Jim Jones is from the United States. Jim was born in Pine Bluff , Arkansas. Jim is an alumni of Musicians Institute. Jim was born on November 23, 1967. Jim receives email at jim.jones54@gmail.com. Jim is an association football player. Jim has the unique identifier 5575dfb3f6804243bb923166bb481f64.<|endoftext|> have been used in various ways in VFX and games. But I'm sure they will be used in many ways that have not yet been imagined.

Levi Gilbert said...

Cool post! I've seen the fractal broccoli before, but not the cave nor the 3d generated fractal textures.

PBS did a little documentary about fractals titled "Hunting the Hidden Dimension". They mentioned several examples of fractals in everyday stuff. Cell phone antennas, snowflakes, trees, lightning, and seashells are all fractals.

hswearingen said...

I know this is not related to the post, but I went to your workshop at LAAFA recently and you mentioned a great quote from Norman Rockwell....about painting compared to throwing a ball against the wall, and coming back with less force. Would you be able to tell me where to find that quote? I'd like to share it with my students at CSUF.

Thank you for your incredible generosity in sharing your knowledge with us. Your books are my class textbooks.

James Gurney said...

Hala, the quote comes from his instructional piece for the Famous Artist Course, republished as "Rockwell on Rockwell": "Putting across a picture idea is something like bouncing a rubber ball against a wll. No matter how hard you hurl the ball, it returns to you with less speed than you threw it. It is like that in telling a story in a picture. You must feel love or hate or humor much more intensely than you can expect the people who see your pictures to receive the impression."

Kapil said...

My Link:<|endoftext|>Tuesday, 26 November 2013

Violence, Women, Mothers and a decent wage....

Two items crossed my desk today, as they do...

The first was that yesterday was UN International Elimination of Violence against Women Day. Which includes mothers.

The Guardian ran an article on the World Health Organisations data on this.

"A new report from the World Health Organisation has drawn together data from dozens of studies and found that worldwide, 35% of women have experienced violence - and that the consequences for their health can be devastating"

The health consequences of violence are always devastating. One follows the other, like night and day.

We do live in a hierarchically violent culture - the strong beat on the weak, in politics, in economics,religion and in many other ways, some so subtle that they are accepted as 'normal', and even justified by so called 'innocent' bystanders, who lose their innocence with that acceptance.

Ignorance is bliss. Ihe innocence of the conditioned mind.

There is no such thing. That often unwitting unknowingness is far from innocent, it is the bedrock upon which violent hierarchies thrive. And getting angry with that sector, the innocent 'ignorant' does not help them escape.... only empathy can do that.

Just as only empathy can drive through the changes required to fulfil the United Nations aim, which all decent people share, of course. How could we not?

Yes some men will scream out about 'violence against men' ... missing the point altogether, though there is violence against men - war, for want of  a better word, yet they keep going to those war movies, and they keep on enlisting and they keep on learning how to kill. And wanting to do the job they were trained for? Ouch! C'mon!

OK. I AM being facetious here, and the issue of violence against women is clouded for some men who feel that 'feminism' (a term so general that it can only be defined as it is used,it must be qualified to have any real sense,meaning or context) is anti-men.

It's not. Some feminists are anti-men, and probably so 'cos they are angry, they are hurting somewhere deeply, and they feel things so intensely because some things are if we face them honestly extremely painful, and actually that's ok, it's nothing to be frightened by, it's healthy to feel that pain to some degree, it's an expression of a valid feeling - just don't give them guns! The boys or the girls..

Jokes aside, the thrust of a given concept is not defined by an individuals actions, other than in relation to that specific individual.

Women are exposed to a lot of hostility just because they are women, and that's plain nuts. It really is. And it's dangerous... and so something needs to change, and it's different things in different places, because the hostility towards women takes many forms, some of them cultural.

The next thing that came across my desk is part of the resolution of violence against women, and will lead to a a massive reduction in hostility towards women, and in the long term hostility in general, benefiting society massively.

It's the petition by the Global Women's Strike to the UK Government for a living wage for mothers and carers. The background document to this petition is well prepared, detailed and easy to digest. And it's accurate.

The petition was published on the 1st of May 2013. it has only clocked up 557 names since then! What? Only 557 names? In 6 months?

"Houston, we have a problem here..!"

You see what I mean about the hostility towards women? towards Mothers! Think the Unions have a hard time bargaining for better wages? Nothing on what the Mothers are faced with!

I recommend reading the background paper and then consider signing the petition, or not, as the case may be. The read is a good read. If if one does not at first support the proposition. You WILL learn something.

Kindest regards

Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe

Tuesday, 19 November 2013

George Monbiot, Pope Francis the 'reformer' and Junipero Serra

George Monbiot, in an article in the Guardian, explores the myth of Pope Francis, the Liberal, the Reformer.

I quote from his article. It's worth reading.

Francis is the poster pope for progressives. But the canonisation of Junípero Serra epitomises the Catholic history problem

"Nowhere is the church's denial better exemplified than in its drive to canonise the Franciscan missionary Junípero Serra, whose 300th anniversary falls on Sunday. Serra's cult epitomises the Catholic problem with history – as well as the lies that underpin the founding myths of the United States.

You can find his statue on Capitol Hill, his face on postage stamps, and his name plastered across schools and streets and trails all over California. He was beatified by Pope John Paul II, after a nun was apparently cured of lupus, and now awaits a second miracle to become a saint. So what's the problem? Oh, just that he founded the system of labour camps that expedited California's cultural genocide.

Serra personified the glitter-eyed fanaticism that blinded Catholic missionaries to the horrors they inflicted on the native peoples of the Americas. Working first in Mexico, then in Baja California (which is now part of Mexico), and then Alta California (now the US state of California), he presided over a system of astonishing brutality. Through various bribes and ruses Native Americans were enticed to join the missions he founded. Once they had joined, they were forbidden to leave. If they tried to escape, they were rounded up by soldiers then whipped by the missionaries. Any disobedience was punished by the stocks or the lash.

They were, according to a written complaint, forced to work in the fields from sunrise until after dark, and fed just a fraction of what was required to sustain them. Weakened by overwork and hunger, packed together with little more space than slave ships provided, they died, mostly of European diseases, in their tens of thousands.

Serra's missions were an essential instrument of Spanish and then American colonisation. This is why so many Californian cities have saints' names: they were founded as missions. But in his treatment of the indigenous people, he went beyond even the grim demands of the crown. Felipe de Neve, a governor of the Californias, expressed his horror at Serra's methods, complaining that the fate of the missionised people was "worse than that of slaves".

As Steven Hackel documents in his new biography, Serra sabotaged Neve's attempts to permit Native Americans a measure of self-governance, which threatened Serra's dominion over their lives.

The diverse, sophisticated and self-reliant people of California were reduced by the missions to desperate peonage. Between 1769, when Serra arrived in Alta California, and 1821 – when Spanish rule ended – its Native American population fell by one third, to 200,000.

Serra's claim to sainthood can be sustained only by erasing the native peoples of California a second time, and there is a noisy lobby with this purpose. Serra's hagiographies explain how he mortified his own flesh; they tell us nothing about how he mortified the flesh of other people

 have been used in various ways in VFX and games. But I'm sure they will be used in many ways that have not yet been imagined.

Levi Gilbert said...

Cool post! I've seen the fractal broccoli before, but not the cave nor the 3d generated fractal textures.

PBS did a little documentary about fractals titled "Hunting the Hidden Dimension". They mentioned several examples of fractals in everyday stuff. Cell phone antennas, snowflakes, trees, lightning, and seashells are all fractals.

hswearingen said...

I know this is not related to the post, but I went to your workshop at LAAFA recently and you mentioned a great quote from Norman Rockwell....about painting compared to throwing a ball against the wall, and coming back with less force. Would you be able to tell me where to find that quote? I'd like to share it with my students at CSUF.

Thank you for your incredible generosity in sharing your knowledge with us. Your books are my class textbooks.

James Gurney said...

Hala, the quote comes from his instructional piece for the Famous Artist Course, republished as "Rockwell on Rockwell": "Putting across a picture idea is something like bouncing a rubber ball against a wll. No matter how hard you hurl the ball, it returns to you with less speed than you threw it. It is like that in telling a story in a picture. You must feel love or hate or humor much more intensely than you can expect the people who see your pictures to receive the impression."

Kapil said...

My Link:<|endoftext|>Tuesday, 26 November 2013

Violence, Women, Mothers and a decent wage....

Two items crossed my desk today, as they do...

The first was that yesterday was UN International Elimination of Violence against Women Day. Which includes mothers.

The Guardian ran an article on the World Health Organisations data on this.

"A new report from the World Health Organisation has drawn together data from dozens of studies and found that worldwide, 35% of women have experienced violence - and that the consequences for their health can be devastating"

The health consequences of violence are always devastating. One follows the other, like night and day.

We do live in a hierarchically violent culture - the strong beat on the weak, in politics, in economics,religion and in many other ways, some so subtle that they are accepted as 'normal', and even justified by so called 'innocent' bystanders, who lose their innocence with that acceptance.

Ignorance is bliss. Ihe innocence of the conditioned mind.

There is no such thing. That often unwitting unknowingness is far from innocent, it is the bedrock upon which violent hierarchies thrive. And getting angry with that sector, the innocent 'ignorant' does not help them escape.... only empathy can do that.

Just as only empathy can drive through the changes required to fulfil the United Nations aim, which all decent people share, of course. How could we not?

Yes some men will scream out about 'violence against men' ... missing the point altogether, though there is violence against men - war, for want of  a better word, yet they keep going to those war movies, and they keep on enlisting and they keep on learning how to kill. And wanting to do the job they were trained for? Ouch! C'mon!

OK. I AM being facetious here, and the issue of violence against women is clouded for some men who feel that 'feminism' (a term so general that it can only be defined as it is used,it must be qualified to have any real sense,meaning or context) is anti-men.

It's not. Some feminists are anti-men, and probably so 'cos they are angry, they are hurting somewhere deeply, and they feel things so intensely because some things are if we face them honestly extremely painful, and actually that's ok, it's nothing to be frightened by, it's healthy to feel that pain to some degree, it's an expression of a valid feeling - just don't give them guns! The boys or the girls..

Jokes aside, the thrust of a given concept is not defined by an individuals actions, other than in relation to that specific individual.

Women are exposed to a lot of hostility just because they are women, and that's plain nuts. It really is. And it's dangerous... and so something needs to change, and it's different things in different places, because the hostility towards women takes many forms, some of them cultural.

