama' the ability to ascertain, to examine closely, and to decide on matters of disagreement without prejudice against any madhhab or opinion. These include the following a'immah: Ibn Daqiq al 'Id, Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Qayyim, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Hajar al 'Asqalai, al Dahlawi, al Shawkani, al San'ani, and others. But differences are bound to arise and continue because they are deeply rooted in the nature of man, life, language and -Divine commandment. Attempts to eradicate these differences will fail, because they will actually be battling against human nature, against life, against all sunan. As we have already mentioned, disagreement based on authentic ijtihad which does not create discord or disunity is a blessing for the Ummah and an enrichment of fiqh. Objective disagreement in itself poses no threat if it is coupled with tolerance and openmindedness, and if it is free from fanaticism, accusations, and narrowmindedness. The Prophet's Companions differed among themselves on many issues and practical a,hkam, but they still never condemned one another and had very cordial and strong relations. 'Umar ibn 'Abd al 'Aziz said: "I never wished that the Prophet's companions had rot had disagreements. Their disagreement was a mercy." Different interpretations even emerged during the life of the Prophet (SA'AS). These were sanctioned by him, and he did not single out one party or group for blame. Immediately after the battle of the Akzab, the Prophet (.SAAS) said to his Companions: 'whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day must not perform ,salat al asr until he has reached [the dwellings of] Banu Qurayzah. Some of the Companions found. This practically impossible, and therefore performed salat al Asr before reaching their destination. Others?who were literalists-only performed salah when they reached the dwellings of Banu Qurayzah as the Prophet (SA'AS) had asked them. When the Prophet (SA'AS) was told, he approved of the action of both parties although one of them must have been wrong. This clearly indicates that there is no sin in acting upon an interpretation which is based on solid evidence, sincere genuine intention and ijtihad. Ibn al Qayyim described those who applied the essence of ahadith as Ahl al Qiyas (analogy applicants) and those who applied the letter of a,hadith as Zahiriyah (literalists). Unfortunately, there are people these days who not only assume that they know the whole truth and all the answers, but who also try to coerce other people to follow them, believing that they can eradicate all madhahib and disagreements and unite all people in one single stroke. They tend to forget that their own understanding and interpretation of the texts are no more than hypotheses which may be right or wrong. Moreover, no human (i.e., no 'alim) is infallible, even though he may satisfy all the conditions and requisities of ijtihad. All that is certain is the reward he will obtain for his ijtihad, whether it was right or wrong, should the intention be sincere. Therefore, such people would achieve nothing except the creation of an additional madhhab! It is strange and absurd that while they disapprove of people's adherence to different madhahib, they themselves try to persuade people to imitate them and follow their new madhhab. No one should jump to the conclusion that I reject their call for adherence to the texts or their own interpretations and understanding. This is absolutely the right granted to everyone who can fulfill the conditions of ijtihad and its means. No one has the right to close the gates of ijtihad which were opened by the Prophet (SA'AS) for the whole Ummah What I do reject is their self?presumption, arrogance, vanity, and disregard for the findings of their learned predecessors, their disrespect for the fifh we have inherited from our great forebears. I reject their false claim that they alone are right, as well as their erroneous impression that they can eliminate disparity and disagreement and unite people on one opinion-their own. One of the followers of this "one?opinion" school asked me once why all Muslims should not agree on the juristic opinion supported by the text I replied that the text first has to be authentic and accepted by all, its meaning has to be plain, and it should not be contradicted by another text, whether stonger or similar in evidence. There should be full agreement as regards the three preceding points. A text may be regarded as authentic by an imam, but another imam may see it as weak or as authentic but without proven evidence justifying its given meaning; a text may be regarded as general by an imam but as particular by another, or it may be seen as absolute or restricted; it may also be regarded as categorrical or abrogated. Such variance leads to producing different ahkam i.e. something may be wajib or haram, mustahabb or makruh. In short all these difference fall within the considerations pointed out by Ibn Taymiyah in his book, Raf al Malam an al A'immat al A'lam, and mentioned by Waliy Allah al Dahlaw' in his book, .Hujjat Allah al Balighah, and in his, al Insaf fi Asbab al Ikhtilaf, and detailed by al Shaykn 'Al. al Khafif in his book, Asbab Ikhtilaf al Fuqaha' Let us consider the following ahadah: 1. "Any woman who wears a gold necklace will be made to wear a similar one [made] of fire on the Day of Judgment. And any woman who wears gold earrings will have a similar one [made of fire] on the Day of Judgment. 2. "Whoever desires his beloved to wear a ring [made] of fire [on the Day of Judgment], let him give him [her] [to wear] a gold ring. And whoever desires his beloved to wear a necklace [made] of fire [on the Day of Judgment], let him give him [her] [to wear] a gold necklace. And whoever desires his beloved to wear a bracelet [made] of fire [on the Day of Judgment], let him give him [her][to wear] a gold bracelet. But you can do whatever you please with silver. 3. It is also related by Thawban (RA'A) that the Prophet (SA'AS) warned his daughter Fatimah (RA'A) against wearing a gold chain. In response, she sold it, bought a slave with the money, and set him free. When the Prophet (SA'AS) was told of this, he said: "Thanks to Allah (SWT) who rescued Fatimah from the Fire. Justists have different attitudes toward these ahadith: 1. Some have examined their isnad and, finding them weak, rejected them and considered them insufficiant for prohibition, which requires clear cut evidence and careful investigation, especially with respect to matters of general concern and which Muslims have generally accepted. 2. Others have agreed that the isnad is correct but that the ahadith have been revoked because other evidence in other sources have permitted women to adorn themselves with gold. Al Bayhaqi and others have reported the consensus on this matter which has been accepted in fiqh and become a standard practice. 3. Some considered the ahadith applicable to those who have not given zakah on the gold they have, basing their opinion on other ahadith which have not, themselves, escaped criticism. Furthermore. zakah on women's jewellery is a subject of disagreement among the different madhahib. 4. Some jusrists argue that these ahaith seek to warn women who vainly adorn themselves with gold, deliberately intending to draw attention to their wealth. Al Nasal also reported some ahadith which are relevant to this issue under the title: Bab al Karahiyah li al Nisa'.fi Ihar Hilal Dhahab (Disapproval of Women's Display of Golden Jewelry). Other jurists say that they are related only to excessive adornment out of vanity or pride. 