ChaseDream
搜索
查看: 366|回复: 20

[阅读小分队] 文史哲 No.2778

[复制链接]
发表于 2020-5-15 00:20:44 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
内容:Smiling Sima 编辑:Sirrena Lai
Wechat ID: NativeStudy  / Weibo: http://weibo.com/u/3476904471



Part I: Speaker
Will Filing For Unemployment Hurt My Green Card? Legal Immigrants Are Afraid
May 11, 20201:35 PM ET
Heard on All Things Considered
Alina Selyukh
[Rephrase: 3:23]


Source: NPR
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/11/851463729/will-filing-for-unemployment-hurt-my-green-card-legal-immigrants-are-afraid  



Part II: Speed




Whose Freedom Counts?
Anti-lockdown protesters are twisting the idea of liberty.
By DAHLIA LITHWICK
MAY 07, 2020

[Time 2]
Lawsuits demanding that stay-at-home orders be repealed have been filed this week in Maryland, Minnesota, and Nevada. In Michigan, a Family Dollar store security guard was shot after telling a customer to wear a face mask, which is mandated throughout the state for all retail stores. In Oklahoma, McDonald’s employees were shot at for asking customers to leave the dining area, which was closed due to coronavirus restrictions. Small but media-gobbling gatherings of armed protesters continue to gather, demanding that state stay-home orders be rescinded, using lethal weaponry to demonstrate a power their numbers cannot convey. Members of the state Supreme Court in Wisconsin, hearing arguments in a case challenging the governor’s safer-at-home rules, invoked the language of “tyranny” and the Japanese internment to describe the current public health efforts to contain a pandemic. President Donald Trump has tweeted support for the armed militants (“These are very good people, but they are angry. They want their lives back again, safely!”) and demanded the “liberation” of the states. Defiant public intellectuals embrace the general democratic principle that being a “grandma killer” is a small price to pay for resuming dentist visits and family trips to the zoo.
The words freedom and liberty have been invoked breathlessly in recent weeks to bolster the case for “reopening.” Protesters of state public safety measures readily locate in the Bill of Rights the varied and assorted freedom to not be masked, the freedom to have your toenails soaked and buffed, the freedom to open-carry weapons into the state capitol, the freedom to take your children to the polar bear cage, the freedom to worship even if it imperils public safety, and above all, the freedom to shoot the people who attempt to stop you from exercising such unenumerated but essential rights. Beyond a profound misunderstanding of the relationship between broad state police powers and federal constitutional rights in the midst of a deadly pandemic, this definition of freedom is perplexing, chiefly because it seems to assume not simply that other people should die for your individual liberties, but also that you have an affirmative right to harm, threaten, and even kill anyone who stands in the way of your exercising of the freedoms you demand. We tend to forget that even our most prized freedoms have limits, with regard to speech, assembly, or weaponry. Those constraints are not generally something one shoots one’s way out of, even in a pandemic, and simply insisting that your own rights are paramount because you super-duper want them doesn’t usually make it so.
[424 words]
[Time 3]
To be sure, a good number of these “protesters” and “pundits” represent fringe groups, financed by other fringe groups and amplified by a press that adores conflict. The data continues to show that the vast majority of Americans are not out on the hustings fighting for the right to infect others for the sake of a McNugget. Also, it is not irrational in the least to fear a tyrannical government capitalizing on a pandemic; it’s happening around the world. But even for those millions of people genuinely suffering hardship and anxiety, it’s simply not the case that all freedoms are the same. And it’s certainly not the case that the federal Constitution protects everything you feel like doing, whenever you feel like doing it.
In a superb essay by Ibram X. Kendi in the Atlantic this week, we’re reminded that there is a long-standing difference between core notions of what he calls freedom to and freedom from. The freedom to harm, he points out, has its lineage in the slaveholder’ s constitutional notion of freedom: “Slaveholders disavowed a state that secured any form of communal freedom—the freedom of the community from slavery, from disenfranchisement, from exploitation, from poverty, from all the demeaning and silencing and killing.” Kendi continues by pointing out that these two notions of freedom have long rubbed along uneasily side by side, but that those demanding that states “open up” so they may shop, or visit zoos, are peeling back the tension between the two:
From the beginning of the American project, the powerful individual has been battling for his constitutional freedom to harm, and the vulnerable community has been battling for its constitutional freedom from harm. Both freedoms were inscribed into the U.S. Constitution, into the American psyche. The history of the United States, the history of Americans, is the history of reconciling the unreconcilable: individual freedom and community freedom. There is no way to reconcile the enduring psyche of the slaveholder with the enduring psyche of the enslaved.
[334 words]