The next thing that came across my desk is part of the resolution of violence against women, and will lead to a a massive reduction in hostility towards women, and in the long term hostility in general, benefiting society massively.

It's the petition by the Global Women's Strike to the UK Government for a living wage for mothers and carers. The background document to this petition is well prepared, detailed and easy to digest. And it's accurate.

The petition was published on the 1st of May 2013. it has only clocked up 557 names since then! What? Only 557 names? In 6 months?

"Houston, we have a problem here..!"

You see what I mean about the hostility towards women? towards Mothers! Think the Unions have a hard time bargaining for better wages? Nothing on what the Mothers are faced with!

I recommend reading the background paper and then consider signing the petition, or not, as the case may be. The read is a good read. If if one does not at first support the proposition. You WILL learn something.

Kindest regards

Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe

Tuesday, 19 November 2013

George Monbiot, Pope Francis the 'reformer' and Junipero Serra

George Monbiot, in an article in the Guardian, explores the myth of Pope Francis, the Liberal, the Reformer.

I quote from his article. It's worth reading.

Francis is the poster pope for progressives. But the canonisation of Junípero Serra epitomises the Catholic history problem

"Nowhere is the church's denial better exemplified than in its drive to canonise the Franciscan missionary Junípero Serra, whose 300th anniversary falls on Sunday. Serra's cult epitomises the Catholic problem with history – as well as the lies that underpin the founding myths of the United States.

You can find his statue on Capitol Hill, his face on postage stamps, and his name plastered across schools and streets and trails all over California. He was beatified by Pope John Paul II, after a nun was apparently cured of lupus, and now awaits a second miracle to become a saint. So what's the problem? Oh, just that he founded the system of labour camps that expedited California's cultural genocide.

Serra personified the glitter-eyed fanaticism that blinded Catholic missionaries to the horrors they inflicted on the native peoples of the Americas. Working first in Mexico, then in Baja California (which is now part of Mexico), and then Alta California (now the US state of California), he presided over a system of astonishing brutality. Through various bribes and ruses Native Americans were enticed to join the missions he founded. Once they had joined, they were forbidden to leave. If they tried to escape, they were rounded up by soldiers then whipped by the missionaries. Any disobedience was punished by the stocks or the lash.

They were, according to a written complaint, forced to work in the fields from sunrise until after dark, and fed just a fraction of what was required to sustain them. Weakened by overwork and hunger, packed together with little more space than slave ships provided, they died, mostly of European diseases, in their tens of thousands.

Serra's missions were an essential instrument of Spanish and then American colonisation. This is why so many Californian cities have saints' names: they were founded as missions. But in his treatment of the indigenous people, he went beyond even the grim demands of the crown. Felipe de Neve, a governor of the Californias, expressed his horror at Serra's methods, complaining that the fate of the missionised people was "worse than that of slaves".

As Steven Hackel documents in his new biography, Serra sabotaged Neve's attempts to permit Native Americans a measure of self-governance, which threatened Serra's dominion over their lives.

The diverse, sophisticated and self-reliant people of California were reduced by the missions to desperate peonage. Between 1769, when Serra arrived in Alta California, and 1821 – when Spanish rule ended – its Native American population fell by one third, to 200,000.

Serra's claim to sainthood can be sustained only by erasing the native peoples of California a second time, and there is a noisy lobby with this purpose. Serra's hagiographies explain how he mortified his own flesh; they tell us nothing about how he mortified the flesh of other people."

How will Pope Francis deal with this matter? The prognosis is not good.

Why? Well here's a little Irish and Australian History and current affairs for my readers and other interested parties.

When the English King Henry II invaded Ireland, in 1169, he did so with the approval and 'Authority' of the then Pope, Pope Adrian IV.

The authorising


Tuure Samulin is from Finland. Tuure was born in Helsinki. Tuure is an alumni of Uppsala University. Tuure was born on October 20, 1976. Tuure receives email at tuuresamulin49@gmail.com. Tuure is a biographer. Tuure has the unique identifier a4387ab36b5b4648b4730451ac183358.<|endoftext|> advance things that are not in the public domain. The Iranians know what they'll do to the sailors tomorrow, but most of us don't.

Suppose they are each given $1 mil in gold and sent home first class tomorrow after seeing the Iran nuclear sites destroyed tonight. One suspects the market might react and counting will have proven utterly useless. Suppose, on the other hand, the Iranian Navy, having proven that it is superior to the Royal Navy, decides to blockade all oil exports from the Gulf. Hmmmm…

A lot of players get nervous when they play and like to defuse the tension by talking. I tend to sit at the board just to avoid this; it's very distracting.

This reminds me of a story about a somewhat insecure Romanian GM I'll just call George. He used to get up all the time and ask colleagues what they thought about his position.

What do you do if you're asked? One colleague wondered: "You're completely lost! Haven't you seen the latest Informator?" I'm not sure whether or not he actually used this on George.

Trading also needs focus, but in my experience it's not quite as intense as a chess game. There is lots of watching and waiting. Even so, I don't like to talk, but I found that email isn't a problem.

Some thoughts that come quickly to mind:

J T Holley adds:

Count this: expectation of (logic=and):

1. weekends which include first of new month
2. down last of month of up month prior, which followed largest 1-day drop in years
3. likely weekend UK/US defrocking of Ayatollah
4. FOMC not inclined to tighten with new chief either buying or selling puts

(hint: N=0)

 Roughly four years ago, Victor and Laurel wrote about a birthday party dinner they attended, where they had the pleasure of sitting with a market neutral fundist who had earned the nickname "Mr. Axe." The Specs bestowed the name on him because the performance of his market neutral fund's performance at that time was summarized as "axe murder."

Small world we live in! Mr. Axe happened to be, and still is, my greatest trading mentor and advisor.

Despite speaking with Mr. Axe over 10 times a day, every day, for the last seven market years of my life, he has used the phrase "we are going to zero" only 15 times. The market has not ever failed to mount a meaningful rally immediately following such musical words. He made the statement at 11:46am today.

I would be a great Fed Chair. I would just leave the money supply alone and never touch it. Now, some say that deflation is a bad thing. Why should it be? Wouldn't you like the prices of the goods and services you buy to go down?

The argument is made, though, that wages are sticky, and wages won't move down, so the net result is economic slowdown because wages are too high. Fine. If the economy is forecast to grow 4% this year, increase the money supply 4%.

 Stuttgart Chamber OrchestraI heard one of the greatest living musicians, Leon Fleisher, conducting and performing tonight with the Stuttgart Chamber Orchestra at the Metropolitan Art Museum. Like my own piano teacher, Aube Tzerko, Fleisher studied with Artur Schnabel in Berlin until they all fled the Nazis. Schnabel was one of the giants of 20th century piano: passionate, humble, humorous, serious, refined, wild, without pretense, never dull. Many of his recordings are now available in a collection, "Maestro Espressivo." Tzerko died in the 1990s and my last lesson with him was 30 years ago and I did not become a pianist by profession, but his spirit is with me. I think of him every day.

Leon could not perform for 30 years after injuring his right hand through over-zealous practice. He began conducting, and his life took a new turn. The only thing more glorious than making music on a piano is having a whole orchestra do it for you; most concert pianists never make it to the podium. (Ashkenazy was an exception. Paderewski got to run a country — better still!) "Suddenly, I realized that the most important thing in my life wasn't playing with my two hands: it was music," Leon wrote in the notes to tonight's concert. "The instrumentation becomes unimportant, and it's the substance and the content that takes over."

Substance, not form, guided tonight's choice of pieces. The program was not one of the grab-bag "surprise" models, invented in the 19th century for enthusiastic but unsophisticated new concertgoers. The typical pastiche consists of three pieces from three different periods: a "warm-up act" of a little harmless something followed by a concerto, intermission, then a big romantic or modern piece. The concertgoer is thereby forced to listen to what he does often not wish to hear, in an earnest, heavy-handed attempt to educate him. Leon's program, by contrast, was sweetly rational:

Boccherini: Symphony Opus 12 No. 4, "The House of the Devil"

Mozart: Piano Concerto in A, K 414

Mendelssohn, String Symphony No. 10 in B Minor

Hayden "Farewell" Symphony

I had never heard any one of these pieces performed live although I have been attending concerts in America's two biggest cities for decades. What a pleasure to hear good music and share Hayden's little joke. I won't spoil it for you, as you may be lucky enough to hear it performed live some day.

Leon has regained the use of his right hand after 30 years through a new medical treatment, and performed the piano concerto. Hearing him play is like breathing fresh sea air - I will not be a critic. He is on tour with the amazing young musicians of the Stuttgart; if they come to your town, do not on any account miss them.

I have received many ironic comments about my speculations that a quantification of the point and figure approach might be particularly applicable to the Dow Jones. My speculation was prompted by the inordinate tendency of the Dow to bounce around the round numbers during the day. For example, during the last two days the Dow has broken above and below 12,300 by at last five points, 12 times on a intra day basis. I felt that there must be many who look inordinately for such reversals, and that they wouldn't come when the masses expected them. Indeed, it seemed guaranteed that there was a higher form of deception here, akin to what birds, fish, and mammals do all the time.

To get a feel for it, I decided to do a hand study of the Dow from the beginning of the year when the Dow conveniently started on 12 28 06 at 12,501. I decided to count only moves that went through a new round number of 50 or 100 using closing prices.

To quantify it, I decided to go back to my roots. One day, some 45-years ago in Lamont Library I was looking at some old journals, which in those days were bound conveniently for perusal on the second floor. I came across the Monthly Meteorological Review and saw an intriguing article by Jones on calculation of runs. It turned out he worked for Alfred Cowles at the Cowles Foundation. And Cowles divided the price moves into sequences and reversals.

A sequence is a plus followed by a plus or a minus followed by a minus. A reversal is a plus followed by a minus or a minus followed by a plus. I must remark here that Cowles insights into stock price movements circa the 1910s and 1920s seem much superior to any I have come across in the many years since, among academics, except for those of my esteemed friend MFM Osborne.

I decided not only to take into account the sequences and reversals but to quantify them by length. In particularl I have always felt that a series of prices ++++- was quit different in its predictivity than +-+-+-.

Here are some closing prices of the Dow from 1228
         Date  Closing       Pos     Pos         Neg      Neg
                price        seq     rev          seq     rev
        12  28   12501
        12  29   12463
        01  03   12474
        01  04   12480
        01  05   12398                             1
        01  08   12423
        01  09   12416
        01  11   12514         1
        01  12   12582         2
        01  22   12477

 advance things that are not in the public domain. The Iranians know what they'll do to the sailors tomorrow, but most of us don't.