5. In our own times, Shaykh Nasir al Din al Albani has come out with an opinion different from the consensus on permitting women to adorn themselves with gold, which has been accepted by all madhahib for the last fourteen centuries. He not only believes that the isnad of these ahadith is authentic, but that these texts are categorical in this matter; i.e. prohibiting gold rings and earrings. In this he disagreed with the consensus of the fiqh of all madhahib and the practice of the Ummah throughout the past fourteen hundred years. Has the existence of these ahadith prevented disagreement on their authenticity or guidance? Can the modern "traditionalist school" eradicate disagreement and unite all people on one opinion on the basis of ahadith or a tradition which they use as evidence? The answer is clear enough: people will continue to disagree and differ amongst themselves, and this will, in shaa Allah, pose no danger or problem. Allah ta 'ala says: "To each is a goal to which Allah turns him". In this respect, I feel inclined to admit that the religious leader who, in this age, has understood the essence and ethics of disagreements was hasan al Banna (d. 1949). He brought up his followers to believe in and adhere to these ethics. Despite his unflinching commitment to the cause of Muslim solidarity and his sincere efforts to unite the various Muslim groups and make them agree at least on minimum Islamic concepts and principals, as is clear from his own known work al Usul al 'Ishrun, he was convinced of the inevitability of disagreement on the subsidiary issues and the practical ahkam of Islam. This he has eloquently discussed in many of his messages which have proved to be useful In Dawatuna (Our Da'wah), al Banna spoke of the characteristics of his da'wah as being general ones which neither patronize a particular sect nor advocate a particular line of thought. Interest is in the core of din and its essence; it hopes that all endeavors are united so that a more fruitful work can be done to produce greater results; it supports truth everywhere; it likes consensus and dislikes eccentricity; it attributes a great deal of the mishaps which have befallen Muslims to misguided disagreement and to disunity; it believes that love and unity are the major factor of their victories, and that the only hope for invigorating and revitalizing the present?day Ummah lies in reviving and adopting the practice of the early generations of Muslims. But, in spite of his strong belief in the necessity of unity and dislike of disunity, al Banna wrote: We believe that disagreements on subsidiary religious issues are inevitable for various reasons, the most important of which are: Intellectual differences resulting from the level of intelligence and depth of knowledge, the multiplicity and interrelatedness of the facts, and the inherent ambiguities of the Arabic language which are bound to affect the interpretation of the texts. In all these people are different, and therefore disagreement is inevitable. The abundance of the sources of knowledge in some parts of the Islamic world and their scarcity in other places is also an important factor. Malik said to Abu Ja'far: "The Prophet's companions scattered into remote regions, each group possessing specific knowledge. If you were to force them to follow one opinion you would create fitnah. There are also cultural differences. Al Shafi'i (RA'A) used to give different fatawa in accordance with the different conditions prevailing in Iraq and in Egypt. In both cases he used to base his verdict upon what he believed to be truth. The opinion of the imam toward the narrator is another factor. One imam may consider a narrator fully reliable, but another may have doubts about the same narrator and consequently refrain from taking what he has transmitted in full confidence. Also, a cause of difference lies in assessing the evidence of ahkam; some give precedence to people's practices over ahadith narrated through by one single narrator, etc. For these reasons we believe that a consensus on subsidiary religious matters is not only impossible but incompatible with the nature of din, because such a demand is bound to generate rigidity and excessiveness, which are contrary to the Islamic imperatives of flexibility, facilitation, and simplicity. Doubtless, these virtues will enable Islam to meet the requirements of all times. Furthermore, we understand the reasons of those who disagree with us on subsidiary and marginal issues. Such disagreement does not affect our mutual love or cooperation, as we are all contained within the comprehensiveness of Islam. Aren't we all Muslim, required to like for our Muslim brothers what we like for ourselves? Why disagreement then, and why cannot each of us have our different opinions, and also try to reach an agreement, if possible, in an atmosphere of candor and love? The companions of the Prophet (SA'AS) had disagreed in fatwa, but that did not create any disunity or rupture. The incident of the salah and Banu Qurayzah is a case in point. If these who have known the ahkam better than us have had their disagreements, isn't it absurd that we maliciously disagree with each other on frivolous matters? If our a'immah, who more than any one else know the Qur'an and Sunnah, have had their disagreements and their debates, why cannot we do the same? If there was disagreement on even clear and well?known subsidiary issues, such as the five?times?a?day adhan, which were supported by texts and by tradition, what about the more delicate issues which are subject to opinion and deduction? We also need to remember that during the time of the Caliphate, disagreements were referred to, and settled by, the Caliph. Since there are no caliphs these days, Muslims must find a judge to which they can refer their case. Otherwise, their disagreement will lead to another disagreement. Finally, our brothers are fully aware of all this and have consequently more patience and open?mindedness. They believe that each group of people has specific knowledge and that in each da'wah there are elements of truth as well as falsity. They carefully investigate the truth and accept it, and they try with amicability to convince those who are wrong. If the latter are convinced it is indeed very good, but if they are not they remain our Muslim brothers. We ask Allah to guide us and to guide them. The above is a brief summary of Imam al Bannas views on juristic disagreements and his attitude toward them. It clearly shows his deep knowledge of Islam, of history, and of reality. I would also like to relate an ancident in al Bannas life-which could have been the experience of other 'ulama'as well-to illustrate these concepts and views. One day during Ramadan, al Banna was invited to deliver a lecture in a small village in Egypt. The people in that village were divided into two groups which held different opinions regarding the number of raka 'at in salat al tarawih. One group argued that according to the tradition of' Umar ibn al Khattab (RA'A), they should be twenty. The other group insisted that they must be eight, maintaining that it was known that the Prophet (SA'AS) never exceeded this number at any time. Accordingly, each group accused the other of bidah, and their disagreement reached a dangerous level, almost leading to open physical conflict. When al Banna arrived they agreed to refer the matter to him. The way he handled this event is instructive to all of us. He first asked: "What is the juristic status of salat al tarawih?" The answer was: "A sunnah, and those who perform it are rewarded, those who do not are not punished." He then asked: "And what is the juristic status of brotherhood among Muslims?" The people replied: "fard [Obligatory], and it