...is a man whose book I have actually read.
*checks window for flying pigs*
Angus Deaton has done close and illuminating work in development economics for years. His most recent book is The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality. I picked this up when I was reading up on effective aid and development, and from the title pretty much expected a philosophical tract decrying Western Civ et al.
I was wrong on two counts - firstly, there is a LOT of math. Secondly, as far as I can tell Deaton doesn't much care about Western Civ or the many alleged injustices of its past.
He cares that people who are poor get sick and die faster than those of us who are not. And he looks for ways to fix that poverty thing. (By vastly improving the models used to count poor people, so the experiments can be replicated/tracked. If you can't count something, it doesn't count.) Plus! Deaton's language is clear and engaging. And did I mention the math? There is math.And footnotes.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, October 12, 2015
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
On Voting Day (politics and other stuff)
Firstly - if you have not done so, please go vote, no matter who you are voting for. (Yes, I think it matters who you vote for. Yes, I want you to vote anyway. Improving the process is more important than getting a specific 'good' result.)
Secondly, if you have voted - start talking it up earlier next year/next election. Twice today I've come across people who have trouble voting because they didn't bother to update their registration when they moved - MONTHS AGO. If you show up at a precient where you are not registered, and they don't let you vote because you don't have proper ID showing that you're *supposed* to vote there - this is a feature, not a bug. Please help encourage people to get this stuff straighten out EARLY.
Thirdly - I'm not non-partisan. I have opinions and they are right, true, and correct and if you disagree then you are wrong. But. As I've said before - differing opinions doesn't mean we have to fight about it. And it doesn't mean we have to believe the worst about each other.
I'm not going to go all happy-happy-joy-joy, isn't-the-world-full-of-sunshine-and-flowers. There are demons, there are people who commit acts of horrific violence, there are people who thrive on injustice and smug superiority and looking out for number one, there are people who not demand mercy for themselves, but also validation, and who want not only justice but divine retribution for everyone else, and if God isn't up to the task, well, they'll help the old guy out.
But that's not most of us, and we need to assume that's not the people we live and work and pray and vote with. For our own sanity, if nothing else.
So...a few things to highlight, today.
Let Freedom (and Happiness) Reign - a book review in The New Yorker, about an illustrated wander through the country.
Special Arab/Muslim issue of Apex Magazine. (It's good that we have such stuff. It'll be better when such doesn't merit 'special issues'. Inbetween will be hard.)
How the Rest of the World Reports on the Tea Party in Foreign Policy - *shakes head* On the one hand, it's helpful, in a 'how do we talk about this' way, to know what other people think. On the other hand, it's frustrating to see that it's not just Americans who absolutely don't understand other people's cultures and backgrounds.
Continuing with the educational-but-not-helpful theme - I don't this this is the best answer to the idea of a writer using comics to popularize Muslim virtues. I think there's tons of room to discuss the on-going integration and interaction between 'the West' and 'Islam' - from between nations to between congregations to within those people currently living on the borderlands, including those people who ARE the borderlands - but I think comics (and art, and lit, including SF) are a way to discuss that, and *should* be used.
Heck, if it's good enough for Pope John Paul II, it's good enough for anyone.
(Part of the discussion should, I think, be focused on 'separation of church and state' as a Western/Christian ideal, and possibly not a universal human truth. But that's a sidebar, I think.)
A few days ago there was a horrific attack on a Christian church - during services - in Iraq. I think it worthy to offer prayers for those injuried, those dead, their families, and for the soldiers and police who responded. And for those who carried out the attack.
If you have not yet watched, I recommend this clip of Jon Stewart's finale speech at the Mall on Saturday. I don't agree with a lot of what Stewart says on most days. But I agree with a lot of what he says here.
And following on that: Brian Spears quit blogging about politics.
Secondly, if you have voted - start talking it up earlier next year/next election. Twice today I've come across people who have trouble voting because they didn't bother to update their registration when they moved - MONTHS AGO. If you show up at a precient where you are not registered, and they don't let you vote because you don't have proper ID showing that you're *supposed* to vote there - this is a feature, not a bug. Please help encourage people to get this stuff straighten out EARLY.