Suppose they are each given $1 mil in gold and sent home first class tomorrow after seeing the Iran nuclear sites destroyed tonight. One suspects the market might react and counting will have proven utterly useless. Suppose, on the other hand, the Iranian Navy, having proven that it is superior to the Royal Navy, decides to blockade all oil exports from the Gulf. Hmmmm…

A lot of players get nervous when they play and like to defuse the tension by talking. I tend to sit at the board just to avoid this; it's very distracting.

This reminds me of a story about a somewhat insecure Romanian GM I'll just call George. He used to get up all the time and ask colleagues what they thought about his position.

What do you do if you're asked? One colleague wondered: "You're completely lost! Haven't you seen the latest Informator?" I'm not sure whether or not he actually used this on George.

Trading also needs focus, but in my experience it's not quite as intense as a chess game. There is lots of watching and waiting. Even so, I don't like to talk, but I found that email isn't a problem.

Some thoughts that come quickly to mind:

J T Holley adds:

Count this: expectation of (logic=and):

1. weekends which include first of new month
2. down last of month of up month prior, which followed largest 1-day drop in years
3. likely weekend UK/US defrocking of Ayatollah
4. FOMC not inclined to tighten with new chief either buying or selling puts

(hint: N=0)

 Roughly four years ago, Victor and Laurel wrote about a birthday party dinner they attended, where they had the pleasure of sitting with a market neutral fundist who had earned the nickname "Mr. Axe." The Specs bestowed the name on him because the performance of his market neutral fund's performance at that time was summarized as "axe murder."

Small world we live in! Mr. Axe happened to be, and still is, my greatest trading mentor and advisor.

Despite speaking with Mr. Axe over 10 times a day, every day, for the last seven market years of my life, he has used the phrase "we are going to zero" only 15 times. The market has not ever failed to mount a meaningful rally immediately following such musical words. He made the statement at 11:46am today.

I would be a great Fed Chair. I would just leave the money supply alone and never touch it. Now, some say that deflation is a bad thing. Why should it be? Wouldn't you like the prices of the goods and services you buy to go down?

The argument is made, though, that wages are sticky, and wages won't move down, so the net result is economic slowdown because wages are too high. Fine. If the economy is forecast to grow 4% this year, increase the money supply 4%.

 Stuttgart Chamber OrchestraI heard one of the greatest living musicians, Leon Fleisher, conducting and performing tonight with the Stuttgart Chamber Orchestra at the Metropolitan Art Museum. Like my own piano teacher, Aube Tzerko, Fleisher studied with Artur Schnabel in Berlin until they all fled the Nazis. Schnabel was one of the giants of 20th century piano: passionate, humble, humorous, serious, refined, wild, without pretense, never dull. Many of his recordings are now available in a collection, "Maestro Espressivo." Tzerko died in the 1990s and my last lesson with him was 30 years ago and I did not become a pianist by profession, but his spirit is with me. I think of him every day.

Leon could not perform for 30 years after injuring his right hand through over-zealous practice. He began conducting, and his life took a new turn. The only thing more glorious than making music on a piano is having a whole orchestra do it for you; most concert pianists never make it to the podium. (Ashkenazy was an exception. Paderewski got to run a country — better still!) "Suddenly, I realized that the most important thing in my life wasn't playing with my two hands: it was music," Leon wrote in the notes to tonight's concert. "The instrumentation becomes unimportant, and it's the substance and the content that takes over."

Substance, not form, guided tonight's choice of pieces. The program was not one of the grab-bag "surprise" models, invented in the 19th century for enthusiastic but unsophisticated new concertgoers. The typical pastiche consists of three pieces from three different periods: a "warm-up act" of a little harmless something followed by a concerto, intermission, then a big romantic or modern piece. The concertgoer is thereby forced to listen to what he does often not wish to hear, in an earnest, heavy-handed attempt to educate him. Leon's program, by contrast, was sweetly rational:

Boccherini: Symphony Opus 12 No. 4, "The House of the Devil"

Mozart: Piano Concerto in A, K 414

Mendelssohn, String Symphony No. 10 in B Minor

Hayden "Farewell" Symphony

I had never heard any one of these pieces performed live although I have been attending concerts in America's two biggest cities for decades. What a pleasure to hear good music and share Hayden's little joke. I won't spoil it for you, as you may be lucky enough to hear it performed live some day.

Leon has regained the use of his right hand after 30 years through a new medical treatment, and performed the piano concerto. Hearing him play is like breathing fresh sea air - I will not be a critic. He is on tour with the amazing young musicians of the Stuttgart; if they come to your town, do not on any account miss them.

I have received many ironic comments about my speculations that a quantification of the point and figure approach might be particularly applicable to the Dow Jones. My speculation was prompted by the inordinate tendency of the Dow to bounce around the round numbers during the day. For example, during the last two days the Dow has broken above and below 12,300 by at last five points, 12 times on a intra day basis. I felt that there must be many who look inordinately for such reversals, and that they wouldn't come when the masses expected them. Indeed, it seemed guaranteed that there was a higher form of deception here, akin to what birds, fish, and mammals do all the time.

To get a feel for it, I decided to do a hand study of the Dow from the beginning of the year when the Dow conveniently started on 12 28 06 at 12,501. I decided to count only moves that went through a new round number of 50 or 100 using closing prices.

To quantify it, I decided to go back to my roots. One day, some 45-years ago in Lamont Library I was looking at some old journals, which in those days were bound conveniently for perusal on the second floor. I came across the Monthly Meteorological Review and saw an intriguing article by Jones on calculation of runs. It turned out he worked for Alfred Cowles at the Cowles Foundation. And Cowles divided the price moves into sequences and reversals.

A sequence is a plus followed by a plus or a minus followed by a minus. A reversal is a plus followed by a minus or a minus followed by a plus. I must remark here that Cowles insights into stock price movements circa the 1910s and 1920s seem much superior to any I have come across in the many years since, among academics, except for those of my esteemed friend MFM Osborne.

I decided not only to take into account the sequences and reversals but to quantify them by length. In particularl I have always felt that a series of prices ++++- was quit different in its predictivity than +-+-+-.

Here are some closing prices of the Dow from 1228
         Date  Closing       Pos     Pos         Neg      Neg
                price        seq     rev          seq     rev
        12  28   12501
        12  29   12463
        01  03   12474
        01  04   12480
        01  05   12398                             1
        01  08   12423
        01  09   12416
        01  11   12514         1
        01  12   12582         2
        01  22   12477                                        1
        01  24   12621         1
        01  25   12502                                           1
        01  26   12487


 simulator because they are also tasked to deliver high value and precious cargo considering that real-life truck drivers do this on a regular basis where they have to cover long distances across the country. Although there is no proper way to play the simulator game, just like any other role-playing games (RPG) out there, you can do it your own way as long as you minimize committing errors.

Another amazing benefits that truck simulators can give to its avid fans is it is used as part of the therapy for people suffering from Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Although it sounds very counterintuitive, video games have become one of the focuses of experts who are seeking the ultimate treatment of ADHD and they consider playing simulator games like truck simulators as a natural therapy and an alternative treatment for people suffering from this dreaded condition.

To further convince you that there are truly some benefits that a truck simulator video game can give to someone, here is some proof to it from a trusted source in Euro Truck Simulator 2 kostenlos.

  • GOOD GRAPHICS- When you start to virtually drive the freeway, you will appreciate the touches of its graphics that are hyper-realistic. Thanks to the technology today that are used in developing real-life graphics to video games, truck simulators are now more enjoyable because of its graphics.
  • IN-DEPTH DETAILS AND GAMEPLAY- When it comes to its detail, the developers of truck simulators never make it less by adding a lot of realistic and detailed look to it. Its gameplay is very precise to achieve that real-life driving situation.<|endoftext|>Manuel Dubois is from Argentina. Manuel was born in Buenos Aires. Manuel is an alumni of National University of La Plata. Manuel was born on May 13, 1994. Manuel receives email at manueld@gmail.com. Manuel is a politician. Manuel has the unique identifier 4adf644fe81b40bf91cdeacbf869de20.<|endoftext|>» » »

Chrysler Q&A

Ask Your Question

2005 Chrysler Pacifica Question: Why isn't my car starting?

Christian7733, 3.8L V6, Brockton, MA, March 09, 2013, 23:27

My 2005 pacifica out of the blue just didn't want to start
I put the key in the ignition and it turns all the way to start but it doesn't come on
The dash lights up and everything but t won't come one
Then when I take the key out it stay on in the on position and uses the battery
I was thinking it was the ignition switch but I was wondering if anybody else or someone who has experience on Chrysler knows what it is.

0 Answers
Flag This<|endoftext|>Take the 2-minute tour ×

I need to get Mathematica to evaluate the logarithm of a negative real number using the lower branch instead of the upper branch, so that while

In[1]:=   Log[3.2]
Out[1]:=  1.16315

I need

In[2]:=   Log[-3.2]
Out[2]:=  1.16315 - 3.14159 I

and not

Out[2]:=  1.16315 + 3.14159 I

I have already defined my own function loopLog that does this:

loopLog[x_: NumericQ] = If[Element[x,Reals], Conjugate[Log[x]]];

But I am not able to get it to perform any of the usual simplifications or manipulations using this function. For example, when I want to differentiate loopLog, I get

In[3]:=   D[loopLog[x],x]
Out[3]:=  If[x \[Element] Reals, Derivative[1][Conjugate][Log[x]]/x]

Instead of the much needed 1/x. What is the cleanest way to define such a logarithm function in Mathematica?

share|improve this question
x_: NumericQ this is a pattern that matches anything, but defaults to the symbol NumericQ if no argument is given. You surely meant x_?NumericQ –  Rojo Dec 26 '12 at 9:46
Would be nice with some $BranchCut global variable that affects ArcTan and the rest as well, even nicer if it could be set to an arbitrary curve. –  ssch Dec 26 '12 at 13:14
@Rojo Yes, bad programing on my part. It should have been x_?NumericQ –  QuantumDot Dec 26 '12 at 17:14
@ssch: Well, inspired by whuber's answer, here's a Log with a branch cut along any curve of the form $z = re^{i\theta(r)}$: branchLog[z_, \[Theta]_] := With[{r = Abs[z]}, Log[z/Exp[I \[Theta][r]]] + I \[Theta][r]]. Then for ArcTan you can do ExpToTrig[TrigToExp@ArcTan[z] /. Log[z_] -> branchLog[z, \[Theta]]]... –  Rahul Narain Dec 27 '12 at 5:30
Sorry, the branch is actually along $z=-re^{i\theta(r)}$. –  Rahul Narain Dec 27 '12 at 11:06