[Time 4]
The very idea that it doesn’t matter what happens to the larger community, so long as the individual has unfettered freedom to do as he pleases, is not just a vestige of the slaveholder ethos. As Charlie Warzel points out this week, this has been the core animating theory behind the American gun rights movement: reduce the debate to an absolutist fight about freedom that eventually narcotizes an entire population into believing that the cost of true liberty is tens of thousands of avoidable gun deaths each year. Any effort to regulate anything within the vast space between “assault weapons for everyone on demand” and “reasonable gun safety” is cast as a dire step toward tyranny. As Warzel puts it, this leads to another version of freedom to, in this case, the freedom to either do mass harm or the freedom to insist that nothing be done about it:
This idea of freedom is also an excuse to serve one’s self before others and a shield to hide from responsibility. In the gun rights fight, that freedom manifests in firearms falling into unstable hands. During a pandemic, that freedom manifests in rejections of masks, despite evidence to suggest they protect both the wearers and the people around them. It manifests in a rejection of public health by those who don’t believe their actions affect others. In this narrow worldview, freedom has a price, in the form of an “acceptable” number of human lives lost. It’s a price that will be calculated and then set by a select few. The rest of us merely pay it.
We now find ourselves on the precipice of a moment in which Americans must decide whether the price they are willing to pay for the “freedom” of armed protesters, those determined to block hospitals, and pundits who want to visit the zoo, is their own health and safety. Polls show that the majority of Americans are still deeply devoted to the proposition that their government can protect them from a deadly virus, and that they trust their governors and scientists and data far more than they trust the Mission Accomplished Industrial Complex that would have them valuing free-floating ideas about liberty over the health and indeed lives of essential workers, the elderly, and their own well-being, despite the president’s recent insistence that this is what, all of us, as “warriors” must do. As Jamil Smith points out, this cultish view of “liberty” as demanding mass death in exchange for “liberty,” as in “freedom to” is an assembly-line, AstroTurf version of liberty pushed by those who are already very free. “Their true goal, plutocracy, is the diametrical opposite of freedom,” Smith writes. “It is a life lived to spite other lives, and often take advantage of them.”
[416 words]

[Time 5]
In the coming weeks, we will see some relatively small portion of Americans with great big megaphones and well-financed backers start to openly attack the selfsame health care workers who were celebrated as heroes just a few weeks ago. We will see attacks on people wearing masks and attacks on people lawfully asking others to wear masks. Some leaders will buckle under the pressure to rescind orders with claims that in choosing between liberty and death, they went with liberty. Others, like Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, will respond by insisting that the brandishing of guns inside the state Capitol is not, in fact, “liberty,” and that if it is liberty and justice, it is hardly liberty and justice for all, but rather for a small minority of people who seek to define freedom as something they will seize and threaten and even kill for. A good rule of thumb for COVID-based discussions about “opening up” is that if someone is demanding it while threatening to hurt or kill you, you are probably not as “free” as they are, and that their project does nothing to increase freedom in America and everything to hoard a twisted idea of freedom for themselves
When you hear someone demanding inchoate generalized “freedom,” ask whether he cares at all that millions of workers who clean the zoos and buff the nails and intubate the grandmas are not free. These people are cannon fodder for your liberty. The long-standing tension between individual liberty and the collective good is complicated, and as Kendi is quick to point out, the balance often tilts, trade-offs are made, federal and state governments shift clumsily along together, and the balance tilts again. Nobody denies that individual liberty is essential in a democracy, but in addition to parsing whether we as a collective do better in providing the “freedom from” while also offering some “freedom to,” it’s worth asking whether those making zero-sum claims about liberty are willing to sacrifice anything for freedom, or are just happily sacrificing you.
[337 words]
Source: News and politics
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/freedom-liberty-hierarchy.html