Thirdly - I'm not non-partisan. I have opinions and they are right, true, and correct and if you disagree then you are wrong. But. As I've said before - differing opinions doesn't mean we have to fight about it. And it doesn't mean we have to believe the worst about each other.
I'm not going to go all happy-happy-joy-joy, isn't-the-world-full-of-sunshine-and-flowers. There are demons, there are people who commit acts of horrific violence, there are people who thrive on injustice and smug superiority and looking out for number one, there are people who not demand mercy for themselves, but also validation, and who want not only justice but divine retribution for everyone else, and if God isn't up to the task, well, they'll help the old guy out.
But that's not most of us, and we need to assume that's not the people we live and work and pray and vote with. For our own sanity, if nothing else.
So...a few things to highlight, today.
Let Freedom (and Happiness) Reign - a book review in The New Yorker, about an illustrated wander through the country.
Special Arab/Muslim issue of Apex Magazine. (It's good that we have such stuff. It'll be better when such doesn't merit 'special issues'. Inbetween will be hard.)
How the Rest of the World Reports on the Tea Party in Foreign Policy - *shakes head* On the one hand, it's helpful, in a 'how do we talk about this' way, to know what other people think. On the other hand, it's frustrating to see that it's not just Americans who absolutely don't understand other people's cultures and backgrounds.
Continuing with the educational-but-not-helpful theme - I don't this this is the best answer to the idea of a writer using comics to popularize Muslim virtues. I think there's tons of room to discuss the on-going integration and interaction between 'the West' and 'Islam' - from between nations to between congregations to within those people currently living on the borderlands, including those people who ARE the borderlands - but I think comics (and art, and lit, including SF) are a way to discuss that, and *should* be used.
Heck, if it's good enough for Pope John Paul II, it's good enough for anyone.
(Part of the discussion should, I think, be focused on 'separation of church and state' as a Western/Christian ideal, and possibly not a universal human truth. But that's a sidebar, I think.)
A few days ago there was a horrific attack on a Christian church - during services - in Iraq. I think it worthy to offer prayers for those injuried, those dead, their families, and for the soldiers and police who responded. And for those who carried out the attack.
If you have not yet watched, I recommend this clip of Jon Stewart's finale speech at the Mall on Saturday. I don't agree with a lot of what Stewart says on most days. But I agree with a lot of what he says here.
And following on that: Brian Spears quit blogging about politics.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
News Reaction: What should be said, and when
One of the things I've struggled with, blogging wise, is how (and when, and why) to respond to events in the news. And not just blogging - when, in daily life and passing conversation, does one bring up the latest insanity that's made headlines?
(Other people may have an easier time with this than I do - I argue with the radio in the car and mutter things under my breath at the tv playing in the caffiteria. Of course, I do this with TV shows and movies, too. Unquestioning consumption doesn't come easy.)
To add another wrinkle - much of the time, my reaction is negative - disagreement, fact-checking, and plain old 'look-at-the-world-we-live-in-it-these-kids-these-days'. I'm fairly well convinced that constantly spouting negativity is good for neither me nor who ever happens to be sharing my space. (And heaven knows the current state of political and social discourse in American society needs less divisive talk and demonizing, not more.)
And yet, is self-censorship ('if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all') the solution? Or is silence the same as agreement? No single person could possibly comment intelligently on every news article or blog post printed daily - even if they just limited themselves to things on which they had some degree of expertise! But just as the major networks, magazines and newspapers are accussed of bias in the things they talk about the things they ignore, so do we all pick and choose what we 'amp the signal' on, and what we walk past. (1)
Some things shouldn't be ignored. Some things shouldn't be given the dignity of a response.
And sometimes it's best to remember that God doesn't want me to be concerned about what other people do nearly as much as God wants me to be aware of what I'm doing.
***
Following that - this article about a Louisiana Justice of the Peace who refused to perform a marriage ceremony for an interracial couple has been getting traction, as they say.