is one of the fundamentals of Iman." He then concluded: "Is it therefore logical or permissible according to Shariah to abandon afard for a sunnah?. He then told them that if they preserved their brotherhood and unity and each went home and performed salat al tarawIh according to his own genuine conviction, it would indeed be far better then arguing and quarreling. When I mentioned this to some people, they said that al Bannas action was evasive?an escape from the truth, i.e., from pointing out the difference between a sunnah and a bidah. This, they insisted, is the duty of a Muslim. I replied that this is a matter where there is room for different opinions, and that although I perform eight raka 'at, I do not accuse those performing twenty of bidah. They persisted that making a decision on such matters is a duty which a Muslim must not evade. I insisted that this is true when the choice is between halal and haram, but in matters on which the juristic schools of thought have had their disagreements and, consequently, each one of us his own view, there is no need for bigotry or zealotry. Many fair Muslim ulama have clearly sanctioned this. The following quotation is from one of the .Hanabilah books entitled Sharh Ghayat al Muntaha: Whoever rejects an opinion reached by ijtihad does so because of his ignorance of the status of the mujtahidun who will be rewarded, be they right or wrong, for their laborious, timeconsuming findings in this respect. Those who follow them commit no sin, because Allah has ordained for each of them that to which his ijtihad had led him, and which becomes part of the Shariiah in that respect. There is an example in the permission to eat, out of dire necessity only, the meat of a dead animal. However, this is prohibited for a person who deliberately chooses to do so. Both of these are wellestablished juristic verdicts. Ibn Taymiyah says in al Fatawa al Misriyah: Consideration of unity [among Muslims] is the right course. The basmalah can be uttered loudly to fulfill a commendable interest. It is also advisable to abandon the preferable in order to create harmony and intimacy, just as the Prophet (SA'AS) gave up the re?building of the Ka'bah [on the foundations laid down by Ibrahim] so as not to alienate 1the people of Makkah]. The a immah, like Imam Ahmad, are of this opinion with regard to the basmalah, to replace the preferable with the acceptable in order to preserve unity. Ibn Taymiyah referred to the following hadith with regard to the building of the Ka'bah. The Prophet (SA'AS) said to 'Aishah (RA'A): "Had your ople not been in jahilyah (the attitudes and mentality of pre?Islamic time) until recently, I would have rebuilt the Ka'bah on the foundations [laid] by Ibrahim." Ibn al Qayyim also discussed the issue of qunut in Salat alfujr. Some people have considered qunut as bidah, others as supererogatory to be practised in times of hardships as well as other times. In his book Zad a1 Ma'ad, he argues that the Prophet's Sunnah sanctions qunut during the times of hardship, and that this has been accepted by hadith scholars who follow what the Prophet (SA'AS) did. They therefore did qanut at the times the Prophet (SA'AS) is known to have done qunut and abstained from it at the times he is known to have abstained from qunut They see qunut as a sunnah and abstaining from it as also a sunnah Therefore they neither object to those who continually do qanut or to those who abstain from it, and they do not consider it bidah. Ibn al Qayyim writes: A proper posture to ask Allah's blessings and to offer thanks to Him is when a person stands up after kneeling in Salah. The Prophet (SA'AS) did both in this posture. It is acceptable for the imam to utter qunut prayers these loudly so that the people behind him can hear. 'Umar ibn al Khatt.ab raised his voice when reciting the Fatihah, and so did Ibn 'Abbas during the salah for the dead in order to let people know that it is sunnah to do so. Such practices are subject to acceptable disagreement; neither those who do them nor those who refrain are blameworthy: the same applies to raising the hands during Salah, the various ways of tashahhud, adhan, iqamah, as well as the types of hajj as ifrad, qiran and tamattu' Our purpose is only to mention the Prophet's Sunnah, which is our guiding principle in this book and which we seek to investigate. Having said that, I wish to point out that I have not tried to deal with what is permissible and what is not. Our concern is with the permissible practice which the Prophet (SA'AS) used to choose for himself, and which is the best and most perfect. If we say that there is no indication in his Sunnah that he consistently performed qunut during Salat ul Fajr or uttered the basmalah loudly, this does not mean or indicate that we should consider consistency in performing them as makruh? or bidah. It only means that his guidance is the best and most perfect. Moreover, an individual is permitted to continue his salah behind an imam of a different madhhab even if he believes that the latter has done something which nullifies his ablution, or makes his salah nugatory, if the imam's madhhab permits that. Ibn Taymiyah says in al Fawakih al Adidah: Muslims are unanimous on the admissibility of performing Salah behind each other as was the practice of the Companions and the Tabi'un, as well as that of the four great jurists of Islam. Whoever rejects this practice is a straying mabtadi' who deviates from the teaching of the Quran, Sunnah, and the consensus of the Muslims. Although some of the companions and the Tabiun uttered the basmalah loudly and other did not, they nevertheless continued to perform Salah behind each other. So did Abu Hanifah and his followers, as well as al Shafi'i and others who used to perform salah behind the Malikiyah in Madinah, although the latter did not utter the basmalah, neither loudly nor in their hearts. It is said that Abu Yusuf performed Salah behind al Rashid who had been cupped.'9 Because al Imam Malik has given afatwa that there is no need to renew ablutions in thicase, Abu Yusuf continued his salah behind al Rashid. However, Ahmad ibn Hanbal was of the opinion that ablution must be done after cupping and nosebleeding. Confronted with a hypothetical situation whether a member of the congregation who notices a discharge of blood from the imam, who does not renew his ablution, should continue his Salah behind him, Ibn Hanbal said: "It is inconceivable not to perform Salah behind Said ibn al Musayyab and Malik." He then added that there are two considerations in this issue: (1) If the man is not aware of anything that invalidates the imam's Salah he should continue behind him. This is agreed upon by the forebears and the four great jurists; and (2) If he was sure that the imam has done something which renders him impure, such as touching his genitals or women out of sexual desire, cupping or vomiting, and did not renew his ablution, he then must act according to his best judgment, because this is an issue about which there is a great deal of disagreement. The majority of our forebears are of the opinion that the salah of those behind such an imam is valid. This is the opinion of Malik's madhhab, but a second opinion in al Shafi is and Abu Hanifah's. Most of Ahmad's texts support this opinion, which is the correct one.
1 Views
05:00:00 08/18/09
Broad Ripple: Nightlife
[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 05:00:00 08/18/09
The Broad Ripple Village cultural district has one of the most electric nightlife scenes Indy has to offer. Featuring numerous live music venues, a multitude of bars and clubs as well as a comedy club â Broad Ripple is a canât miss destination.