2 Answers 2

up vote 9 down vote accepted

The question asks for a "cleanest way." Arguably, any solution that reduces the calculation to various cases is not very clean, and is probably inefficient too. These considerations suggest a simple, direct approach:

log0[x_] := -Log[1/x]

Checking a few cases (or a plot) easily confirms that log0 does what is intended with negative real numbers; e.g.,

1.16315 - 3.14159 I

Moreover, it does not change the behavior for any other complex numbers, as a contour plot of its imaginary part demonstrates:

ContourPlot[Chop[Im[Log[x + I y]] -  Im[log0[x + I y]]], {x, -2, 2}, {y, -2, 2},
  PlotPoints -> 100]

Contour plot

Operators therefore produce the expected results:

D[log0[x], x]

Integrate[x log0[x], {x, -1, 1}]

$\frac{i \pi }{2}$

share|improve this answer

I never did this before (i.e. modify system function), but I just tried it, and it seems to work. But I just wanted to first say, that Log[z] as it works in Mathematica is the correct way. i.e. Log[z]=Log[Abs[z]]+k where k=0 when z>0 and k=I*Pi when z<0 so what you are asking to do is not the correct math way. But this is what I tried to change the definition

(*1.1631508098056809 + 3.141592653589793*I*)

Log[x_?(Element[#, Reals] && # < 0 &)] := Log[Abs[x]] - I*Pi
(*  1.1631508098056809 - 3.141592653589793*I  *)

(*  1.1631508098056809  *)

btw, the reason your D[loopLog[x],x] command did not work, is because you defined your function to accept only numerical x, but you are now taking derivative w.r.t x ? I do not think this will work.

share|improve this answer
"What you are asking to do is not the correct math way." They're just taking a slightly different branch cut from the usual one; it's hardly incorrect. There can be more than one right way in mathematics! :) –  Rahul Narain Dec 26 '12 at 11:46
_?(Element[#, Reals] && # < 0 &) can simply be written as _?Negative :) –  rm -rf Dec 26 '12 at 17:33
@NasserM.Abbasi Negative and Positive were introduced in version 1, when such conventions were probably not codified. At this point, it is probably left that way for backwards compatibility. –  rm -rf Dec 26 '12 at 20:34

Your Answer

<|endoftext|>Get up to4 free estimates
for ANY type of Contractor near you
  • No Obligations
  • Stop Paying Too Much For Your Contractor
  • No Spam Calling
  • Screened & ID Checked Contractors only!

5 Easy Ways to Cut Glass Without a Glass Cutter

5 Easy Ways to Cut Glass Without a Glass Cutter 5 Easy Ways to Cut Glass Without a Glass Cutter

A glass cutter is a handy tool you can acquire for as little as $5 on Amazon, but what can you do if you need to cut a mirror or piece of window glass or do a craft project when you don’t have one on hand? Or you don’t want to spend the money on something you may never need again? Whether you are thrifty, can’t get out, or don’t want to wait a couple of days to get the right tool online, there are several tools you may already

 loaded with a container down to parking it the right way.

This is very perfect for aspiring truck drivers who want to hone their driving skills via a truck simulator because they are also tasked to deliver high value and precious cargo considering that real-life truck drivers do this on a regular basis where they have to cover long distances across the country. Although there is no proper way to play the simulator game, just like any other role-playing games (RPG) out there, you can do it your own way as long as you minimize committing errors.

Another amazing benefits that truck simulators can give to its avid fans is it is used as part of the therapy for people suffering from Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Although it sounds very counterintuitive, video games have become one of the focuses of experts who are seeking the ultimate treatment of ADHD and they consider playing simulator games like truck simulators as a natural therapy and an alternative treatment for people suffering from this dreaded condition.

To further convince you that there are truly some benefits that a truck simulator video game can give to someone, here is some proof to it from a trusted source in Euro Truck Simulator 2 kostenlos.

  • GOOD GRAPHICS- When you start to virtually drive the freeway, you will appreciate the touches of its graphics that are hyper-realistic. Thanks to the technology today that are used in developing real-life graphics to video games, truck simulators are now more enjoyable because of its graphics.
  • IN-DEPTH DETAILS AND GAMEPLAY- When it comes to its detail, the developers of truck simulators never make it less by adding a lot of realistic and detailed look to it. Its gameplay is very precise to achieve that real-life driving situation.<|endoftext|>» » »

Chrysler Q&A

Ask Your Question

2005 Chrysler Pacifica Question: Why isn't my car starting?

Christian7733, 3.8L V6, Brockton, MA, March 09, 2013, 23:27

My 2005 pacifica out of the blue just didn't want to start
I put the key in the ignition and it turns all the way to start but it doesn't come on
The dash lights up and everything but t won't come one
Then when I take the key out it stay on in the on position and uses the battery
I was thinking it was the ignition switch but I was wondering if anybody else or someone who has experience on Chrysler knows what it is.

0 Answers
Flag This<|endoftext|>Take the 2-minute tour ×

I need to get Mathematica to evaluate the logarithm of a negative real number using the lower branch instead of the upper branch, so that while

In[1]:=   Log[3.2]
Out[1]:=  1.16315

I need

In[2]:=   Log[-3.2]
Out[2]:=  1.16315 - 3.14159 I

and not

Out[2]:=  1.16315 + 3.14159 I

I have already defined my own function loopLog that does this:

loopLog[x_: NumericQ] = If[Element[x,Reals], Conjugate[Log[x]]];

But I am not able to get it to perform any of the usual simplifications or manipulations using this function. For example, when I want to differentiate loopLog, I get

In[3]:=   D[loopLog[x],x]
Out[3]:=  If[x \[Element] Reals, Derivative[1][Conjugate][Log[x]]/x]

Instead of the much needed 1/x. What is the cleanest way to define such a logarithm function in Mathematica?

share|improve this question
x_: NumericQ this is a pattern that matches anything, but defaults to the symbol NumericQ if no argument is given. You surely meant x_?NumericQ –  Rojo Dec 26 '12 at 9:46
Would be nice with some $BranchCut global variable that affects ArcTan and the rest as well, even nicer if it could be set to an arbitrary curve. –  ssch Dec 26 '12 at 13:14
@Rojo Yes, bad programing on my part. It should have been x_?NumericQ –  QuantumDot Dec 26 '12 at 17:14
@ssch: Well, inspired by whuber's answer, here's a Log with a branch cut along any curve of the form $z = re^{i\theta(r)}$: branchLog[z_, \[Theta]_] := With[{r = Abs[z]}, Log[z/Exp[I \[Theta][r]]] + I \[Theta][r]]. Then for ArcTan you can do ExpToTrig[TrigToExp@ArcTan[z] /. Log[z_] -> branchLog[z, \[Theta]]]... –  Rahul Narain Dec 27 '12 at 5:30
Sorry, the branch is actually along $z=-re^{i\theta(r)}$. –  Rahul Narain Dec 27 '12 at 11:06

2 Answers 2

up vote 9 down vote accepted

The question asks for a "cleanest way." Arguably, any solution that reduces the calculation to various cases is not very clean, and is probably inefficient too. These considerations suggest a simple, direct approach:

log0[x_] := -Log[1/x]

Checking a few cases (or a plot) easily confirms that log0 does what is intended with negative real numbers; e.g.,

1.16315 - 3.14159 I

Moreover, it does not change the behavior for any other complex numbers, as a contour plot of its imaginary part demonstrates:

ContourPlot[Chop[Im[Log[x + I y]] -  Im[log0[x + I y]]], {x, -2, 2}, {y, -2, 2},
  PlotPoints -> 100]

Contour plot

Operators therefore produce the expected results:

D[log0[x], x]

Integrate[x log0[x], {x, -1, 1}]

$\frac{i \pi }{2}$

share|improve this answer

I never did this before (i.e. modify system function), but I just tried it, and it seems to work. But I just wanted to first say, that Log[z] as it works in Mathematica is the correct way. i.e. Log[z]=Log[Abs[z]]+k where k=0 when z>0 and k=I*Pi when z<0 so what you are asking to do is not the correct math way. But this is what I tried to change the definition

(*1.1631508098056809 + 3.141592653589793*I*)

Log[x_?(Element[#, Reals] && # < 0 &)] := Log[Abs[x]] - I*Pi
(*  1.1631508098056809 - 3.141592653589793*I  *)

(*  1.1631508098056809  *)

btw, the reason your D[loopLog[x],x] command did not work, is because you defined your function to accept only numerical x, but you are now taking derivative w.r.t x ? I do not think this will work.

share|improve this answer
"What you are asking to do is not the correct math way." They're just taking a slightly different branch cut from the usual one; it's hardly incorrect. There can be more than one right way in mathematics! :) –  Rahul Narain Dec 26 '12 at 11:46
_?(Element[#, Reals] && # < 0 &) can simply be written as _?Negative :) –  rm -rf Dec 26 '12 at 17:33
@NasserM.Abbasi Negative and Positive were introduced in version 1, when such conventions were probably not codified. At this point, it is probably left that way for backwards compatibility. –  rm -rf Dec 26 '12 at 20:34

Your Answer

<|endoftext|>Get up to4 free estimates
for ANY type of Contractor near you
  • No Obligations
  • Stop Paying Too Much For Your Contractor
  • No Spam Calling
  • Screened & ID Checked Contractors only!

5 Easy Ways to Cut Glass Without a Glass Cutter

5 Easy Ways to Cut Glass Without a Glass Cutter 5 Easy Ways to Cut Glass Without a Glass Cutter

A glass cutter is a handy tool you can acquire for as little as $5 on Amazon, but what can you do if you need to cut a mirror or piece of window glass or do a craft project when you don’t have one on hand? Or you don’t want to spend the money on something you may never need again? Whether you are thrifty, can’t get out, or don’t want to wait a couple of days to get the right tool online, there are several tools you may already have on hand to do the job.

While the supplies for cutting glass vary by technique, you should always undertake the process wearing safety glasses or goggles and work gloves. If the glass does not break cleanly


Elisabeth Marius Lange is from Denmark. Elisabeth was born in Horslunde. Elisabeth is an alumni of Technical University of Denmark. Elisabeth was born on July 19, 1986. Elisabeth receives email at elisabeth.lange@gmail.com. Elisabeth is an athletics competitor. Elisabeth has the unique identifier 29e6847815544e0f9235874b50d31c8e.<|endoftext|>age (Moses in Egypt Ex.1:8,10, and Jesus during Israel's Roman bondage. Mt.2:1,Lk.2:1-2)

2 Edicts were issued by the gentile powers of both Pharaoh and Herod for their death at birth. (Ex.2:3, Mt.2:15)

3 Both were miraculously delivered from death during their infancy from their enemies of Israel (Ex.2:3, Lk.2:7;Mt 2:14,15) and were preserved in childhood.

