I'm applauding the cover story of the October 9, 2006 edition of Time: "What Makes Us Different?" [The quick answer is that, out of 3 billion base pairs in the human genome, only 1.23% are different than those found in the chimpanzee genome]. The writers based this article solely on the expert…
I recently spoke with a friend who was having difficulty making a major decision in his life. I suggested to him that he might be struggling because he is a talented fellow who might therefore have too many options.
After we concluded our conversation, I recalled reading a well-written book called the Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less (2004), by Barry Schwartz. This delightful book incorporates many findings of cognitive science and the psychology of decision-making. His main point is, indeed, paradoxical:
As the number of available choices increases, as it has in our consumer culture, the autonomy, control and liberation this variety brings are powerful and positive. But as the number of choices keeps growing, negative aspects of having a multitude of options begin to appear. As the number of choices grows further, the negatives escalate until we become overloaded. At this point, choice no longer liberates, but debilitated. It might even be said to tyrannize.
When Schwartz speaks of tyranny, he reminds us that we live in a society in which you can find paralyzing members of choices even at the supermarket. Why is it that we need 16 types of instant mashed potatoes, 75 types of instant gravies, 120 different types of pastas sauce 16 versions of Italian dressing, 275 types of serial and 64 formulas of barbecue sauce? We face similar numbers of choices when we choose retirement plans, medical care, careers, where to live and who to be.
Modern society has done this to …
If the past few weeks have proven anything at all they have proven to us that no news is not good news. In the absence of a steady stream of vigorous reporting to convince us that things are actually going well, we should never assume that things are okay.
We now have evidence that Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice were advised of an imminent Al Qaeda attack in July, 2001, but that they did nothing to protect us.
We now have evidence that an alleged stalwart protector of children, Mark Foley, is actually a brash and despicable Internet predator. We know also that several high-ranking Republicans covered up the conduct of Mark Foley for months instead of protecting the teenage boys on the receiving end of Foley’s horny advances.
We now know from the recent NIE report directed to the President that the war in Iraq is inflaming the Middle East and that producing a new generation of Islamic radicals. This contradicts the constant and ludicrous assertions by the President that attacking Iraq would make Americans safer from acts of terrorism. In other words, the President’s claim that he was protecting us by attacking Iraq was utterly false and it should have been vigorously questioned by the press for years.
All of this recently revealed information makes me ask “what else don’t we know?” …
Here's a pretty amazing admission by Limbaugh, published on Crooks and Liars. Limbaugh has been criticizing Jack Murtha for this approach for dealing with Iraq, but now suggests it himself without giving Murtha credit (or an apology).
58 percent of Americans believe Bush administration has deliberately misled the American public about the war in Iraq, according to a new CNN poll. The comments regarding this poll on Think Progress are well worth a visit.