The twelve countries with the highest quality of life

The twelve countries with the highest quality of life do not include the United States. We come in at number 13, which means that we''re not doing badly as a whole. But we're not doing as well as we should be doing, assuming (as many conservatives insist without reference to any metric) that there is no greater country than the United States. We were beaten in the rankings by many "socialist" countries, such as Norway, Canada, Sweden and France. The U.N.'s measurement system is the Human Development Index, a complex objective formula, not a subjective determination. Some of the many dozens of factors that go into the HDI include the following:

  • Adult illiteracy rate
  • Asylum seekers by country of asylum
  • Average annual change in consumer price index (%)
  • Children underweight for age (% under age 5)
  • Combined gross enrolment ratio in education (%)
  • Earned income (estimated), ratio of female to male
  • Female adult literacy rate (% aged 15 and above)
  • Female estimated earned income (PPP US$)
  • Female life expectancy at birth (years)
  • GDI rank
  • GDP per capita (PPP US$)
  • Government expenditure on health as a percentage of total government expenditure
  • Government expenditure on health per capita (PPP US$)
  • Healthy life expectancy at birth (years)
  • Human development index value
  • Human poverty index (HPI-1) rank
Consider, also, this recent news from the Commonwealth Fund:

Although the United States now spends $2.4 trillion a year on medical care — vastly more per capita than comparable countries — the nation ranks near the bottom on premature deaths caused by illnesses such as diabetes, epilepsy, stroke, influenza, ulcers and pneumonia

Continue ReadingThe twelve countries with the highest quality of life

Making children say the pledge of allegiance over and over is “teaching them history.”

I remember how, back in the 1960's,  I was forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance every day in grade school. Those were the days when we had nuclear bomb drills: we lined up and marched to the school basement, where we would presumably be safe from the fallout of atomic bombs. Some of my neighbors even had bomb shelters dug out in their yards. [caption id="attachment_9484" align="alignright" width="150" caption="Image by Crafteepics at Dreamstime (with permission)"]Image by Crafteepics at Dreamstime (with permission)[/caption] Based on my own experience, children don't like saying the pledge. It  is mind-numbing to children; as proof, consider that you never see children saying the Pledge on their own.  They only say the Pledge when they are forced to do so by insecure adults.  All honest and rational people know that the children say the pledge only because they are forced to do so.  All honest people also know that one can be a patriot without ever saying the Pledge of Allegiance.  As proof, none of the following people ever said the Pledge of Allegiance:  George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine . . . [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingMaking children say the pledge of allegiance over and over is “teaching them history.”

Abandoning one’s adoptive child

What am I supposed to think when a woman steps forward to publicize her decision to give up an adopted child that she had raised for 18 months? This story leaves me bewildered. I don’t think the story tells me enough to allow me to know what to think. I keep wondering, "What if it had been her biological child? What would I think then? Would I have an opinion in that case, or would I be in this same puzzled/confused state that I'm now experiencing? How could I possibly render judgment without knowing a lot more about all of those involved? Even though I am sorely tempted to be angry with this adoptive mother at a gut level. But, as indicated in the video, this woman has parented her own biological children too. But that can cut two ways. And why aren't we told anything at all about the adoptive father and his history and attitudes regarding this baby? And what about the claim that the baby is doing "well" with his new family? That cuts both ways too, in my opinion. What's really going on here? Were there financial issues? Racial issues? Medical issues? Such a frustrating story to me. What is the take-away message from this story? It makes me feel like a voyeur and it makes me want to accuse MSNBC of irresponsibly packaging this story. Note: For those who don't know me, I am an adoptive parent of two girls from China who I very much consider to be my daughter forever, no matter what happens--and that's how my wife and I looked at adoption from Day One. I wonder how much my personal history colors my views on this abandonment story.

Continue ReadingAbandoning one’s adoptive child

Nader in Omaha

Tuesday afternoon, I was privileged to be able to attend a speech by Ralph Nader, followed by a question-and-answer session and a book-signing. He was promoting his new book, Only the Super-rich can save us! If you weren't aware that he has a new book out, you aren't alone. In fact, his presence in Omaha wasn't well-publicized. I managed to see this article in the local paper which alerted me to both the fact that he had a new book out, and that he was in Omaha. I was fortunate enough to be able to arrange for some time off work, and went to the 3:00 session at McFoster's Natural-Kind Cafe. Unfortunately, I completely forgot my role as a blogger and so I was woefully unprepared to take notes or photos. So rather than direct quotes, I'll discuss some of the main themes of his speech, as well as the question-and-answer session. Nader was scheduled to speak at 3:00 p.m., but didn't actually take the podium until about 3:15, largely due to the enthusiastic crowd gathered around him peppering him with questions and having their books signed. He spoke for about a half-hour, then took questions for roughly another hour. I estimated the crowd to number about 80, and it was standing-room only in the small upstairs room at McFoster's. His speech stuck pretty closely to the themes of the book, which asks us to re-imagine the last several years. The book begins with the disastrous fumbling of Hurricane Katrina, and a fictionalized Warren Buffet aghast at the apparent inability of a former first-world country to provide relief to its own citizens. Using his vast economic resources, he marshals the needed supplies and delivers them to a devastated New Orleans. The experience haunts him though, and he decides to convene a group of billionaires to solve some of the most pressing crises confronting American democracy. Using untold billions of their own, they are able to finally provide an effective foil against the big-money interests that would continue using the system to unjustly enrich themselves.

Continue ReadingNader in Omaha

New Direction in the World Wide Web

The U.S. Government is considering loosening the hold on the group created by the U.S. Government to oversee internet naming for the world. This recent PC Magazine article describes how ICANN Begins Moving Away from U.S. Control. One big milestone will be to allow alphabets other than Latinate (English) in website names. This is a big change; going from one-byte letters to unicode two byte letters to accommodate the thousands-of-letter alphabets of pictographic languages. You browser already can handle this. And the next billion new internet users won't need to first become fluent in the Roman Alphabet. But the change that has the business community abuzz is that they are opening up the Top Level Domains. You know, .com, .org, .us, etc. Back when they added .com and .org there was some sputtering about the lack of need. After all, we had .gov, .org, .edu, and all the country domains. Why have specific virtual realms for-profit and non-profit suffixes? Then the web took off, and "everyone" soon associated the commercial superdomain (.com) with "the web". Eventually, even government entities gave up on .gov, and made .com their native home, like usps.com. Now, businesses are worried that opening up these suffixes completely will get expensive. One likely suggestion being debated is ".food". Will McDonalds have to pony up to buy its suite of names in .food as well as in .com? What if someone opens up .burger? Want dot fries with that? It could get expensive and confusing to have dozens or hundreds of names for any given website. Will this become a new boom time for cyber-squatters, those who buy up names and hold them for ransom? And what about "www"? 15 years ago, there still was a subtle distinction between hyper-text transfer protocol (http://) and the Web (www). The former originally applied to text-only Bulletin Boards. But this has long evaporated, and www has become an artifact that remains mainly because it is easier to type than "http://" as an indicator to a browser of what you mean by a URL.

Continue ReadingNew Direction in the World Wide Web