4 Both had been born and found in unusual places. Moses was found in the water floating in a basket of bulrushes (Ex.2:3) Jesus in a manger (cave) wrapped in burial cloths (Lk.2:7)

5 Both Moses and Jesus were protected and preserved by the faith of their parent. Moses was hidden by faith (Ex.2:2-3 and Heb.11:23) Jesus’ life was preserved by his parents obeying the message in a dream. (Mt.2:13-14)

6 Both Moses and Jesus stayed safely in Egypt for a time. Moses (Ex.2:10) Jesus dwelt safely in Egypt (Mt.2:14-15)

7 Both had their brethren and family speak against them. Moses had Mariam and Aaron speak against him taking a Cushite wife (Numb.12:1) Jesus had his family criticize and reject him (Mt.13:54-57, Jn.7:3)

8 Both Moses and Jesus were reared in the house that was not their natural parents. (Moses in the house of Pharaoh (Ex.2:10) Jesus by Mary the mother of his humanity and his stepfather Joseph.

9 Both predicted Israel's history (Deut.28:15-28; Mt.23:34,24:1,2,8,34)

10 Both spoke out against Israel's enemies and persecutors. (Deut.23:3-4; Mt.25:41-48)

11 Both were considered a snare to Israel (Ex10:7; 1Pt.2:8=Isa.8:14)

12 Both cleansed leprosy. From Moses’ time no one that was Jewish was cleansed until Jesus came (Numb.12:10-16, Mk.1:40-41). This is a very significant factor that proves Jesus was the prophet Moses spoke of, since no other cured one of the brethren of this disease from Moses' time.

13 Both were used of God to feed Israel miraculously, Moses with manna in the wilderness (Ex.16:14-17) Jesus with the five loaves and two fish fed four and five thousand two times. (Mt.14:19-21) Jesus also called himself the true manna that came from heaven in Jn.6, comparing himself to the miracle that sustained Israel alive through the desert.

14 Both had the forces of nature obey them (the seas) Moses (Ex.14:21-22) Jesus (Mt.8:26-27)

15 Each had seventy helpers Moses (Num.11:16-17) Jesus ( Lk.10:1).

16 Both fasted 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness to bring a covenant to Israel. Moses on the top of Mt. Sinai (Ex.24:18, 34:28, Deut.9:9) Jesus in the desert as the Son of God (Mt.4:2)

17 Both had a face to face relationship with God unlike any other person. Moses (Ex.33:9-11, Deut.34:10; Numb.12:7-8) Jesus was with God=face to face from eternity (Jn.1:1,18)

18 God spoke audibly and directly from heaven to both Moses and Jesus. Moses (Ex.20:22, 24:12-16) Jesus (Mt.3:17; Jn.12:28)

19 Both were God's spokesman to and for the people. Moses (Ex.9:35; Numb.12:2) Jesus (Heb.1:1-3). They Spoke as oracles of God (Moses Deut. 18:18) Jesus (Jn.14:24, 5:24)

20 Both Moses and Jesus reflected and shown the glory of God. Moses reflected his glory temporarily. (Ex.34:29-35; 2 Cor.3:7-14) Jesus at the transfiguration, his face shown brighter than the sun revealing his true nature (Mt.17:2; Jn.1:14)

21 Both were known for their humility and meekness as God's servants. Moses (Numb.12:3) Jesus (Mt.11:29; Phil.2:3-8)

22 Both contended with masters of deception and darkness Moses with Pharaohs magicians (Ex 7:11, 1 Tim.3:8) Jesus with the Devil (Mt 4:1).

23 Both prayed for the people intercessory prayers and were willing to bear the consequences of the people's sins. Moses asked to be blotted out of the book of life for the peoples sake (Ex.32:32-33). Jesus asked for them to be kept from falling away (Jn. 17:9-17). Jesus asked for those to be forgiven while he bore the consequences in their stead. (Lk.23:34, 2 Cor.5:19, 1 Pt.2:21-24, Isa.53:8)

24 Both Moses and Jesus were rejected by their own brethren for a time and accepted by the gentiles. Moses (Ex.2:14-22, 32:1) Jesus was rejected by his own people and received by another who were not his own. (Isa.53:3; Mt.12:21; Mk.6:4; Lk.20:9-17, Rom.11:20)

25 Both Moses and Jesus established a priesthood. Moses began the Aaronic priesthood which was temporary under the law (Lev.9; Numb.8:20-26; Heb.9:19-22). Jesus established a eternal priesthood under the new covenant of grace which He alone functions as the high priest forever. (Heb.7:17,19,23,25-28; 9:12)

26 Both sprinkled the blood of the covenant on the altar and the people. Moses (Ex.24:7-8; Lev.8:19) Jesus (Heb.9,12:24; 1Pt.1:2)

27 Both were sent by God to reveal His name, person and law to the people. To Moses God said to tell them I Am sent you. (Ex.3:13-14) Jesus said God sent him as his exact representative revealing his name (I Am) and nature to the people. (Jn.8:42; 17:6,11-12; Col.2:9; Heb.1:3)

28 Both were involved in giving the covenant to the people Jn.1:17 the law came through Moses but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” At the feast of Pentecost Moses gave the law. At the feast (Pentecost) in the new covenant Jesus gave the Holy Spirit (Acts 2).

29 Both brought deliverance to the Jewish people. Those who followed Moses out of the bondage of slavery to Egypt. (Ex.3:7-8,10;12:31-33,42) Jesus brought people out of a greater bondage, slavery to sin. (Rom.3:24-25,6:6-7,8:2-4; Eph.1:7;Heb.9:26)

30 Both had an angel guard their graves. After Moses died Michael the Arch-angel guarded his body. (Jude 9) And when Jesus rose an angel guarded his tomb. (Mt.26:2-6)

31 Both re-appeared after they died, Moses ( Mt 17:3 with Jesus before his death) Jesus (Acts 1:3)

share|improve this answer
Peter's speech in Acts 3:12-26 quotes this passage. He says "He will send you the Christ he has predestined, that is Jesus, whom heaven must keep till the universal restoration comes which God proclaimed, speaking through his holy prophets." (3:20-21) and then goes on to quote the passage from Deuteronomy. –  James T Sep 7 '11 at 16:48

While not discounting the fact that Jesus in fact fulfills the office of prophet, it is not the only interpretation. Indeed, a common rule of hermeneutics is that a verse cannot mean what the original audience could not have understood it to mean. As the concept of Mess

age (Moses in Egypt Ex.1:8,10, and Jesus during Israel's Roman bondage. Mt.2:1,Lk.2:1-2)

2 Edicts were issued by the gentile powers of both Pharaoh and Herod for their death at birth. (Ex.2:3, Mt.2:15)

3 Both were miraculously delivered from death during their infancy from their enemies of Israel (Ex.2:3, Lk.2:7;Mt 2:14,15) and were preserved in childhood.

4 Both had been born and found in unusual places. Moses was found in the water floating in a basket of bulrushes (Ex.2:3) Jesus in a manger (cave) wrapped in burial cloths (Lk.2:7)

5 Both Moses and Jesus were protected and preserved by the faith of their parent. Moses was hidden by faith (Ex.2:2-3 and Heb.11:23) Jesus’ life was preserved by his parents obeying the message in a dream. (Mt.2:13-14)

6 Both Moses and Jesus stayed safely in Egypt for a time. Moses (Ex.2:10) Jesus dwelt safely in Egypt (Mt.2:14-15)

7 Both had their brethren and family speak against them. Moses had Mariam and Aaron speak against him taking a Cushite wife (Numb.12:1) Jesus had his family criticize and reject him (Mt.13:54-57, Jn.7:3)

8 Both Moses and Jesus were reared in the house that was not their natural parents. (Moses in the house of Pharaoh (Ex.2:10) Jesus by Mary the mother of his humanity and his stepfather Joseph.

9 Both predicted Israel's history (Deut.28:15-28; Mt.23:34,24:1,2,8,34)

10 Both spoke out against Israel's enemies and persecutors. (Deut.23:3-4; Mt.25:41-48)

11 Both were considered a snare to Israel (Ex10:7; 1Pt.2:8=Isa.8:14)

12 Both cleansed leprosy. From Moses’ time no one that was Jewish was cleansed until Jesus came (Numb.12:10-16, Mk.1:40-41). This is a very significant factor that proves Jesus was the prophet Moses spoke of, since no other cured one of the brethren of this disease from Moses' time.

13 Both were used of God to feed Israel miraculously, Moses with manna in the wilderness (Ex.16:14-17) Jesus with the five loaves and two fish fed four and five thousand two times. (Mt.14:19-21) Jesus also called himself the true manna that came from heaven in Jn.6, comparing himself to the miracle that sustained Israel alive through the desert.

14 Both had the forces of nature obey them (the seas) Moses (Ex.14:21-22) Jesus (Mt.8:26-27)

15 Each had seventy helpers Moses (Num.11:16-17) Jesus ( Lk.10:1).

16 Both fasted 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness to bring a covenant to Israel. Moses on the top of Mt. Sinai (Ex.24:18, 34:28, Deut.9:9) Jesus in the desert as the Son of God (Mt.4:2)

17 Both had a face to face relationship with God unlike any other person. Moses (Ex.33:9-11, Deut.34:10; Numb.12:7-8) Jesus was with God=face to face from eternity (Jn.1:1,18)

18 God spoke audibly and directly from heaven to both Moses and Jesus. Moses (Ex.20:22, 24:12-16) Jesus (Mt.3:17; Jn.12:28)

19 Both were God's spokesman to and for the people. Moses (Ex.9:35; Numb.12:2) Jesus (Heb.1:1-3). They Spoke as oracles of God (Moses Deut. 18:18) Jesus (Jn.14:24, 5:24)

20 Both Moses and Jesus reflected and shown the glory of God. Moses reflected his glory temporarily. (Ex.34:29-35; 2 Cor.3:7-14) Jesus at the transfiguration, his face shown brighter than the sun revealing his true nature (Mt.17:2; Jn.1:14)

21 Both were known for their humility and meekness as God's servants. Moses (Numb.12:3) Jesus (Mt.11:29; Phil.2:3-8)

22 Both contended with masters of deception and darkness Moses with Pharaohs magicians (Ex 7:11, 1 Tim.3:8) Jesus with the Devil (Mt 4:1).