Little Richard’s Music Was Dangerous, but So Is Freedom
By TOM SCOCCA
MAY 09, 2020
[Time 6]
Good Golly
Little Richard is a button on the top of my bedroom-scale battery-powered guitar amplifier. Click and the soft trebly jangle of the strings becomes a roar of noise and possibility. He invented this, the electric guitar as we know it, without even touching an electric guitar. This truth came to me in a flash of insight one day as I listened to Little Richard’s voice overloading a microphone, blowing out the sound into a growling blast, then whooping up into clear piercing falsetto, the sheer power of his breath and tissue pushing the equipment somewhere no one built it to go. Much later, I would learn that this was a provable, canonical fact—that a former backing musician of his named Jimi Hendrix had explicitly announced, “I want to do with my guitar what Little Richard does with his voice.” It was all self-evident if you opened your ears, or let Little Richard open them.
Peepin’ and Hidin’
Little Richard’s music was “dangerous,” the subhead on the Times obituary declared. Probably I’ve called it something like that myself, at some point. Dangerous to whom, though? From the ’70s through the mid ’80s, I had a sense of the music existing as Oldies, maybe scrolling by on TV commercials for nostalgia collections, the goofy stuff old people listened to before new generations figured it all out. The audible horizon behind me ended at the Beatles. “[T]hose honkie Beatles who ruined rock ’n’ roll,” I read in Crackpot: The Obsessions of John Waters, in 1986, in my small town outside of Baltimore. I didn’t take him literally; the book was not quite a bible but an effective spiritual tract. On reinspection, the text did not mention Little Richard’s name directly, but my best guess is still that it would have been some other evangelization from Waters—our local and internationally renowned Pope of Trash—that sent me to the LP bins at the mall where my teenage hands landed on a copy of Little Richard: 22 Original Hits.
[338 words]

[Time 7]
Put the Jinx on Me
It was loud and it was blatant. The story of the original, raunchy lyrics of “Tutti Frutti” gets told over and over, as if adding or restoring the words “good booty” or “grease it” would prove something that wasn’t already there on the vinyl, as if the slippin’ and slidin’ and Bald-Headed Sally and the insinuating lisp at the start of “Send Me Some Lovin’” didn’t make it clear enough. The self-styled King and Queen of Rock and Roll was trying to be in a renunciatory phase by the ’80s, but so was all of America. The contemporary pop charts were extremely queer and extremely closeted, to a degree that’s probably impossible to convey to anyone who grew up on the 21st century—such a degree that even if you were personally oriented toward heterosexuality and cis identity, it was impossible to shake the sense that everything the popular culture was saying about meaning and desire was confounding bullshit, meant to conceal. The story rock and roll tells and retells about itself, in corny self-important tones, is about liberation and rebellion, but by the time I was out of middle school, that story was being told by Kenny Loggins or the retro-counter-appropriationist guitar freakout of a time-traveling Michael J. Fox. The youth culture had grown up to inflict Reaganism and hair metal on the people behind them. The most dangerous thing would have been not to have heard Little Richard.
[245 words]

[Time 8]
Built for Speed
Little Richard had already heard and lived the contradictions everyone was busily trying to ignore. He was joyously black under white tyranny, flamboyantly queer under straight tyranny, deeply God-troubled under the tyranny of secular commercial fame. It all came clattering and swaggering back out in fury and delight, in well under three minutes, if not two. It seemed self-evident, but nothing ever was (I dubbed the LP onto a cassette and tried popping it into the tape deck in a car full of other guys, and it got replaced with U2 in very short order). The Beatles covered “Long Tall Sally” and you can hear Paul McCartney trying his little heart out; before you pick on them for it, hear Sam Cooke turn his gorgeous, immortally soulful voice to “Send Me Some Lovin’” and not even try to hit the target Little Richard set up. Little Richard would return the favor to the Beatles by performing “I Saw Her Standing There,” delivering McCartney’s yells and whoops with a sort of kindly indulgence that made it clear his diaphragm and larynx were under no strain. Nobody else could be Little Richard, but if you listened to Little Richard—to the sound that came into being on his mythical lunch break, when he shook off the anxiety of the recording studio to bash out his booty song on the piano—you could hear what it sounded like if a person had the courage to be himself.
[244 words]

Source: Culture
https://slate.com/culture/2020/05/little-richards-music-was-dangerous-but-so-is-freedom.html