2 Views
05:05:30 08/12/08
Room And Broad
[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 05:05:30 08/12/08
Doogie is miffed when his parents ask him to contribute to room and board. An intern at the hospital grows squeamish at the sight of blood.
7 Views
17:31:25 06/30/08
Mastiff - Watch a Video About Mastiffs
[LESS INFO] 7 VIEWS | ADDED 17:31:25 06/30/08
Mastiffs are powerfully built, with massive bodies, broad skulls and head of generally square appearance. The Mastiff breed is a combination of grandeur, dignity, and courage; calm and affectionate to its master, but capable of guarding. The breed is innately good natured, calm, easygoing, and surprisingly gentle. It is a well-mannered house pet but needs sufficient room to stretch out. Mastiffs are an extremely loyal breed and, though not excessively demonstrative, they are devoted to family and good with children. However, Mastiffs can also be very protective of their owners and must be handled sensibly, since they are exceptionally powerful and can be difficult to control. The expected lifespan of a mastiff is 9 to 11 years.Mastiff Video (.avi) | Mastiff Video (.mov)
2 Views
17:06:51 10/28/07
Part 3 Scholar/Author On Greed Environment 10 Commandments Old Testament Stories
[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 17:06:51 10/28/07
Part 3: Bible Scholar:/Author talks about the Bible and how it relates to greed, the environment, the 10 Commandments and Old Testament storiesWell-known biblical scholar Dr. Walter Brueggemann of the Atlanta area spoke to Northern Michigan residents in early October 2007 about the 10 Commandments, greed, the environment and other social topics.In part three of a four-part series, Earth Keeper volunteer media advisor Greg Peterson reports from Northern Michigan University.Time: 9:50 ---Some of the verbatim from Dr. Brueggemann’s talk - follow along - then a full story:Dr. Brueggemann:"So that the theological question - that we don't answer easily - the logical question is that is there really a connection between the violation of the commandments - written broadly - and the well being of the earth."---Reporter:In October 2007, Dr. Walter Bureggemann, an expert on the Old Testament, spoke at Northern Michigan University.---Dr. Brueggemann:Hosea's poem is an anticipation of Wendell Berry - perhaps you know Wendell Berry - the critic of agribusiness who has written in many places that distorted social relationships inescapably will distort the environment - a distortion that is caused by greed and acquisitiveness and self-indulgent entitlement because the commandments articulate the restraints that are necessary for the maintenance of the environment.- and when there is excessive greed, when the land is overused, when the horizon is abused or the oceans are over fished, when the forests are stripped, the whole creation becomes dysfunctional.---Reporter:Brueggemann said the Lord has an indictment with the inhabitants of the land," Brueggemann said.That lead to an nteresting exchange with a member of the audience:---Dr. Brueggemann:Fifth text is in Hosea four verses one-three"The Lord has an indictment with the inhabitants of the land.The inhabitants of the land are abusing the land so Yahweh is taking them to court.Here is the indictment - see what this makes you think of.."There is swearing, lying, murder, stealing, adultery, bloodshed."What does that make you think of - Audience member: "Iraq?""I meant in the Bible - I don't want to get into anything contemporary. "There is lying, sealing, killing, adultery - the ten commandments."The indictment is - Israel in its acquisitiveness has violated the ten commandments.."Now from what I have told you - what do you think comes next - therefore."Now I want you to get this: Therefore the land mourns."This is a Biblical idiom for drought.That's what they said - when you violate the ten commandments you get a drought.- and then it says - because of the drought - the beasts and the fields and the birds and the air and the fish in the sea - What's that supposed to make you think of?Creation are perishing." This is an extraordinary three verse poem.The indictment is you break the ten commandments - the connection is the therefore - and the threat is that creation will be undone and won't grow anything anymore ."The logic of the poem is that the violation of the ten commandments will lead to the dismantling of creation.""I heard a Rabbi once say - that in Auschwitz all ten commandments were systematically violated - and then he said whenever you violate all ten commandments then you get Auschwitz.""Oh I would not suggest that our ecological crisis is of Auschwitz proportion - but if you fill the therefore with moral passion - you have got to believe that the violation of God's commandments eventually jeopardize and risk the good gift of creation."---First Kings 21 - Naboth's Vineyard - King Ahab wanted vegetable garden that Naboth had "who could not sell because the land was not a possession it was inheritance The land did not belong to him rather "He belonged to the land."Ahab and wife Jessiebell eventually frame Naboth as a traitor and got him executed..All Land owned by Traitors fall to the crownThat's when the prophet Elijah arrived on the scene.- who Ahab identified as enemy of his regime of acquisitiveness.Ahab - God's death sentence?---Fourth text in Mica two versus one thru five :"Alas for those who devise wickedness and evil deeds on their beds.""They start scheming and plotting before they get out of bed - and when they get out of bed they have a cup of coffee and while they are still in their bathrobe they call their broker and take some more land away from somebody."When the morning dawns they perform it - they covet fields and seize them, houses and take them away - they oppress household and house - people and inheritance.""The power class schemes about how to take over real estate before they every get out of bed in the morning - they covet - the poet uses covet which as you know comes right from the tenth commandment - thou shalt not covet - thou shalt not be acquisitive - thou shalt not gather more commodities t one's self."They buy up houses and fields and they violate the neighborhood and they take advantage of those who do not have sharp lawyers.The comes - it won't surprise you - the therefore."Therefore says the Lord - I am devising evil against this people and you shalt not walk haughtily for an evil time will come.""And then the poem goes on to say: ‘You will say oh we are utterly ruined. Oh help us God help us' and it will be too late because your land will be owned by foreigners."