The JP gave this reason for not performing the ceremony - that he felt the childern of interracial marriages had difficult lives and were never fully accepted into either 'black' or 'white' society. Instead of performing the ceremony, he referred the couple to another JP.(2)
I'm going to leave aside the legal requirements demanded of an elected official, and say that I can see where the JP is coming from - and that I don't disagree with his specific point, on the incomplete social integration in this country. There has been a great number of electrons spent on this point - the social, economic and health consequences of being African-American, Latino, or Native American in America.(3)
Much the same has been said, in fact, about the childern of single mothers, of Downs syndrome babies, of the childern of poor families, about the childern of women who have been raped - that they will be underpriviledged, unloved, and possibly abused. And because of this, the arguement goes, it is legitament for the mothers of those childern to abort childern in those situations, rather than carry them to term and let fate - or God - determine what happens then.
Both are rational, logical opinions that look carefully at the world we live in today.
And I reject both conclusions. We should not, I think, be looking at the world as it is, but at the world as we would like it to be. We should strive to treat people as though they were capable of reaching the highest potiential, instead of assuming they were pre-destined to some lesser capability.
Neither our striving to treat each other well nor our indivdual efforts to excell are going to be perfectly successful, and we should recognize that. But that should not stop us from trying.
***
Other items on a similar theme:
Journalist attempts shopping only at African American businesses (Actually, there is a whole movement behind this - check out here, here, here, and here. Note: I'm not convinced that selecting businesses based, first and most importantly, on the race of the owners isn't race-based bigotry.)
Slightly related to the above: 100-mile diet
Different definitions of racism
***
Notes:
(1) Something that gets throw out there - "Why are you talking about X when Y is obviously so much more horrible/significant/interesting/vital?" Different strokes for different folks - and just because H1N1 isn't Ebola doesn't mean that H1N1 is insignificant.
(2) This point - that the couple was sent to another JP, and that they were married shortly there after, so that the whole incident is less than two weeks old at this date - has been dropped from some news reports.
(3) This is an embarraessment for the land of the free. That we are still, imo, better at complete integration than any other nation on the planet doesn't change the fact that we can and should do better.
(Other people may have an easier time with this than I do - I argue with the radio in the car and mutter things under my breath at the tv playing in the caffiteria. Of course, I do this with TV shows and movies, too. Unquestioning consumption doesn't come easy.)
To add another wrinkle - much of the time, my reaction is negative - disagreement, fact-checking, and plain old 'look-at-the-world-we-live-in-it-these-kids-these-days'. I'm fairly well convinced that constantly spouting negativity is good for neither me nor who ever happens to be sharing my space. (And heaven knows the current state of political and social discourse in American society needs less divisive talk and demonizing, not more.)
And yet, is self-censorship ('if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all') the solution? Or is silence the same as agreement? No single person could possibly comment intelligently on every news article or blog post printed daily - even if they just limited themselves to things on which they had some degree of expertise! But just as the major networks, magazines and newspapers are accussed of bias in the things they talk about the things they ignore, so do we all pick and choose what we 'amp the signal' on, and what we walk past. (1)
Some things shouldn't be ignored. Some things shouldn't be given the dignity of a response.
And sometimes it's best to remember that God doesn't want me to be concerned about what other people do nearly as much as God wants me to be aware of what I'm doing.
***
Following that - this article about a Louisiana Justice of the Peace who refused to perform a marriage ceremony for an interracial couple has been getting traction, as they say.
The JP gave this reason for not performing the ceremony - that he felt the childern of interracial marriages had difficult lives and were never fully accepted into either 'black' or 'white' society. Instead of performing the ceremony, he referred the couple to another JP.(2)
I'm going to leave aside the legal requirements demanded of an elected official, and say that I can see where the JP is coming from - and that I don't disagree with his specific point, on the incomplete social integration in this country. There has been a great number of electrons spent on this point - the social, economic and health consequences of being African-American, Latino, or Native American in America.(3)
Much the same has been said, in fact, about the childern of single mothers, of Downs syndrome babies, of the childern of poor families, about the childern of women who have been raped - that they will be underpriviledged, unloved, and possibly abused. And because of this, the arguement goes, it is legitament for the mothers of those childern to abort childern in those situations, rather than carry them to term and let fate - or God - determine what happens then.
