Hark ye yet again—the little lower layer. All visible objects, man, are but as pasteboard masks. But in each event—in the living act, the undoubted deed—there, some unknown but still reasoning thing puts forth the mouldings of its features from behind the unreasoning mask.
AASLD, in collaboration with @NASPGHAN and @AST_info, has released two Practice Guidelines that provide evidence-based recommendations for pediatric liver transplantation evaluation and post-transplant management that address emerging challenges and improve outcomes for children throughout the #livertransplant journey.
View the Practice Guidelines in @HEP_Journal and @LTxJournal: https://t.co/s0sphfBzxp
Breaking News: The European Central Bank raised interest rates, the first major central bank to act to slow inflation set off by the war in Iran. https://t.co/zG0q9jhstk
Material economic hardships are associated with second-year hospitalizations after pediatric liver transplantation: Results from the SOCIAL-Tx study
https://t.co/fyHnXpG7kn
This morning I’m reading “alarmingly low US distillate stocks” ~7MM bbls above operationally challenging levels, and Mercuria head of freight saying 10% of global ships could be forced to stop NEXT MONTH due to fuel shortages. This is how we go from oil pricing deficits to pricing shortages.
The world consists of three days: the day that has passed, taking all that was in it, never to return; the day you are in now, which you must take advantage of; and the day which offers no security since you could die in it.
(1/)
There is a strange development in which academics of international politics are expected to publicly condemn adversarial countries before they are allowed to participate in public discourse. The complexity of international politics is reduced to a moral question of good versus evil, and academics must make moral declarations before even discussing facts, history, strategy, and interpretations. Academics should explain why states behave as they do; they are not moral validators.
What value does it bring to an analysis if the analyst "condemns" one side? After Russia invaded Ukraine, the former Norwegian foreign minister actually argued that "this is not the time to understand, but to condemn". This ridiculous position is pushed on academics. However, understanding is not endorsement, explanation is not advocacy, and ignorance is not strength. I argue it is in Russia's security interest to push NATO away from its borders, it is in Iran's interest to control the Strait of Hormuz, and it is in China's interest to create a new international economic architecture. This is not advocacy, nor is it a normative position about how the world should work; rather, it is a recognition of how the world actually works.
An academic should examine interests, capabilities, and strategic calculations that produce such policies—not participate in ritualised declarations of virtue that contribute absolutely nothing. Furthermore, moralism and condemnation often lead to a lack of understanding and increased conflict. When the conclusion is always that the good guys are confronting the bad guys, then the solution is always "peace through strength", "weapons are the path to peace", and defeating the latest reincarnation of Hitler. If you want war, condemn the other side as pure evil. If you want peace, the first step is to understand the other side.
The Sufis warn against collecting information without acting on it or internalizing it, for someone who fails to act upon knowledge is, in truth, an ignoramus. Knowledge is meaningful only when it leads to practice (amal) and the transformation of the heart.
@ZaidJilani What would fast walking have achieved other than more Slavic deaths ? It’s a travesty that you haven’t understood the underpinning of the Ukraine Russia conflict. Typical beltway bro.