------Full Story:---Biblical scholar warns about consequences of greed, overindulgence, and abuse of the environment - says northern Michigan sulfide mine is losing proposalDr. Walter Brueggemann: Christians are in denial over past religious violence, must own antisemitism(Marquette, Michigan) - Speaking to packed audiences at two northern Michigan events, noted theologian Dr. Walter Brueggemann warned that today's world should change its ways because the "creator will not tolerate the ultimate despoiling of creation."Speaking to over 400 people in Ishpeming and Marquette, Dr. Brueggemann said historically greed, disregard for the environment and "the violation of the ten commandments will lead to the dismantling of creation."An expert and prolific author on the Old Testament, Brueggemann quote numerous biblical verses and described the prophets of the time as "poets" who warned about the greedy abuse of nature because people must "view the environment as God's gift that requires responsible management."Bringing humor and simple explanations to complex scripture, Dr. Brueggemann's animated translations invoked passion, laughter, and stunned silence that was often punctuated with crescendos, whispers and dramatic gestures like a fist in the air or hands clutching his head."Every national security state works itself to destruction - never learning in time the limits to acquisitiveness and giving full rein to satiation," Brueggemann said Monday night (Oct. 8, 2007) at Northern Michigan University in Marquette.Dr. Brueggemann's ecumenical public talks are reflected in his personal life. Brueggemann is a member of the United Church of Christ, teaches at a Presbyterian Seminary, and worships in an Episcopal congregation.The standing room only crowd clapped when he tied abuse of the environment to the proposed sulfide mine near Lake Superior in Marquette County by stating abused land will not produce in the future."What this poet knows is that absentee ownership and agribusiness - and you can extrapolate the word mining - I don't know much about it but I know that much - will simply refuse to produce when the land becomes a tradeable commodity and is no longer caressed, and honored and treated with its own particular creation magic," Brueggemann said. "The land requires ownership that is partnership and without such partnership creation loses its interest in fruitfulness."In an interview following his talk, Brueggemann said while he doesn't know the all the details about the proposed sulfide mine he has done "some reading on the crisis of the proposed mining initiative" in Michigan's Upper Peninsula."It is obviously a case in which the well being of the environment and the well being of the neighborhood are being subordinated to economic interests," Brueggemann said."In the bible, the economy is, according to the Torah, kept subordinated to the well being of the neighborhood," Brueggemann said. "This seems to me a case in which economic interests want to overpower the concerns of the neighborhood.""From the perspective of biblical faith, that is always a loser," Brueggemann said.Speaking to about 200 people Tuesday night (Oct. 9) at the Bethany Lutheran Church in Ishpeming, Brueggemann said in the New Testament Jesus fed people with loaves of bread warning his followers about the evil ways of greedy pharaohs.Brueggemann said "for the sake of the common good - for good health care policy, good schools, for better housing - the work of the neighborhood depends upon the power of the dream to dream outside the pharaoh's regime of anxiety.""One way to understand the worship of the church, is every time we gather - we gather to dream the dream of God's abundance that powers us to the neighborhood," Brueggemann said.Rev. Warren Geier, pastor of Bethany Lutheran Church in Ishpeming, said in all Dr. Brueggemann's talks the theologian "highlighted that God's intention for the world, as articulated in the Ten Commandments, is that we live in relationship with God and with the neighbor."This can't be done without respect and care for the ‘neighborhood' which is the earth, God's gift of creation," said Geier, who organized Brueggemann's U.P. visit. Brueggemann "emphasized the need the tell the truth, not to deny reality and pretend things are other than they are," Geier said."This is done in order to get to hope, the realization that there is another way that counters ways that seem unchangeable - to use Dr. Brueggemann's words: ‘The data on the ground is not the final truth; it's outflanked by the fidelity of God. There are new gifts to be given'," Geier said.Describing a story about land abuse in the book of Isaiah, Brueggemann said the text warns about coveting land and "exercising eminent domain and buying up the property of neighbors until there is no one left but you.""You are left to live alone in the midst of the land - woe you," he said.An Atlanta resident, Dr. Brueggemann said a verse that states "these many houses shall become desolate - large beautiful houses without inhabitants" reminds him of the once prosperous southern cotton plantations."When I read about large beautiful houses that become desolate without inhabitants I think of Tara in Gone with the Wind," Brueggemann said in Marquette. "You know that the cotton industry in the south was the wealthiest economy in the world and nobody paid any attention."Describing an agricultural economic crisis, Brueggemann said "the text goes on in this poem to imagine that when the land is organized so that it destroys a neighborhood that the land simply refuses to produce.""God has said to the land ‘be fruitful' and the land simply says ‘I won't do it - I won't grow anything'," Brueggemann said.Brueggemann's talks were co-sponsored by Lutheran Campus Ministry, the interfaith NMU EarthKeeper Student Team, the NMU departments of Philosophy and English, the Northern Great Lakes Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and Bethany Lutheran Church in Ishpeming.Brueggemann's visit "was another way we like to continue our (environmental) work and invite other people into our community so that we can learn from them and continue to grow in our knowledge about theology and creation and the environment as well," said Jennifer Simula, the NMU EK project director and a student leader with NMU Lutheran Campus Ministry.Understanding the audience was filled with supporters of the environment, Brueggemann said he is "aware of the work of the Earth Keeper's Covenant and so I already know that you are into these issues" describing his talk "simply as a reinforcement footnote to what all of you have already thought."Dr. Brueggemann said you know when the poets (prophets) are about to make a point - and interject "moral passion" - when they use words like "therefore" or "alas.""When you read a ‘therefore' in this poetry you must duck," said Brueggemann - in one example of his wit that evoked laughter sometimes adding levity to an intense Biblical lesson."I believe the gap between consumer indulgence and the consequences of that in our society has to be filled with moral passion and not with explanation," Brueggemann said.The poets, Brueggemann said, warned of the possible outcomes of human behavior and were used in the Bible "as an interface between the power of acquisitiveness - on the one hand - and the poetry of alternative on the other hand.""All through the heady years of Jerusalem there were ad-hoc protests and dissents and warnings," Brueggemann said of the poets who today would be considered liberal.The poets were "not social action liberals - which they were - they were poets - they wrote poetry so that the world could be imagined outside the domain of (King) Solomon."In the book of Hosea, "the Lord has an indictment with the inhabitants of the land," Brueggemann said."The inhabitants of the land are abusing the land so Yahweh (God in the Old Testament) is taking them to court," he said.Brueggemann crafts his messages to have a direct bearing on today's world while sticking to Biblical history - thus causing the audience to think and draw their own conclusions of time."Here is the indictment - see what this makes you think of," Brueggemann said leading the audience to a purposely indirect point. "There is swearing, lying, murder, stealing, adultery, bloodshed. What does that make you think of?"An audience member said: "Iraq?""I meant in the Bible - I don't want to get into anything contemporary," said Brueggemann - delighting the crowd."There is lying, stealing, killing, adultery - the ten commandments," Brueggemann explained bringing home a Biblical lesson with contemporary impact. "The indictment is - Israel in its acquisitiveness has violated the ten commandments.""Now from what I have told you - what do you think comes next - ‘therefore'," Brugeggeman said. "Therefore the land mourns - this is a Biblical idiom for drought.""When you violate the ten commandments you get a drought.