23 Both prayed for the people intercessory prayers and were willing to bear the consequences of the people's sins. Moses asked to be blotted out of the book of life for the peoples sake (Ex.32:32-33). Jesus asked for them to be kept from falling away (Jn. 17:9-17). Jesus asked for those to be forgiven while he bore the consequences in their stead. (Lk.23:34, 2 Cor.5:19, 1 Pt.2:21-24, Isa.53:8)

24 Both Moses and Jesus were rejected by their own brethren for a time and accepted by the gentiles. Moses (Ex.2:14-22, 32:1) Jesus was rejected by his own people and received by another who were not his own. (Isa.53:3; Mt.12:21; Mk.6:4; Lk.20:9-17, Rom.11:20)

25 Both Moses and Jesus established a priesthood. Moses began the Aaronic priesthood which was temporary under the law (Lev.9; Numb.8:20-26; Heb.9:19-22). Jesus established a eternal priesthood under the new covenant of grace which He alone functions as the high priest forever. (Heb.7:17,19,23,25-28; 9:12)

26 Both sprinkled the blood of the covenant on the altar and the people. Moses (Ex.24:7-8; Lev.8:19) Jesus (Heb.9,12:24; 1Pt.1:2)

27 Both were sent by God to reveal His name, person and law to the people. To Moses God said to tell them I Am sent you. (Ex.3:13-14) Jesus said God sent him as his exact representative revealing his name (I Am) and nature to the people. (Jn.8:42; 17:6,11-12; Col.2:9; Heb.1:3)

28 Both were involved in giving the covenant to the people Jn.1:17 the law came through Moses but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” At the feast of Pentecost Moses gave the law. At the feast (Pentecost) in the new covenant Jesus gave the Holy Spirit (Acts 2).

29 Both brought deliverance to the Jewish people. Those who followed Moses out of the bondage of slavery to Egypt. (Ex.3:7-8,10;12:31-33,42) Jesus brought people out of a greater bondage, slavery to sin. (Rom.3:24-25,6:6-7,8:2-4; Eph.1:7;Heb.9:26)

30 Both had an angel guard their graves. After Moses died Michael the Arch-angel guarded his body. (Jude 9) And when Jesus rose an angel guarded his tomb. (Mt.26:2-6)

31 Both re-appeared after they died, Moses ( Mt 17:3 with Jesus before his death) Jesus (Acts 1:3)

share|improve this answer
Peter's speech in Acts 3:12-26 quotes this passage. He says "He will send you the Christ he has predestined, that is Jesus, whom heaven must keep till the universal restoration comes which God proclaimed, speaking through his holy prophets." (3:20-21) and then goes on to quote the passage from Deuteronomy. –  James T Sep 7 '11 at 16:48

While not discounting the fact that Jesus in fact fulfills the office of prophet, it is not the only interpretation. Indeed, a common rule of hermeneutics is that a verse cannot mean what the original audience could not have understood it to mean. As the concept of Messiah is exilic and the Deuteronomical law is considered at latest to have been 800BC or so, the Messiah is not the what the original audience would have understood.

Generally, we can safely say only that:

  • God will raise up men to speak for Him.
  • When He does so, people should listen.

In fact, God raised up prophets many times throughout the history of Israel. And again, clearly the greatest of the


chatbot: well hello there, how are you today?
BeeWorkhorse182: i am great and how about you?
chatbot: doing pretty well. i got up pretty early today.
BeeWorkhorse182: whats yoru favorite color eh?
chatbot: i am fond of the color grey, what about you?
BeeWorkhorse182: my favorite color is pink. you married?
chatbot: i am not married. but it lets me focus more on my job. what about you?
BeeWorkhorse182: i got married to my sweetheart
chatbot: well that sounds sweet. i work in newspapers, do you do anything for a living?
BeeWorkhorse182: i do not is your mom alive?
chatbot: she is, has yours passed away?
BeeWorkhorse182: she did. very sad stuff eh
chatbot: it sounds like it. do you have a hobby to take your mind off it?
BeeWorkhorse182: not really just like being alone<|endoftext|> of the developers making a character and you get to pick little things for him or her.

Now maybe some of you will say that, within the context of the game's rules, you can still use your imagination. Yahtzee imagined his character's backstory, he imagined his character's motivations, and he made the choices that he thought suited his character. The problem with this is that, unlike Crusader Kings 2, the dialogue is all there in the game. CK2 gives you choices and lets you mentally expand upon them because it doesn't give you much concrete dialogue. TOR gives you choices, yes, but also shows you exactly what your character is saying and how people are responding. The fact that they are giving you so much explicit information about what's happening means that you cannot use your imagination without overriding a huge amount of the data given to you - at which point the game's story becomes a total hindrance, not a guiding set of rules. It's hard to pretend your character is a stoic mercenary when the only "give me money" choice is accompanied by snarking and quipping. You're not "roleplaying", you're selecting a pre-generated character.

It's a lot like the Star Wars prequels and the effect they had on original films: it's better to not know anything, and thus be able to use your imagination, than to know everything about something and have it turn out to be poorly-written and poorly-executed. The stories you made up in your head about things like the Clone Wars, Obi-Wan and Anakin being friends, Anakin distinguishing himself as a great pilot, etc., were probably better than what the actual prequels were, and they didn't cost a dime to imagine. You didn't have to hire any CGI artists or special effects guys or anything, you just filled in the gaps on your own using your brain, and that was good enough for purposes of getting immersed in the story. They gave you the characters and the events, and you (as a viewer) assembled them into a coherent story with your imagination.  Emergent stories work exactly the same way.

The issue is that each type of game needs to play to its strength: if a game is going to be a movie, it should be a REALLY GOOD movie. If a game is going to be an exercise in decision-making, it should cover all the potential details and really let you get into the universe instead of throwing 2 or 3 pathetic options at you that don't mean anything. An orchestrated story is like a concert, whereas an emergent narrative is like an instrument. It's okay if you spend a bunch of money on an instrument and can't play it perfectly the first time, because the process of discovery and putting songs together is part of the experience. It's NOT okay if you spend money on a concert and the musicians are doing the same thing, because the fact that they're professionals and you're paying for a completed product totally changes the product. The quality of the work needs to drastically make up for the lack of interaction.

What I'd like you to take from this article, meandering as it is, is that if you're going to make a game, make it good at what it does. If a game is a movie & gameplay, both of those need to be as good as they can be. If a game is trying to get the player involved in the story, their choices need to be as important as they can be made. This idea of accepting sub-par products because "it's all we can do, that's just what games are!" needs to stop. If you're going to make a story game, make it really good at telling a story. If you're going to make a game for the gameplay, then make it really good. Different philosophies are great. Different types of games are great. Lowering standards because "it's just a game" is why nobody takes the medium seriously.

  1. Some games can pull off immersion in a "meta" sense. One game I repeatedly endorse is the PS2 game Ace Combat 04, for the reason that its narrative ties into the gameplay experience in a way that the books and movies can't. The player is never referenced by name, but is also never seen in cutscenes; in fact, the cutscenes focus on the story of the antagonists. The great part about this is that the player isn't told whose story is being viewed until about a third of the way through the game. (Sharper players can figure it out sooner. I didn't.)

    While it's still a strictly linear game progression, it's interesting because the player doesn't get much backstory for his avatar, except for the in-game chatter exclaiming that he's male and he's a remarkable pilot. You're essentially playing a "villain" to the story of the game, which can be satisfyingly unnerving, as the Ace Combat games regularly denounce war in their in-game narratives. The linearity of the game also plays to a sort of dramatic irony, as you know that in order to see the ending, you will have to shoot down the planes of the characters you're identifying with.

    I don't know of any other examples like this (so far) but it's long been my favorite example of a metafiction in interactive narratives.

    1. Actually, the "viewpoint" of AC04 is a young boy who's actually "on your side", as it were. While he speaks to the villain and humanizes them through his interaction, they are still obviously "the bad guys" (or at least "the aggressors"), and Mobius One is a hero fighting to defend his country against an undoubtedly unjust regime. The Yellow Squadron is depicted nobly, but not as being GOOD, just as being decent and honorable.

      And, again, your actions in the game don't change anything. No matter who you shoot down, which plane it is, it's going to end up being The Female Yellow Squadron Pilot, and her plane's not going to be able to make it back. You can't change anything through your actions. What's funny is that while Ace Combat Zero had a "branching" system (Knight/Soldier/Mercenary), it was changed through relatively mundane gameplay actions and tradeoffs: not KILL BABIES versus SAVE ORPHANS, but instead "spare wounded plane" versus "destroy wounded plane and get more money from the bounty". It wasn't perfect, or even really natural, but it was a scenario in which the way you played the game actually mattered.

    2. Oh, no, I wasn't suggesting that the ACO4 narrative made gameplay itself worthwhile, I was citing it as a game where the strong part of the narrative comes from being unable to experience the narrative in a way that wasn't a game.

      I dumbed down the plot points to make the point; basically there's no way to feel as involved in the narrative of AC04 WITHOUT playing AC04 as a game. If it were a book, it wouldn't have the same emotional impact because you, as a reader, weren't involved in the game's events in the act of reading. The same goes if it were a film or song; the game's interactivity, however linear, is completely what makes the story worthwhile.

      This is different from other games like Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, or even AC5. The protagonist of the game really is "the player," even if it's as a predetermined character and not as someone sitting on a couch. I'm suggesting that there are more ways for linear games to be considered "artful" rather than just having solid gameplay and cinematics.

    3. Oh, yes, that's certainly true. The sense of responsibility of "being in the driver's seat" certainly plays a role compared to being a passive observer, but at the same time that level of control unfortunately means that you can be a total dickwad (pardon my language) and nobody really notices.

      I was thinking about this with regards to Red Dead Redemption, where John Marston is obviously his own character, and you're sort of piloting him around, but at the same time the fact that you "are" him, as it were, gives a different relationship than if you were just observing him. You can look at things like how he talks to people on the street (as per the award-winning documentary "¡Hola Señora!" and that deepens your understanding of his personality, yet at the same time HE'S not the one driving - YOU are. It's weird.

  2. I was going back over some D

 of the developers making a character and you get to pick little things for him or her.

Now maybe some of you will say that, within the context of the game's rules, you can still use your imagination. Yahtzee imagined his character's backstory, he imagined his character's motivations, and he made the choices that he thought suited his character. The problem with this is that, unlike Crusader Kings 2, the dialogue is all there in the game. CK2 gives you choices and lets you mentally expand upon them because it doesn't give you much concrete dialogue. TOR gives you choices, yes, but also shows you exactly what your character is saying and how people are responding. The fact that they are giving you so much explicit information about what's happening means that you cannot use your imagination without overriding a huge amount of the data given to you - at which point the game's story becomes a total hindrance, not a guiding set of rules. It's hard to pretend your character is a stoic mercenary when the only "give me money" choice is accompanied by snarking and quipping. You're not "roleplaying", you're selecting a pre-generated character.

