Morality and Politics

In this post, Matthew Yglesias talks about how politicians should do the right thing just because...they should. I fully agree with his argument, of course, in situations where it is clear that there is a "right thing" to do which isn't happening. The problem with that picture lies in the fact that not everyone sees the world in the same terms. What might be the "right thing" for one person looks wrong to another. It's good to have that kind of debate, as long as both sides can present intelligent arguments, because it makes people think about different sides of an issue.

However, I agree that the majority of the conflict of today is not caused by intelligent debate. It is caused by people who know the right thing to do, but choose to ignore it. This is the "ignorance is bliss," or as Thomas Friedman would put it, "dumb as we want to be" outlook. With issues such as climate change, it has become easier to take this position because we feel distanced from it. Most people are not directly affected by climate change-- at least not yet. Yglesias sums this up nicely:

I’m fairly certain, for example, that Fred Hiatt wouldn’t strangle a baby polar bear just for cheap thrills. But he would run an ignorant Sarah Palin op-ed on climate, and repeatedly allow George Will to mislead people about climate science. What’s more, if Hiatt strolled around Washington soaked in the blood of polar bears he’d been strangling, people would treat him like a pariah. But instead his friends and colleagues and professional peers have evidently decided that he’s just a nice guy who happens to run a crappy-but-influential op-ed page.

One thing he fails to address is the lack of balance Political Action Committees. A candidate needs a lot of money to run a decent campaign, and if voting one way will get him or her more money, that's the way the vote will be cast in most cases.

This clouds the real issues in politics and stands in the way of the simple, moral government ideal Yglesias is talking about.

In short, I agree that we need more intelligence and morality in government. However, I don't think changing the status quo is as simple as Yglesias makes it sound.

COP15 Opening Film

In honor of the beginning of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen:



Here's to hoping the conference brings as much positive change as this video would lead us to believe.

Guinea Worm Likely Eradicated in Nigeria

The Guinea worm has most likely been eradicated in Nigeria. No worm has been found for a year, although it will take two more years to make the eradication status official.

The worm enters the human body via drinking water, so the Carter Center has been working to provide people with filters to filter the water fleas out of drinking water, among other preventative methods. It seems their efforts may have paid off.

This is a great example of positive global change. Technology like filters may seem so simple, yet it changes lives when if people who were formerly denied it gain access to it. Just think what could be accomplished if more people took on projects such as this one.

Congratulations, Nigeria and the Carter Center!

Hello Again, Sarah Palin

I can't believe we still have to listen to this woman.

Palin's current book tour has caused her to become prominent in the media once again, and it's reminding me why her run for Vice President was so frightening-- what if she'd been elected?

This article encompasses her lack of knowledge about issues (particularly scientific ones, in this case). I take issue with nearly every statement posed by her in the article.

In addition to attacking the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate-- she tries to be taken seriously and questions her opponent's birth record (rather than, for example, his policies), of all things?-- she questions whether current climate change is human-caused and whether evolution exists. Both of her opinions here just don't make sense, because there is far too much solid, scientific evidence to prove that humans cause climate change and evolution occurred.

The article states that "She also rails against 'snake oil' science, and says, 'Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics...that capitalize on the public's worry."

Oh, the irony.

That is exactly what Sarah Palin does. She gets the public hyped on rumors and half-truths (and sometimes blatantly false information) in order to gain support. Anyone with enough information can see right through to the weakness of her knowledge base.

Although he may have acted out a bit strongly in public, I think the man mentioned here had the right idea.

The Modern Glass Ceiling

This article discusses a statement made by this year's two female medicine Nobel Laureates, in which they urged scientific institutions to make higher positions more accessible to women.

It got me thinking about the glass ceiling in general. Although many fields are becoming less gender-discriminatory, the obstacle of having children still remains. While it has traditionally been fairly easy for men to have a full-time job and spend time with his family on weekends and evenings, women who want to work full-time need to figure out childcare and come to terms with their degree of involvement in their children's lives.

I think we as a nation are losing a lot of quality workers and thinkers if we don't allow women a decent place on the professional ladder. However, this work doesn't necessarily have to be full-time, as Elizabeth H. Blackburn states. She maintains that, ''You can do really good research when you are doing it part-time.''

With the eternal struggle for job creation, it might be a good idea to have more women doing part-time jobs, or pairing up to do what might traditionally be a full-time job. This way, more jobs are created, women get to contribute to the workforce and have a family, and the nation benefits from more diversity in entrepreneurship.

Obama and the National Debt

This video is both eye-opening and frightening.



Before I saw it, I knew the state of our national debt, but I didn't really grasp how much Obama's presidency is projected to effect it. And here I was getting all angry at Bush for making some unwise decisions regarding taxes and war.

Honestly, I suppose we should have seen this coming. Our current president entered office saddled with both a war and a dire economic situation. Wars are expensive, and his financial decisions seem to have pulled us back from the edge of falling into another Great Depression-- or worse. Another part of the dilemma is that Bush cut taxes and refused to raise them again, even during wartime. Obama can't raise them now, since people are already struggling in the midst of a recession.

In addition, we knew from his campaign that he had changes in mind for his time in office. Change costs money, and not all of it (despite what politicians argue) can come from making government spending more efficient.

Still, as a member of the generation that is going to have to pay off this growing debt, it's hard to accept the ridiculous rate at which he is planning on spending.