- and then it says - because of the drought - the beasts and the fields and the birds and the air and the fish in the sea - What's that supposed to make you think of ? Creation is perishing. This is an extraordinary three-verse poem.""The indictment is you break the ten commandments - the connection is the therefore - and the threat is that creation will be undone and won't grow anything anymore," Brueggemann said. "The logic of the poem is that the violation of the ten commandments will lead to the dismantling of creation.""The poet only knows that the land that is being abused is God's creation and the poet knows there are limits to be honored and respected, restraints to be exercised and trusts to be cared for and when self indulgence overrides limits, restraints and trusts - creation has a way of circling back and bringing death," Brueggemann said."I heard a Rabbi once say - that in Auschwitz all Ten Commandments were systematically violated - and then he (Rabbi) said ‘whenever you violate all ten commandments then you get Auschwitz'," Brueggemann said."I would not suggest that our ecological crisis is of Auschwitz proportion - however you have got to believe that the violation of God's commandments eventually jeopardize and risk the good gift of creation," Brueggemann saidDuring a meeting at the Lutheran Campus Ministry house, Brueggemann said the American "Christian community has been overly pre-occupied - for a long period of time - with personal salvation and redemption - and the result of that is that we have reneged on the Creator - Creation question."Brueggemann said "you can't just turn it (the environment) into a commodity""I believe that our work in scripture study and teaching is to reread the Bible away from those personal questions toward the large questions of creation and creator so we learn to view the environment as God's gift that requires responsible management," Brueggemann said.With the exception of noted Lutheran theologian Joseph Sittler, Brueggemann said that "Lutherans are notorious for not having had a very vibrant Doctrine of Creation."Brueggemann said many fundamentalists just "want to talk about me and Jesus, and being saved by the blood and all that kind of business."Fundamentalists "have no understanding of creation at all" and don't "understand that our reception of the reality of God also has to do with honoring the Earth differently," Brueggemann said."Those categories have almost been lost in the way the church conducts its teaching."Many churches refuse to face antisemitism and past religious violence and instead are "sort of pretending" that Christian-related atrocities did not happen, Brueggemann said."I think we invite people to engage in wholesale denial about their own lives," Brueggemann said.As a result of denial, the communication to churchgoers, Brueggemann said, is "well if you feel violent - talk about it somewhere else - don't do that here because we are all nice people here."It is "better to say we have a long history of antisemitism - we've go to own that," Brueggemann said. "I think that good recovery of the Bible is like good psychotherapy."At Bethany Lutheran Church in Ishpeming, Brueggemann said one of the saddest quotes by Jesus is in the New Testament book of Mark.After Jesus feeds ten thousands people at two events with loaves of bread to spare - he's out in a boat with two disciples who don't understand his frustration over why they forgot the bread, Brueggemann said."The paragraph ends with what I think must be one of the saddest statements of Jesus in the new testament - Jesus says to them ‘do you not yet understand?' He says to his disciples ‘you don't get it, do you?'," Brueggemann said."What's to get - is - wherever Jesus is - the power of anxiety has been broken - and there is an abundance that lets us get our minds off ourselves," Brueggemann said."So the disciples - the church - is invited to get its mind off itself - off its scarcity - off it's narrow budget - off its parsimony."The disciples "did not understand that Jesus is in the bread business," Brueggemann said."Watch out for the bread of the Herodians and the bread of the pharisees - he says watch out for the bread of the pharaoh because if you eat the bread of the pharaoh your stomach will be filled with anxiety," Brueggemann explained.Brueggemann said Jesus then "gets a little reprimanding and he says to them ‘do you have eyes and not see - do you have ears and not hear and do you have hearts and not understand - don't you know what we have been doing'?"Brueggemann added that Mark says Jesus "took the bread, he blessed the bread, he broke the bread, he gave them the bread.""These are the four great verbs in the church for abundance - he took, he blessed, he broke, he gave - these are the four verbs of the Eucharist," Brueggemann said."These are the verbs whereby the gospel takes the stuff of the earth and transforms it into a wondrous abundance.""So what Mark is telling us is - that the disciples know the numbers but they haven't any idea what the numbers mean," Brueggemann said.Brueggemann participated in Bill Moyers acclaimed PBS television series on the Book of Genesis. A graduate of Elmhurst College, Professor Brueggemann studied at Eden Theological Seminary, receiving his Doctorate of Divinity from Union theological Seminary, New York, and a Ph.D from Saint Louis University. Brueggemann was professor of Old Testament at Eden before joining the faculty at Columbia Theological Seminary in 1986. He is currently William Marcellus McPheeters Professor Emeritus of Old Testament at Columbia.
10 Views
02:32:27 05/25/07
Antivirus Software
[LESS INFO] 10 VIEWS | ADDED 02:32:27 05/25/07
http://live.pirillo.com/ - There is no perfect anti-virus or anti-spyware program, but is there one that could be crowned the best? Turtleneck37 asks "I was just wondering what, in your opinion is the best Anti-Virus program and the best Anti-Spyware program."
Chris's opinion is that there is no single best anti-virus or anti-spyware program. Your best bet is using the program that fits your computing habits. Sometimes it can be the one that is installed on your computer by default, and sometimes you'll need to experiment to find the anti-virus that's right for you. The chat room has a whole list of free anti-virus software recommendations for you:
Nod32 : >
Running separate applications for viruses, hackers, adware, and spyware can slow your PC, be difficult to manage, and provide questionable protection. Beware of large, bloated internet security suites that consume hundreds of megabytes on your PC. These typically exist because vendors have acquired products and 'bundled' them together. In contrast, ESET NOD32 was designed from the core as a single, highly-optimized engine that works as a unified Anti-Threat system to protect against a broad spectrum of malware. Viruses, worms, spyware, and other malicious attacks, which are constantly evolving. ESET NOD32 utilizes patent-pending ThreatSense Technology to detect tomorrow's threats in real-time, by analyzing code execution for malicious intent - keeping you ahead of the malware-writers.