It's a lot like the Star Wars prequels and the effect they had on original films: it's better to not know anything, and thus be able to use your imagination, than to know everything about something and have it turn out to be poorly-written and poorly-executed. The stories you made up in your head about things like the Clone Wars, Obi-Wan and Anakin being friends, Anakin distinguishing himself as a great pilot, etc., were probably better than what the actual prequels were, and they didn't cost a dime to imagine. You didn't have to hire any CGI artists or special effects guys or anything, you just filled in the gaps on your own using your brain, and that was good enough for purposes of getting immersed in the story. They gave you the characters and the events, and you (as a viewer) assembled them into a coherent story with your imagination.  Emergent stories work exactly the same way.

The issue is that each type of game needs to play to its strength: if a game is going to be a movie, it should be a REALLY GOOD movie. If a game is going to be an exercise in decision-making, it should cover all the potential details and really let you get into the universe instead of throwing 2 or 3 pathetic options at you that don't mean anything. An orchestrated story is like a concert, whereas an emergent narrative is like an instrument. It's okay if you spend a bunch of money on an instrument and can't play it perfectly the first time, because the process of discovery and putting songs together is part of the experience. It's NOT okay if you spend money on a concert and the musicians are doing the same thing, because the fact that they're professionals and you're paying for a completed product totally changes the product. The quality of the work needs to drastically make up for the lack of interaction.

What I'd like you to take from this article, meandering as it is, is that if you're going to make a game, make it good at what it does. If a game is a movie & gameplay, both of those need to be as good as they can be. If a game is trying to get the player involved in the story, their choices need to be as important as they can be made. This idea of accepting sub-par products because "it's all we can do, that's just what games are!" needs to stop. If you're going to make a story game, make it really good at telling a story. If you're going to make a game for the gameplay, then make it really good. Different philosophies are great. Different types of games are great. Lowering standards because "it's just a game" is why nobody takes the medium seriously.

  1. Some games can pull off immersion in a "meta" sense. One game I repeatedly endorse is the PS2 game Ace Combat 04, for the reason that its narrative ties into the gameplay experience in a way that the books and movies can't. The player is never referenced by name, but is also never seen in cutscenes; in fact, the cutscenes focus on the story of the antagonists. The great part about this is that the player isn't told whose story is being viewed until about a third of the way through the game. (Sharper players can figure it out sooner. I didn't.)

    While it's still a strictly linear game progression, it's interesting because the player doesn't get much backstory for his avatar, except for the in-game chatter exclaiming that he's male and he's a remarkable pilot. You're essentially playing a "villain" to the story of the game, which can be satisfyingly unnerving, as the Ace Combat games regularly denounce war in their in-game narratives. The linearity of the game also plays to a sort of dramatic irony, as you know that in order to see the ending, you will have to shoot down the planes of the characters you're identifying with.

    I don't know of any other examples like this (so far) but it's long been my favorite example of a metafiction in interactive narratives.

    1. Actually, the "viewpoint" of AC04 is a young boy who's actually "on your side", as it were. While he speaks to the villain and humanizes them through his interaction, they are still obviously "the bad guys" (or at least "the aggressors"), and Mobius One is a hero fighting to defend his country against an undoubtedly unjust regime. The Yellow Squadron is depicted nobly, but not as being GOOD, just as being decent and honorable.

      And, again, your actions in the game don't change anything. No matter who you shoot down, which plane it is, it's going to end up being The Female Yellow Squadron Pilot, and her plane's not going to be able to make it back. You can't change anything through your actions. What's funny is that while Ace Combat Zero had a "branching" system (Knight/Soldier/Mercenary), it was changed through relatively mundane gameplay actions and tradeoffs: not KILL BABIES versus SAVE ORPHANS, but instead "spare wounded plane" versus "destroy wounded plane and get more money from the bounty". It wasn't perfect, or even really natural, but it was a scenario in which the way you played the game actually mattered.

    2. Oh, no, I wasn't suggesting that the ACO4 narrative made gameplay itself worthwhile, I was citing it as a game where the strong part of the narrative comes from being unable to experience the narrative in a way that wasn't a game.

      I dumbed down the plot points to make the point; basically there's no way to feel as involved in the narrative of AC04 WITHOUT playing AC04 as a game. If it were a book, it wouldn't have the same emotional impact because you, as a reader, weren't involved in the game's events in the act of reading. The same goes if it were a film or song; the game's interactivity, however linear, is completely what makes the story worthwhile.

      This is different from other games like Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, or even AC5. The protagonist of the game really is "the player," even if it's as a predetermined character and not as someone sitting on a couch. I'm suggesting that there are more ways for linear games to be considered "artful" rather than just having solid gameplay and cinematics.

    3. Oh, yes, that's certainly true. The sense of responsibility of "being in the driver's seat" certainly plays a role compared to being a passive observer, but at the same time that level of control unfortunately means that you can be a total dickwad (pardon my language) and nobody really notices.

      I was thinking about this with regards to Red Dead Redemption, where John Marston is obviously his own character, and you're sort of piloting him around, but at the same time the fact that you "are" him, as it were, gives a different relationship than if you were just observing him. You can look at things like how he talks to people on the street (as per the award-winning documentary "¡Hola Señora!" and that deepens your understanding of his personality, yet at the same time HE'S not the one driving - YOU are. It's weird.

  2. I was going back over some DICE coverage (finally catching up with the talks this year I hadn't had time to check out) and walked right into the following only hours after reading this piece:

    Unless I completely got the wrong end of the stick (but I think it was sold quite clearly in the talk), can you see how linear stories with psychological hooks (story arcs which create incomplete purchases from each bit of DLC you buy) to get people to keep buying the new DLC are being sold (by the EA guy) as a great driver of an open world environment. The real non-linear content comes from the emergent gameplay (with systemic game design) that has nothing to do with constantly trying to sell a person the next chunk of linear content for your world.

    Building an open world with linear story (GTA, Elder Scrolls being two great examples) are narratively linear when you're writing the story (even if you can approach a lot of the content in the order of your choice). The non-linear content is the emergent activities, walking the earth or enjoying the city simulation. That is where


chatbot: hello how are you today
AmbitionFacility726: hello, since i like religious music i do not very much
chatbot: do you know anything about farms
AmbitionFacility726: my family are the most important thing to me i love them
chatbot: do you have kids at home
AmbitionFacility726: i know that we like to play basketball on farms most of the time
chatbot: how many kids do you have
AmbitionFacility726: yes i have 2 kids, they are older since i am considered middle aged mom
chatbot: what is middle aged these day
AmbitionFacility726: do you have any kids at all?
chatbot: i do not have any yet
AmbitionFacility726: well i am told 45 to 50. how old are you
chatbot: i am in the same bracket
AmbitionFacility726: you better get busy, running out of time
chatbot: there is always adoption and technology is improving
AmbitionFacility726: this is very true, i am glad mine are all but grown though<|endoftext|> finance capitalists, and the sorts of global plutocrats that own, for example, our newspapers. They aren’t a majority of the business class, but they are a large enough minority to rule. [Johnson] has the mandate of the referendum, and even though he no longer has a majority in Parliament, he will continue to push for Brexit unless and until there is a new election and he loses it.

How has Johnson and this new right won electoral support in Britain?

They’ve used Brexit, xenophobia and Islamophobia as false solutions to real problems in society and have succeeded in creating a real electoral bloc. The majority of people who voted for Brexit were relatively rich: Brexit won in the wealthier areas of Britain, in seats that always vote Conservative.

The right also won a minority of the working class who were dependent on social welfare benefits and who had suffered severe cuts after the Great Recession. The right convinced them that they could protect their benefits by restricting immigration, and in particular, Muslim immigration.

For example, the official Leave camp’s main leaflet said that unless you vote for Brexit, the U.K. will be in the European Union with Turkey, a Muslim country. Turkey isn’t a member of the EU and won’t be any time soon, but the Leave camp claimed that millions of Muslims would come to Britain with their Muslim culture and take away British workers’ benefits. It even had arrows pointing from Turkey to Britain to make the threat of Muslim migration explicit.

The new authoritarian right is doing the same thing in every country. Increasingly, they are collaborating internationally in pursuing this program. That’s why Trump and others have supported Johnson’s authoritarian drive to push through Brexit. They see it as a way to pull politics further to the right throughout the world.

Brexit has provoked a crisis not only in the Conservative Party, but also in Labour. How have Corbyn and Labour positioned themselves on the question? What traps does the Party face?

The Labour Party strategy on Brexit has gone through two stages. Up until the European elections earlier this year, its basic approach was to say, “Let’s not talk about Brexit, let’s make politics about everything else. If we take a hard position either for or against leaving the EU, then we will lose people who might otherwise vote for Labour. We must prevent politics being reduced to Brexit.”

That approach did relatively well in the 2017 general election, but it did exceptionally badly in this year’s European election. It was not attractive to either side of the Brexit debate; it alienated both leave and remain voters. The more Brexit became the central question of British politics, the less it seemed that Labour had anything to say.

Since Johnson has prorogued Parliament, the Labour Party shifted their position to a soft remain stance. That, combined with their opposition to Johnson’s authoritarian way of ruling, has increased their popularity. While the Tories are ahead in the polls, their lead is down in some polls to 3 or 5 percent, which is narrow enough for Labour to head into an election with some possibility of winning.

But Labour faces traps in becoming a party committed to the remain camp. While this improves its standing with remain voters, it risks losing the support of the leave camp and permanently losing the support of a group of voters who had previously been Labour identifiers.

Labour fell into a similar trap in Scotland during the [2014] independence referendum. It faced an insurgent movement for independence, but the party opposed it and defended the existing order. In the process, it lost its entire working-class base to the Scottish National Party. The politics of Scottish independence and Brexit are not the same, but it would be a mistake if Labour felt like a party of the bad old ways rather than a party of change.

Labour faces other classic traps that have waylaid social democratic parties in the past. It could get caught in forming a government of national unity with parties to its right. Even if Corbyn wins a Labour majority — which seems unlikely — he would face real challenges in implementing his program. Only a small minority of Labour Parliament members are unambiguously on his side and will be forced to accommodate the party’s centrist wing.

This raises one of the points that you make in your book — that it’s not possible to stop the rise of the new right through the establishment parties and their status quo program. Why?

