We finally have our Kennedy Moment in the current political climate. Saturday, January 8th, 2011, is likely to go down as exactly that in the “Where were you when?” canon. On that day, Jared Lee Loughner, age 22, went on a shooting rampage at a supermarket parking lot in Tucson,…
Here's how the German magazine/website Spiegel sees the decline of America:
The Tea Party, that group of white, older voters who claim that they want their country back, is angry. Fox News host Glenn Beck, a recovering alcoholic who likens Obama to Adolf Hitler, is angry. Beck doesn't quite know what he wants to be -- maybe a politician, maybe president, maybe a preacher -- and he doesn't know what he wants to do, either, or least he hasn't come up with any specific ideas or plans. But he is full of hatred. And so is Dinesh D'Souza. Indeed, the United States of 2010 is a hate-filled country . . . This is the climate in the country leading up to the Congressional elections on Nov. 2. It isn't shaped by logic or an interest in rational debate. The United States of 2010 is a country that has become paralyzed and inhibited by allowing itself to be distracted by things that are, in reality, not a threat: homosexuality, Mexicans, Democratic Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, health care reform and Obama. Large segments of the country are not even talking about the issues that are serious and complex, like debt, unemployment and serious educational deficits. Is it because this is all too threatening?Beware of the graphics accompanying the article. These statistics on the United States economy are not for the faint of heart.
In the three minutes it takes to view this excellent National Geographic video on the rapidly increasing numbers of people, earth's population will increase by 170 people. That explosive growth has real life ramifications that will affect our quality of life: I applaud the willingness of National Geographic to discuss this critically important issue. Many people and organizations shy away from the topic of the earth's carrying capacity. Another organization dedicated to making sure that we don't shy away from the topic is Global Population Speak Out (GPSO). Here is GPSO mission statement:
The Population Institute, based in Washington DC, is seeking prominent scientists, scholars, and other concerned citizens to participate in this international program of action. The mission is to raise awareness in the global community about the current size and growth of the human population on Earth -- and to highlight the challenges this size and growth present as we attempt to achieve planet-scale ecological sustainability.
I am proud to say that I am Pledger #36.Recently, Justice Antonin Scalia shot his mouth off about another bit of “social” judicial opinion and managed to be correct to a fault again. Here is the article. Basically, he is of the opinion that if a specific term or phrase does not appear in the Constitution, then that subject is simply not covered. Most famously, this goes to the continuing argument over privacy. There is, by Scalia’s reasoning (and I must add he is by no means alone in this—it is not merely his private opinion), no Constitutionally-protected right to privacy. As far as it goes, this is correct, but beside the point. The word “private” certainly appears, in the Fifth Amendment, and it would seem absurd to suggest the framers had no thought for what that word meant. It refers here to private property, of course, but just that opens the debate to the fact that there is a concept of privacy underlying it. The modern debate over privacy concerns contraception and the first case where matters of privacy are discussed is Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965. That case concerned the right of a married couple to purchase and use contraception, which was against the law in that state (and others). The Court had to define an arena of privacy within which people enjoy a presumed right of autonomous decision-making and into which the state had no brief to interfere. Prior to this, the Court relied on a “freedom of contract” concept to define protected areas of conduct. Notice, we’re back in the realm of property law here. People who insist that there is no “right to privacy” that is Constitutionally protected seem intent on dismissing any concept of privacy with which they disagree, but no doubt would squeal should their own self-defined concept be violated. Therein lies the problem, one we continue to struggle with. But it does, at least in Court tradition, come down to some variation of ownership rights—which is what has made the abortion debate so difficult, since implicit in it is the question of whether or not a woman “owns” her body and may therefore, in some construction of freedom of contract, determine its use under any and all circumstances. [More . . . ]
Barry Schwartz (on whom I’ve posted before) says it’s clear that “we need to rein in the bankers.” What is the solution indifferent, uncaring and selfish individuals and institutions? More rules? More incentives? Barry Schwartz says rules and incentives are not long-term solutions because they de-moralize us. They create large populations of people who do everything for incentives. We become addicted to incentives. Further, there is no set of rules that will effectively get us what we need. Bankers are smart and they will find cracks in any rules. They will find a new way to bring the financial system, once again, to the point of collapse. What we really need is virtue and character --- “we need people who want to do the right thing.” We need “practical wisdom,” the moral will and skill to figure out what the right thing is, and then to do it. Aristotle studied carpenters and other crafts-people who appreciated that you often need to bend the rules to get the job done. Dealing with other people demands flexibility improvisation, and wise people understand this. Wise people do this rule-bending “in the service of the right aims.” We need to do this rule bending in the service of others, not merely ourselves. This is “practical wisdom” in a nutshell. [More . . . ]