AVG Free Anti-Virus : >
AVG Anti-Virus Free Edition is one of the most popular solutions to provide basic security protection on home and non-commercial PCs. We invite you to join the millions of users around the world who rely on AVG's unique award-winning detection methods by downloading AVG Anti-Virus Free Edition.
Avast : >
avast! 4 Home Edition is a full-featured antivirus package designed exclusively for home users and non-commercial use. Both of these conditions should be met! Our company offers the Home Edition free of charge, since, in our opinion, it is possible to avoid global virus spreading by efficient prevention; however, many users are not able to or do not want to pay for antivirus software.
This is only a small sampling of the anti-virus software out there. What do you recommend?
3 Views
05:58:28 09/12/06
Henry David Thoreau's Cabin Near Walden Pond Concord Massachusetts 1854 And Before
[LESS INFO] 3 VIEWS | ADDED 05:58:28 09/12/06
From the beginning of Walden: When I wrote the following pages, or rather the bulk of them, I lived alone, in the woods, a mile from any neighbor, in a house which I had built myself, on the shore of Walden Pond, in Concord, Massachusetts, and earned my living by the labor of my hands only. I lived there two years and two months. At present I am a sojourner in civilized life again.Henry David Thoreau published Walden in 1854. The book is constructed as a kind of a journal of his life, philosophical and social reflections, and astute observations of nature and his surroundings that are often intended to be metaphorical as well concrete. Walden itself is a very deep pond, and Thoreau was fond of plumbing its depths--a reference to his mind and soul as much to the body of water on which he rowed, in which he fished, and from which he drank.Tom Morris and I sat in Thoreau's cabin and found ourselves talking of the parallels between Thoreau (1817-1862) and the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855). Both were powerful intellects who lived the daily lives of near-monks, while also engaging in the debates and society of their day. Both traveled little, thought long, and wrote with lasting influence. Both died young, Thoreau at age 45, Kierkegaard at 42.The cabin is of course a mock-up of the original, but because of Thoreau's detailed description of the cabin in Walden, the replica is quite exact. I found myself in a reflective mood as Tom and I sat in the evening light on Henry's two small chairs.As we sat leaning back in our chairs, not facing each other directly but looking out the door and windows as we formed our thoughts, I was reminded of one of my favorite passages in Walden:One inconvenience I sometimes experienced in so small a house, the difficulty of getting to a sufficient distance from my guest when we began to utter the big thoughts in big words. You want room for your thoughts to get into sailing trim and run a course or two before they make their port. The bullet of your thought must have overcome its lateral and ricochet motion and fallen into its last and steady course before it reaches the ear of the hearer, else it may plow out again through the side of his head. Also, our sentences wanted room to unfold and form their columns in the interval. Individuals, like nations, must have suitable broad and natural boundaries, even a considerable neutral ground, between them. I have found it a singular luxury to talk across the pond to a companion on the opposite side. In my house we were so near that we could not begin to hear—we could not speak low enough to be heard; as when you throw two stones into calm water so near that they break each other's undulations. If we are merely loquacious and loud talkers, then we can afford to stand very near together, cheek by jowl, and feel each other's breath; but if we speak reservedly and thoughtfully, we want to be farther apart, that all animal heat and moisture may have a chance to evaporate. If we would enjoy the most intimate society with that in each of us which is without, or above, being spoken to, we must not only be silent, but commonly so far apart bodily that we cannot possibly hear each other's voice in any case. Referred to this standard, speech is for the convenience of those who are hard of hearing; but there are many fine things which we cannot say if we have to shout. As the conversation began to assume a loftier and grander tone, we gradually shoved our chairs farther apart till they touched the wall in opposite corners, and then commonly there was not room enough.
6 Views
04:52:31 02/19/06
Video: Government Bypasses Press
[LESS INFO] 6 VIEWS | ADDED 04:52:31 02/19/06
Video essay in response to Jay Rosen's "Dick Cheney Did Not Make a Mistake By Not Telling the Press He Shot a Guy" bog post -- featuring Chris Nolan, Mindy Finn, Hugh Hewitt, John H. Brown, Don Beck, Steve Rubel, Merrill Brown, Tom Rosenstiel, Congressman Rob Simmons, and a virtual Jay Rosen.
You can listen to the full entire audio for some of the interviews -- and read the full transcript for the others.
Subscribe to this feed for future videos .
Subscribe to this feed to download all audio interviews posted so far.
Music: On The Moon (Trip Hop mix) by disharmonic
Here's a Windows Media version.
Full Transcript and Further thoughts are down below...
>
KENT BYE: The fact that Dick Cheney decided to inform the local newspaper instead of going through the national press when he accidentally shot a man -- this indicates that there's a fundamental shift in the power dynamic between the press and the government.
Now NYU Journalism Professor Jay Rosen says that, "Cheney took the opportunity to show the White House press corps that it is not the natural conduit to the nation-at-large; and it has no special place in the information chain."
This is a trend that Chris Nolan first observed during the 2004 election
CHRIS NOLAN (Spot-on.com): The idea that you can talk directly to voters past big media was a big, big part of the Republican campaign this past year. I think that that's a very little noticed and a very little appreciated fact. They treated the media as another constituent group like the tobacco lobby or whatever.
MINDY FINN (Republican National Committee, Deputy eCampaign Director): Where our opportunities are -- are through talk radio and through the Internet. And we found that was our best means for communicating our message -- to kind of cut through the mainstream media filter. And also, that there are so many cable channels now that those stations don't have the reach that they used to. And certainly the major networks don't have the reach that they used to.
CHRIS NOLAN (Spot-on.com): To a large extent, people bought it. And the people that were the most upset -- the people who complained the loudest were the big media people, and nobody really took up their cause. So I'd say that's a sign that something's changed in a big way.
KENT BYE: Something has changed -- The mainstream media is seen as less relevant, and politicians are more powerful.
HUGH HEWITT (Talk Radio Host & Blogger): What the blogosphere and the Internet have done to the Mainstream Media is just what Luther did to Rome, which was to -- not only to go around the gates, but to shatter them. There are no more gates. Now it's just a question of "What's true?" and "What's objective?" -- not what is an elite's understanding of the former.
KENT BYE: What's True and What's Objective is still a really big open question in our society. And I think it's going to come from some combination of traditional journalism, but also blogging -- and even collaborative media which is what I'm working on.
So let's take a look at this issue from the perspective of a politician.