Both are rational, logical opinions that look carefully at the world we live in today.
And I reject both conclusions. We should not, I think, be looking at the world as it is, but at the world as we would like it to be. We should strive to treat people as though they were capable of reaching the highest potiential, instead of assuming they were pre-destined to some lesser capability.
Neither our striving to treat each other well nor our indivdual efforts to excell are going to be perfectly successful, and we should recognize that. But that should not stop us from trying.
***
Other items on a similar theme:
Journalist attempts shopping only at African American businesses (Actually, there is a whole movement behind this - check out here, here, here, and here. Note: I'm not convinced that selecting businesses based, first and most importantly, on the race of the owners isn't race-based bigotry.)
Slightly related to the above: 100-mile diet
Different definitions of racism
***
Notes:
(1) Something that gets throw out there - "Why are you talking about X when Y is obviously so much more horrible/significant/interesting/vital?" Different strokes for different folks - and just because H1N1 isn't Ebola doesn't mean that H1N1 is insignificant.
(2) This point - that the couple was sent to another JP, and that they were married shortly there after, so that the whole incident is less than two weeks old at this date - has been dropped from some news reports.
(3) This is an embarraessment for the land of the free. That we are still, imo, better at complete integration than any other nation on the planet doesn't change the fact that we can and should do better.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Recent (and not recent) Links: Religion
An important part of being Catholic, for me, is the international nature of the Church. This came home to me again when I visited Norway - most of my fellow co-religious were non-European. (Including the lovely daughter of a weary and harrassed looking mother in the pew in front of me in Oslo - a restless little nymph in a shining white dress and sneakers with red LED lights that lit up when she stamped her feet. She reminded me so much of my little brothers (years back, you understand) that I hardly kept from laughing outloud during the readings.)
Anyway. Being Catholic is one of the ways I am definitely a part of the whole human race.
From Brazil: Two stories (here and here) concerning an abortion case. The mother in this case was a 9 year-old girl, impregnated by her foster-father. The local Bishop, in accordance with doctrine, excommunicated the 9-year-old's parents and the doctor who performed the proceedure.
What a horrific situation. Hard cases make bad laws. On some levels, it makes me nuts that this is an abortion news story about the Catholic Church, and not a child abuse story about the case of the rape of the girl.
It's hard to live with either solution - a child, already victimized by an adult she trusted, dealing with the physical and social reprecussions of carrying the baby to term. (The Catholic option suggested was cesearian section, not the (likely lethal)option of letting the girl go through labor.) Or, a child, already victimized by an adult she trusted, dealing with having been forced into an abortion. (IMO, if a child can't legally agree to sex, they can't agree to abortion, either.)
The idea that it would be better to go ahead with the abortion, and just let the child and her family get on with their lives hinges, I think, on the supposition that it's not an actual person that is killed during abortion. Which is...hard.
***
Vactican statement may put pressure on Catholic judges. Interesting. One of the not fun parts about being an American and being a Catholic is the inherent conflict between the two. It appears that the Church may have just upped the ante.
***
Top 10 Religion Stories of 2008; according to Time magazine.
As a bit of a counter point - an older article about Top 25 Evangelicals in America. I didn't focus too much on the personalities of the religious leaders in previous administrations. (To some extent, I was more concerned with people living principles, not preaching them. To other extents, I didn't care.) I will have to look further into the Catholic personalities mentioned. (Richard John Neuhaus)
***
Drug Dealers for Jesus In Mexico - As presented in the article, it's less a religous movement and more a "red-neck" outfit - where religion is part of what makes up "La Familia Michoacana" into a self-contained community. Narcotics smuggling is not on my list of "things to do for the glory of the kingdom of God." My sympathy is not with people who kill cops.
But. It's beyond the scope of this post to go into the righteousness of doing an ugly job with compassion and integrity. I'm not sure that applies here, but it bears considering.
***
Barbara Hagerty Interview: An NPR journalist talks about looking for God. My faith is the prism through which I look at the world and make moral decisions.