The right won the Brexit referendum, in part, by winning over a section of the working class suffering under neoliberalism and austerity. They offered a reactionary answer — stopping immigration — to problems such as the dramatic reduction of benefits since 2008.

You can’t win those voters back defending the status quo that’s ruining their lives, lowering their living standards and cutting their benefits. If you say to them: “Brexit, or a no-deal Brexit, would cut your living standards by 5 percent,” their answer will be: “I’ve lost more than 5 percent already.” That’s what the remain campaign said back in 2016, and that’s why it lost.

Instead you have to present a radical alternative to both the establishment parties’ neoliberalism and the right’s nationalist bigotry. You have to say, “We are absolutely committed to increasing your benefits, increasing your standard of living, and we will do that every year without fail.” And you have to challenge the racism, which the right uses to deflect blame from the system onto its victims.

Doing both is the only way you can defeat the new authoritarians. Corbyn’s Labour Party managed to do this at least for a while. He had real answers to real problems facing the working class; he challenged police racism, called attention to the housing crisis and campaigned for jobs. That’s why Labour did so well in the 2017 election.

But since Brexit has become the center of British politics, it has pushed those questions to the side and made it much harder for Corbyn and his allies in the Labour Party to put forward those social democratic answers. Even worse, he’s compromised on questions of migration. As a result, he looks less convincing than he did a couple of years ago.

Finally, Brexit has confounded the radical left, splitting it between remain and leave, and made it unable to put forth a viable alternative in the crisis. Why is this the case and what should the left do now?

We should start with honesty about the state of the [U.K.’s] far left. It’s very different than the left in the U.S., which is relatively united against Trump, whatever strategic differences various currents have about the Democratic Party. The left has helped build a broad united resistance to Trump’s racism, sexism and immigrant bashing.

The situation in Britain on the left is different. We are in the midst of a culture war over Brexit, and instead of uniting the left, that conflict has split the left down the middle, with equal numbers for leave and for remain. Each side assesses the issue in diametrically opposed ways.

Socialists who tactically opposed Brexit see leave supporters making concession to the right. Many of those who supported a left exit downplayed the xenophobia and Islamophobia that surrounded the referendum, and others have done far worse.

For example, some former members of the Communist Party have become full-time workers for the right, laundering money from right-wing millionaires into fake “socialist” or “trade union” campaigns for leave. There are even former Trotskyists running as candidates for far-right parties. It’s shameful to watch them playing up their previous histories on the left.

Conversely, socialists who supported leave in order to oppose the neoliberal takeover of EU look askance at the left in the remain camp. They point out how left remainers fail to criticize the EU’s undemocratic nature, its commitment to neoliberalism and austerity and its complicity in the drowning of thousands of migrants in the Mediterranean.

Left remainers will make these criticisms, but privately — only among friends. They fail to campaign around them; they have very little sense of how to make the EU reform.

Such deep disagreements on the far left has made it very difficult to unite it on almost anything. This division will not be overcome through programs, but in action on the street. We saw modest but real reasons for hope when almost the whole far left supported the protests in opposition to Johnson’s proroguing Parliament.

With that immediate struggle dying down, there are some other battles where a new unity could be built. It could develop around campaigns in defense of our friends and

 finance capitalists, and the sorts of global plutocrats that own, for example, our newspapers. They aren’t a majority of the business class, but they are a large enough minority to rule. [Johnson] has the mandate of the referendum, and even though he no longer has a majority in Parliament, he will continue to push for Brexit unless and until there is a new election and he loses it.

How has Johnson and this new right won electoral support in Britain?

They’ve used Brexit, xenophobia and Islamophobia as false solutions to real problems in society and have succeeded in creating a real electoral bloc. The majority of people who voted for Brexit were relatively rich: Brexit won in the wealthier areas of Britain, in seats that always vote Conservative.

The right also won a minority of the working class who were dependent on social welfare benefits and who had suffered severe cuts after the Great Recession. The right convinced them that they could protect their benefits by restricting immigration, and in particular, Muslim immigration.

For example, the official Leave camp’s main leaflet said that unless you vote for Brexit, the U.K. will be in the European Union with Turkey, a Muslim country. Turkey isn’t a member of the EU and won’t be any time soon, but the Leave camp claimed that millions of Muslims would come to Britain with their Muslim culture and take away British workers’ benefits. It even had arrows pointing from Turkey to Britain to make the threat of Muslim migration explicit.

The new authoritarian right is doing the same thing in every country. Increasingly, they are collaborating internationally in pursuing this program. That’s why Trump and others have supported Johnson’s authoritarian drive to push through Brexit. They see it as a way to pull politics further to the right throughout the world.

Brexit has provoked a crisis not only in the Conservative Party, but also in Labour. How have Corbyn and Labour positioned themselves on the question? What traps does the Party face?

The Labour Party strategy on Brexit has gone through two stages. Up until the European elections earlier this year, its basic approach was to say, “Let’s not talk about Brexit, let’s make politics about everything else. If we take a hard position either for or against leaving the EU, then we will lose people who might otherwise vote for Labour. We must prevent politics being reduced to Brexit.”

That approach did relatively well in the 2017 general election, but it did exceptionally badly in this year’s European election. It was not attractive to either side of the Brexit debate; it alienated both leave and remain voters. The more Brexit became the central question of British politics, the less it seemed that Labour had anything to say.

Since Johnson has prorogued Parliament, the Labour Party shifted their position to a soft remain stance. That, combined with their opposition to Johnson’s authoritarian way of ruling, has increased their popularity. While the Tories are ahead in the polls, their lead is down in some polls to 3 or 5 percent, which is narrow enough for Labour to head into an election with some possibility of winning.

But Labour faces traps in becoming a party committed to the remain camp. While this improves its standing with remain voters, it risks losing the support of the leave camp and permanently losing the support of a group of voters who had previously been Labour identifiers.

Labour fell into a similar trap in Scotland during the [2014] independence referendum. It faced an insurgent movement for independence, but the party opposed it and defended the existing order. In the process, it lost its entire working-class base to the Scottish National Party. The politics of Scottish independence and Brexit are not the same, but it would be a mistake if Labour felt like a party of the bad old ways rather than a party of change.

Labour faces other classic traps that have waylaid social democratic parties in the past. It could get caught in forming a government of national unity with parties to its right. Even if Corbyn wins a Labour majority — which seems unlikely — he would face real challenges in implementing his program. Only a small minority of Labour Parliament members are unambiguously on his side and will be forced to accommodate the party’s centrist wing.

This raises one of the points that you make in your book — that it’s not possible to stop the rise of the new right through the establishment parties and their status quo program. Why?

The right won the Brexit referendum, in part, by winning over a section of the working class suffering under neoliberalism and austerity. They offered a reactionary answer — stopping immigration — to problems such as the dramatic reduction of benefits since 2008.

You can’t win those voters back defending the status quo that’s ruining their lives, lowering their living standards and cutting their benefits. If you say to them: “Brexit, or a no-deal Brexit, would cut your living standards by 5 percent,” their answer will be: “I’ve lost more than 5 percent already.” That’s what the remain campaign said back in 2016, and that’s why it lost.

Instead you have to present a radical alternative to both the establishment parties’ neoliberalism and the right’s nationalist bigotry. You have to say, “We are absolutely committed to increasing your benefits, increasing your standard of living, and we will do that every year without fail.” And you have to challenge the racism, which the right uses to deflect blame from the system onto its victims.

Doing both is the only way you can defeat the new authoritarians. Corbyn’s Labour Party managed to do this at least for a while. He had real answers to real problems facing the working class; he challenged police racism, called attention to the housing crisis and campaigned for jobs. That’s why Labour did so well in the 2017 election.

But since Brexit has become the center of British politics, it has pushed those questions to the side and made it much harder for Corbyn and his allies in the Labour Party to put forward those social democratic answers. Even worse, he’s compromised on questions of migration. As a result, he looks less convincing than he did a couple of years ago.

Finally, Brexit has confounded the radical left, splitting it between remain and leave, and made it unable to put forth a viable alternative in the crisis. Why is this the case and what should the left do now?

We should start with honesty about the state of the [U.K.’s] far left. It’s very different than the left in the U.S., which is relatively united against Trump, whatever strategic differences various currents have about the Democratic Party. The left has helped build a broad united resistance to Trump’s racism, sexism and immigrant bashing.

The situation in Britain on the left is different. We are in the midst of a culture war over Brexit, and instead of uniting the left, that conflict has split the left down the middle, with equal numbers for leave and for remain. Each side assesses the issue in diametrically opposed ways.

Socialists who tactically opposed Brexit see leave supporters making concession to the right. Many of those who supported a left exit downplayed the xenophobia and Islamophobia that surrounded the referendum, and others have done far worse.

For example, some former members of the Communist Party have become full-time workers for the right, laundering money from right-wing millionaires into fake “socialist” or “trade union” campaigns for leave. There are even former Trotskyists running as candidates for far-right parties. It’s shameful to watch them playing up their previous histories on the left.

Conversely, socialists who supported leave in order to oppose the neoliberal takeover of EU look askance at the left in the remain camp. They point out how left remainers fail to criticize the EU’s undemocratic nature, its commitment to neoliberalism and austerity and its complicity in the drowning of thousands of migrants in the Mediterranean.

Left remainers will make these criticisms, but privately — only among friends. They fail to campaign around them; they have very little sense of how to make the EU reform.

Such deep disagreements on the far left has made it very difficult to unite it on almost anything. This division will not be overcome through programs, but in action on the street. We saw modest but real reasons for hope when almost the whole far left supported the protests in opposition to Johnson’s proroguing Parliament.

With that immediate struggle dying down, there are some other battles where a new unity could be built. It could develop around campaigns in defense of our friends and neighbors who are facing the risk of deportation in the event of Brexit. It’s up to the left to defend them — to protest against the Home Office; to occupy the airports.

You can also see glimmers of hope in the climate justice movement, which is developing into a powerful and exciting struggle. It began with school student strikes, developed into Extinction Rebellion, and now our trade union federation, the Trades Union Congress, has called for 30-minute actions in all the organized workplaces across the country for the September 20 climate strike. Unity on the left and the forging of a new political alternative to the left of Labour will only come through such struggles.<|endoftext|>Cracked Sketches

How The Kendall Jenner Pepsi Ad Got Made (writer)

Party Anxiety (writer)

The Pregnancy Reaction Videos You Won't See (writer)

One Time Napoleon Got Viciously Attacked By Bunnies

The Hidden Hell Behind The Pillsdairy Battery Commercial (writer)

Why You're Not Really An Introvert (writer/actor)