CONGRESSMAN ROB SIMMONS (R-CT): If you look at the American media, and how it covers politics -- you basically interview a politician, take -- if it's TV -- take one or two sound bites, and build a story around that sound bite. If you look at radio, you allow that same political figure 15 or 20 minutes perhaps on a radio show -- a call-in to explain their position on a certain issue. If you look at the print media, depending on the nature of the interview, the journalist will take some quotes and build a story around it. But it's all based pretty much on what that one individual is saying, and then on how those words are interpreted by the journalist.
KENT BYE: So talk radio and new media provide politicians an opportunity to talk at length without having to be
filtered through the lens of an objective news story.
Well, that's great for them, but what about the public interest?
Who's going to be holding the politicians accountable when the only organizations they're going to be talking to are going to be those who are sympathetic to their message.
Steve Rubel talks about the dynamic between public relations and journalism.
STEVE RUBEL (MicroPersuasion.com): The public interest is important, but I think that that's more important to a journalist than it is to the PR professional. PR professional is less concerned with public interest, and more concerned with doing results that are going to get paid for. And where the journalists and the folks in this room where I stand here, they're definitely worrying about the public interest. And ultimately, they're going to decide what's best for the public, not us.
KENT BYE: But now that the politicians can completely bypass the journalists, they're free to focus on their own self-interest, which is mainly to preserve their political power. This has created a very polarized political culture, which is then amplified by the mainstream media.
DON BECK (National Values Center): The Mainstream Media is simple a reflection of the mainstream value structures in a society, particularly in our political class, which is obviously is the "Win at any costs" and be reelected, using often "Us versus Them" polarity -- "From the Left / From the Right," "Conservative/ Liberal" to divide people in like Blue States and Red States, and so forth. So when one looks at the problems in a society, obviously the dominant media will convey those codes, and when it looks like many of those behaviors tend to make things worse.
MERRILL BROWN (Media Consultant): What this country needs, from my point of view, in addition to a skeptical, hard-working news media, is a political system in which members of party in power feel free and have the political courage to stand up and speak up when things aren't going well in their parties. And this applies to both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats who were unwilling to speak up about the failures of the Clintons -- the Clintons in particular, and the administration more generally. Same thing is true now. There's a lot of Republican -- members of the Republican leadership who realize how inept this administration has handled some number of issues, and yet the political dissent and the dialogue from those people in places of power in the Republican party doesn't happen.
KENT BYE: Without this internal dissent, our political system has turned into an all-out cultural war where short-term political gains for either the Democrats or the Republicans is more important than anything else.
JOHN H. BROWN (State Department Employee who Resigned to Protest Iraq War): These are people who think in narrow, political, day-to-day terms -- who are absolutely parochial in their thinking. What’s important is "Winning The Game", and the game is American Politics.
KENT BYE: We have a political culture where winning trumps compromise, where debate trumps dialogue, where polarization trumps consensus.
STEVE RUBEL (Micropersusasion.com) The political environment for PR is much more about spin & influence, and the message of the day, and "How do you get it out?" It's very reactive. It's trying to take what's already coming at you -- and issues -- and then making sure that you shape your position on it.
ARCHIVAL FOOTAGE: On the Federal Level, the war between government and press is one of unequal firepower. The government spends nearly half a billion dollars a year, and employs thousands of people in Public Relations, Public Information, Public Image Making, and Public Obfuscation. In the Executive Branch, all of them -- all of those people, all of that torrent of information, all of those Xerox machines -- can be controlled by the White House. A President's personal power to dominate the news is beyond measure.
TOM ROSENSTIEL (Committee for Concerned Journalists): They understand our tendencies better than we understand them ourselves. They understand our weaknesses better than we understand them ourselves.
KENT BYE: So the media is being manipulated by politicians who understand how the media work better than they do themselves.
Jay Rosen agrees by saying that the White House "correctly guessed that if it changed the game on you, you wouldn’t develop a new game of your own, or be able to react... They sensed that the old press system was weakened." And that essentially, "they knew you wouldn’t react because to do so would look 'too political.”"
So politicians currently have an upper hand over the media as far as setting the terms of the discourse for the country.
So where do we go from here?
I think collaborative media actually has a lot of potential in this area, and that's what I'm working on here at The Echo Chamber Project.
But the question is, "Can new media put the power back into the hands of citizens?"
MERRILL BROWN : So I don't think there's going to be fundamental political change any time soon. But I do think -- as in all things -- we go through cycles. And we're in a cycle today where the political discourse is of a certain kind. And I think we're moving -- and will move very quickly between now and the next Presidential election to have a much broader discussion about our national sensibility, our national priorities, the nature of political discourse, dissent and dialogue. And I think media, the blogosphere, and the democratization of thought in this country has a lot to offer in that regard.
THEORY OF THE COLLABORATIVE MEDIA SOLUTION
I believe that collaborative media that is able to mediate the relative truths and falsehoods within the many different perspectives has the potential to overcome the anomalies within the existing journalistic paradigm.
What I've done is to interview as broad and diverse range of experts talking about a particular issue (i.e. pre-war performance of the media), and then my intention is to have an even broader and more diverse range of participants participate in adding context and meaning to this gathered knowledge
Facts and information do not become knowledge for individual citizens until they have put within a personalized context. The intention behind the use of the information will determine how it is processed and applied, and there have been many innovations over the last couple of years that are able to make these contexts more explicit on an individual level while also yielding significant network effects of social behavior.
This is specifically achieved through mechanisms of folksonomy tags, comment threads, allowing users to dynamically remix audio and video into playlists, allowing people to listen to the entire interviews as podcasts, as well as allowing the reuse of the material through liberal Creative Commons-licensing.
So the three practical steps for journalism would be: >
* Collect interviews from experts on issues that are of importance
* Parse the information into granular sound bites.
* Publish these sound bites online in a way that they can be easily sequenced and recontextualized into larger meanings.
This is what I've been building with this collaborative filmmaking infrastructure , and all of the puzzle pieces now exist -- but they still need to be put together.
So I've gathered 86 interviews up to this point , and I have quite a body of sound bites from knowledgeable experts -- You can download the 40+ interviews that I've posted already with this feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/EchoChamberProjectInterviewAudio
I hope that this video comment can demonstrate the capacity for creating a system that allows other people to easily juxtapose streams of facts and sound bites together to achieve a larger meaning.