***
And a last one, not exactly religious, but keeping it SFF - Muggle Activists - Harry Potter fans unite to change the world. I'm not a Potter fan, but I'll say about this what I said about the books - anything that gets huge numbers of non-reading kids to read multiple lengthy novels is not all bad.
Anyway. Being Catholic is one of the ways I am definitely a part of the whole human race.
From Brazil: Two stories (here and here) concerning an abortion case. The mother in this case was a 9 year-old girl, impregnated by her foster-father. The local Bishop, in accordance with doctrine, excommunicated the 9-year-old's parents and the doctor who performed the proceedure.
What a horrific situation. Hard cases make bad laws. On some levels, it makes me nuts that this is an abortion news story about the Catholic Church, and not a child abuse story about the case of the rape of the girl.
It's hard to live with either solution - a child, already victimized by an adult she trusted, dealing with the physical and social reprecussions of carrying the baby to term. (The Catholic option suggested was cesearian section, not the (likely lethal)option of letting the girl go through labor.) Or, a child, already victimized by an adult she trusted, dealing with having been forced into an abortion. (IMO, if a child can't legally agree to sex, they can't agree to abortion, either.)
The idea that it would be better to go ahead with the abortion, and just let the child and her family get on with their lives hinges, I think, on the supposition that it's not an actual person that is killed during abortion. Which is...hard.
***
Vactican statement may put pressure on Catholic judges. Interesting. One of the not fun parts about being an American and being a Catholic is the inherent conflict between the two. It appears that the Church may have just upped the ante.
***
Top 10 Religion Stories of 2008; according to Time magazine.
As a bit of a counter point - an older article about Top 25 Evangelicals in America. I didn't focus too much on the personalities of the religious leaders in previous administrations. (To some extent, I was more concerned with people living principles, not preaching them. To other extents, I didn't care.) I will have to look further into the Catholic personalities mentioned. (Richard John Neuhaus)
***
Drug Dealers for Jesus In Mexico - As presented in the article, it's less a religous movement and more a "red-neck" outfit - where religion is part of what makes up "La Familia Michoacana" into a self-contained community. Narcotics smuggling is not on my list of "things to do for the glory of the kingdom of God." My sympathy is not with people who kill cops.
But. It's beyond the scope of this post to go into the righteousness of doing an ugly job with compassion and integrity. I'm not sure that applies here, but it bears considering.
***
Barbara Hagerty Interview: An NPR journalist talks about looking for God. My faith is the prism through which I look at the world and make moral decisions.
***
And a last one, not exactly religious, but keeping it SFF - Muggle Activists - Harry Potter fans unite to change the world. I'm not a Potter fan, but I'll say about this what I said about the books - anything that gets huge numbers of non-reading kids to read multiple lengthy novels is not all bad.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Stem Cell Research
(Touches on that Great Evil of Our Times, Politics. Feel free to walk on past.)
I wouldn't be posting this, if Neil Gaiman hadn't put up a post here that (IMO) misrepresented the stance of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on stem-cell research.
I am a strong supporter of scientific research. I strongly support research into inovations in health care and cures for chronic disease. I'm in favor of the space program, GM crops (to include animal crops) and the rational use of experimental animal models (which means I am in favor of testing medications and techniques on animals.)
But I think all of those should be pursued with caution and with strict attention to the moral and practical effects of the studies in question. (Including as simple a question as "is this the best thing for our money to be spent on today?")
I do not support the destruction of viable humanembreyos embryos in scientific research. I think that - even if *no* study options were available - this practice is a long step down the slippery slope that leads to endorsement of euthanasia of the unwanted. (As a veterinarian, I recognize, respect, and use euthanasia as the valuable tool that it is. I do not support extending that tool to humans.)
I also feel that this is not an either/or arguement, that adult stem cells have been shown to be of medical use.
Because of this, I object strongly to the use of federal funds to support stem cell research that depends on the destruction of viable human embryos. If you agree with me, may I suggest that you contact and express your opinion?
I wouldn't be posting this, if Neil Gaiman hadn't put up a post here that (IMO) misrepresented the stance of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on stem-cell research.