Part III: Obstacle




Famine Is a Choice
One billion people are now food-insecure. But starvation is not an inevitability.
By YAN SLOBODKIN
MAY 11, 2020
[Paraphrase 7]
The coronavirus pandemic has ricocheted around the world, forcing half of all human beings into lockdown and affecting nearly every aspect of life. Of the many brewing disasters to come from this extreme disruption is a potentially devastating threat: hunger. The pandemic has severely disrupted supply chains and logistics networks that move goods around the world. The unprecedented economic standstill has left millions throughout the world without the means to purchase subsistence. The executive director of the United Nations World Food Programme has warned that the pandemic could place another 130 million people at risk of food insecurity, meaning a billion people face food insecurity worldwide. There is the real possibility of famines of “biblical proportions” in the very near future.
These predictions from the U.N. may feel inevitable. But as a historian whose research focuses on famines in the 19th and 20th centuries, I have studied countless instances of avoidable starvation. What this history teaches us is that famine is rarely inevitable; it is a choice. That remains true today, even considering what we’re facing.
For a long time, thinking about famine was influenced by the theories of the English political economist Thomas Malthus. Writing in the late 18th century, Malthus argued that human tragedies like famine and disease were necessary facts of life resulting from unchangeable natural laws. Population, he believed, grew at a rate far greater than even the fastest possible increases in food production. Because of these different rates of growth, it was inevitable for excess population to be killed off by disease and starvation. Mass death was nature’s way of bringing resources and population into equilibrium. Resistance was futile, or as he put it: “To prevent the recurrence of misery, is, alas! beyond the power of man.”
The Malthusian view of famine was forcefully challenged nearly 40 years ago by the Indian economist Amartya Sen. The influential opening lines of his 1981 book Poverty and Famines laid out a new relationship between starvation and food supply: “Starvation is the characteristic of some people not having enough food to eat. It is not the characteristic of there being not enough food to eat.” Sen and his followers have shown that in most, if not all, of history’s most devastating famines, there were more than enough calories available to avoid starvation. The problem was getting those calories to the people who needed them.
If starvation happens despite there being enough food for everyone, why has famine so often been considered an inevitable natural disaster? Why do we keep letting them happen? My research suggests three categories of thought that are used as justifications for the persistence of famines.
The first is ecological. Certain areas of the world, this thinking goes, just happen to be prone to droughts, or floods, or vermin, or hurricanes, all of which ruin crops and cause food shortages. But historians and economists have demonstrated that environmental misfortunes should not necessarily lead to famine. Sen’s analysis of the Bengal famine of 1943, for example, shows that while British colonial officials blamed cyclones, floods, blight, and war for reducing the food supply, there was still more than enough food to avoid starvation. In this case, a misguided acceptance of environmental determinism led to millions of needless deaths.
Natural disasters always occur in a social context, even aside from being influenced by human actions like anthropogenic climate change. In fact, it may be said that the whole point of having a society is to manage our relationship with nature to our advantage. The massive locust swarms currently afflicting East Africa, for example, could be considered a misfortune that must be endured, or they could be seen as a problem humans have the capacity to solve. Rather than accepting natural disaster as an endpoint, a commitment to ensuring that people have control over the material resources needed for subsistence can overcome any crop deficit caused by the insects.
The second category of excuse is racial. This way of thinking was especially prevalent under European colonial rule, which ended only in the 1960s. The people who lived in famine-prone environments, the thinking went, just happened not to be evolved or civilized enough to deal with hardship in a rational way. Lack of foresight, laziness, and technological backwardness meant that they didn’t have the tools to overcome famine. While few today would be quite so explicit in their racism, certain strains of development and neoliberalism have inherited these victim-blaming tendencies, dressed up as values of personal responsibility or anti-corruption moralism. Needless to say, it is useless, not to mention offensive, to dabble in such views. The causes of famine should be sought not in condescending stereotypes of personal behavior but in a global economic system that is good at extracting resources but barely functional at getting people enough calories.
Finally, there is the idea that famines are an economic inevitability. This is an update on the Malthusian view that there is simply not enough food to go around. The free market has often been invoked as though it were itself an unchangeable fact of nature whose outcomes simply have to be accepted as the best possible ones. If people starve, this is in spite of the market’s rational distribution of resources, not because of it. But in fact, famines are a failure of markets to provide for people’s needs.
Naturalizing markets in this way is an abdication of both causal and moral responsibility for famines, a way to avoid reality and the ethical consequences for people in a position to change things. Markets are not given; they are predicated on a host of laws and social conventions that can, if the need arises, be changed. It makes no sense for American farmers to destroy produce they can’t sell while food banks are struggling to keep up with demand. This kind of thinking is a way for powerful people to outsource ethical choices to the market, but the market has no conscience.
These three categories of excuse—the ecological, the racial, and the economic—serve to mystify the basic but unpalatable fact that famine is a choice we make. Experts agree that there is currently no global food shortage. Nonetheless, the coronavirus pandemic has increased the likelihood of starvation for the world’s most vulnerable people. These are indeed difficult challenges, but ones that can be addressed.
The potential famines feared by the U.N. need not come to pass. We should not accept a Malthusian fatalism when we have the food and understanding to prevent tragedy. The economic and technical elements of starvation are complex, especially at a time of social distancing. Yet the limiting factors are not technical but political. Famine is above all a problem of will. Governments must decide that fulfilling the basic biological need for food is the No. 1 priority. It is not impossible to unite the world’s abundant food supplies with its hungriest people. This may involve making sacrifices—economic ones regarding the allocation of resources, ideological ones regarding deeply held principles relating to free markets and individual merit. But the alternative is to deny millions of people their most basic social and biological existence, to quite literally expose them to death. And the virus has caused enough death already.
[1205 words]