I am a strong supporter of scientific research. I strongly support research into inovations in health care and cures for chronic disease. I'm in favor of the space program, GM crops (to include animal crops) and the rational use of experimental animal models (which means I am in favor of testing medications and techniques on animals.)
But I think all of those should be pursued with caution and with strict attention to the moral and practical effects of the studies in question. (Including as simple a question as "is this the best thing for our money to be spent on today?")
I do not support the destruction of viable human
I also feel that this is not an either/or arguement, that adult stem cells have been shown to be of medical use.
Because of this, I object strongly to the use of federal funds to support stem cell research that depends on the destruction of viable human embryos. If you agree with me, may I suggest that you contact and express your opinion?
Friday, March 6, 2009
On 'Going John Galt'
In a post here, Dr Helen Smith gives the background on the phrase 'Going John Galt' - as I read it's a 'slow down strike' for people making more than miniumn wage.
The idea comes out of Ann Rand's writing, which, unfortunately, makes it suspect in my book. (I managed to slog my way through 'Anthem' and didn't leave anything there I felt I needed to go back for. Others, I know, have found Rand much more personnally meaningful.)
This 'slow down, don't chase the dollar, why keep on working more than you have to' idea is not new to me. I've heard a similar theme from various people - from back-to-the-earth-organic-or-bust types, from vowed religious, from just about everyone who has ever looked at the wealth of the developed world and thought too. much. stuff. Can. not. COPE!!
A more simplistic lifestyle is one thing. I have a great deal of admiration for those who can engage in a perpetual Lent, forever aware of what they want, and deliberately setting their wants aside. In the same way, people who try to reduce their impact on the earth, or who give generously to charities, or otherwise 'fast' from consumption - nothing wrong with that, I think.
But last time I checked, we didn't have enough skilled surgeons, enough dedicated teachers, enough honest lawyers or straight cops. In fact, thinking on it, I'm not sure if there is a profession out there, from ditch-digger to rocket scientist, where the career as a whole would be helped by the self-removal of competent professionals with integrity and dedication.
It's one thing to step back, slow down, and spend more time off in order to save energy, support a loved one, go back to school, or save your sanity. But to do so in order to 'punish' the rest of society? Particularly in such an unfocused, generalized manner?
Of course, there's another option, for those whose intent is to produce less, but not undergo the restrictions that lowered effort generally produce. In my home town, it was called 'being a county employee' - once hired, you were impossible to fire, no matter how little you actually did.
I'm thinking those who propose 'going John Galt' really don't want other people to draw that corellary.
The idea comes out of Ann Rand's writing, which, unfortunately, makes it suspect in my book. (I managed to slog my way through 'Anthem' and didn't leave anything there I felt I needed to go back for. Others, I know, have found Rand much more personnally meaningful.)
This 'slow down, don't chase the dollar, why keep on working more than you have to' idea is not new to me. I've heard a similar theme from various people - from back-to-the-earth-organic-or-bust types, from vowed religious, from just about everyone who has ever looked at the wealth of the developed world and thought too. much. stuff. Can. not. COPE!!
A more simplistic lifestyle is one thing. I have a great deal of admiration for those who can engage in a perpetual Lent, forever aware of what they want, and deliberately setting their wants aside. In the same way, people who try to reduce their impact on the earth, or who give generously to charities, or otherwise 'fast' from consumption - nothing wrong with that, I think.
But last time I checked, we didn't have enough skilled surgeons, enough dedicated teachers, enough honest lawyers or straight cops. In fact, thinking on it, I'm not sure if there is a profession out there, from ditch-digger to rocket scientist, where the career as a whole would be helped by the self-removal of competent professionals with integrity and dedication.
It's one thing to step back, slow down, and spend more time off in order to save energy, support a loved one, go back to school, or save your sanity. But to do so in order to 'punish' the rest of society? Particularly in such an unfocused, generalized manner?
Of course, there's another option, for those whose intent is to produce less, but not undergo the restrictions that lowered effort generally produce. In my home town, it was called 'being a county employee' - once hired, you were impossible to fire, no matter how little you actually did.
I'm thinking those who propose 'going John Galt' really don't want other people to draw that corellary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