Source: News and Politics
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/famine-is-a-choice.html

本帖子中包含更多资源

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?立即注册

x
发表于 2020-5-15 01:07:31 | 显示全部楼层
OB:11’35[1205W]
发表于 2020-5-15 05:51:21 | 显示全部楼层
[Time 2] 7:24
Protesters challenged against the social distance rule and shut-down rule by demonstrating their power for nothing but their individual freedom.
[Time 3] 3:01
The author pointed out certain historical events in the U.S. about democracy and liberty.
[Time 4] 4:51
The price of freedom for the individual is too high to bear for the public.
[Time 5] 3:23
Freedom is not free.
[Time 6] 3:08
[Time 7] 2:04
[Time 8] 1:59
发表于 2020-5-15 08:31:53 | 显示全部楼层
T2: 3’24’’ [424 words]
T3: 2’36’’ [334 words]
T4: 3’58’’ [416 words]
T5: 2’22’’ [337 words]
Many American people are exerting their right empowered by individual rights. Protests in crowd, which could be lethal during the pandemic, and even killings took place.
The author points out that one’s way of exerting their rights should not put others’ in the place of being sacrificed. Example of slaveholders is used—they firmly believe they have to right to dispose slaves however they want, which undoubtedly encroach on slaves’ basic rights. Both harming and being from harm are indispensable parts of freedom
The author also reminds people that overly emphasizing on personal rights while ignoring the harm on others is actually selfish and irresponsible. They believe that they deserve freedom before they take the responsibility for the communities.
At the end, the author admit that personal freedom and community goods can be in conflict under many circumstances and the balance should be working on with deliberation.
发表于 2020-5-15 09:00:49 | 显示全部楼层

[Time 2] 3:20
[Time 3] 3:24
[Time 4] 3:35
[Time 5] 3:01
[Time 6] 2:25
[Time 7] 1:44
[Time 8] 1:41
发表于 2020-5-15 10:12:31 | 显示全部楼层
T2: 2'44
T3: 2'08
T4: 2'52
T5: 2'05
T6: 2'01
T7: 1'22
T8: 1'18
OBSTACLE: 7'19
发表于 2020-5-15 10:14:47 | 显示全部楼层
T2 3'56
T3 3'29
T4 5'57
T5 3'35
T6 5'11
T7 3'06
T8 2'50
P9 10'40 Famines are thought to be inevitable because of three categories of "excuses": ecological, racial, and economical. However, famines can be stopped.
发表于 2020-5-15 10:21:42 | 显示全部楼层
T2 [424 words] 3'08
T3 [334 words] 2'47
T4 [416 words] 3'12
T5 [337 words] 2'21
T6 [338 words] 1'59
OB [1205 words] 11'20
对于饥荒两个学者的不同看法——饥荒的原因(三个)——如何避免
There are different view when comes to famine. One scholar claimed that mass death is a way to bring resources to the others. However, Sen argued that starvation does not mean the lack of calories or food. The statics shows that there are enough food during famine. The problem is the collocation of the food.
The author brings up three reasons or excuses of the persistence of famine:
Firstly, the ecological excuse. The famine results from the improper way to control the resources. Secondly, the author talks about the racial reasons. Thirdly, the author claims that it is economic inevitable because the collocation of the resources was decided by human.

It turns out that famine is a choice we make, not a natural disaster. Therefore, we can make changes to turn the situation around.
发表于 2020-5-15 19:49:41 | 显示全部楼层
T2 3'56
T3 3'29
T4 5'56
T5 3'25
T6 5'01
T7 3'06
T8 2'40
发表于 2020-5-16 00:05:04 发自 iPad 设备 | 显示全部楼层
OB:9:11
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|Archiver|ChaseDream京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

GMT+8, 2020-5-31 08:50 , Processed in 0.170126 second(s), 6 queries , Memcache On.

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2020 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部