Home || See also: Index to News and Views | Interesting Quotes | Leisure and Informational Books
I have to admit I was a bit stunned when, in 1978, my wife and I moved to a small Pennsylvania town and the weekly newspaper's letters to the editor were passionately arguing about evolution. This argument continues unabated in many areas of the U.S. today. I see no conflict between religion and science—Big Bang sounds like "Let there be light" to me—but many do, especially on this issue.
The argument usually revolves around the definition of the word theory in the context of evolution. Science uses "1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another." In science, a theory must be falsifiable. Creationists use the second definition "2: abstract thought :SPECULATION" when describing evolution. In science, this second definition would describe a hypothesis, an initial step in the process after intuition in developing and testing a possible theory. In comparison with evolution, "intelligent design" is not falsifiable. i.e., it cannot be proven or disproven. Therefore, it is a belief.
Science explains how the world is; religion explains why the world is.
Science explains material processes. Religion attributes meaning to those processes.
-- Rabbi Gerald Zelizer (op-ed in USA Today)I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations.
-- "Einstein and Religion" quoted on deism.com...when training in argument is recognized as the center of science education, and science education is seen as an extension of the civic education vital to a democratic and pluralistic culture, we will be able to turn the heat of our longstanding cultural debate over evolution into needed educational light.
-- "Darwin Himself Argued for Critical Evaluation" [on the Discovery Institute site.]
The article also covers critics of evolution in a well-balanced article on options for the faithful. The article author is Mark Brumley, a convert to Catholicism from Evangelicalism, and the managing editor of Catholic Dossier. An interview with Cardinal Schoenborn presented a dissenting view in a recent essay covered in the [NYT] news article "Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution" [membership required.] Here's a quote: "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."Perhaps John Paul II was making a subtle distinction, sometimes made by philosophers of science, between a hypothesis and a theory. A hypothesis, on this view, is simply a possible explanation of a phenomenon; a theory is an explanation with some evidential verification, usually based on testing and research. The pope appears to think there's evidence to support evolution, hence it is "more than a hypothesis."
Here are links to the two works by Charles Darwin involved in the controversy. Both are available for download and review from the Gutenberg Project.
Also, the often-quoted phrase "survival of the fittest" is from Herbert Spencer, not Charles Darwin, followed by a related quote from Darwin:
This survival of the fittest which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called "natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."
— Herbert Spencer: Principles of Biology. Indirect Equilibration.It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.
— Charles Darwin
There is also the web site The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online for your research and review.
I have more respect for people who change their views after acquiring new information than for those who cling to views they held thirty years ago. The world changes. Ideologues and zealots don't... I am certain there is too much certainty in the world.
-- Michael Crichton, "State of Fear"Before destruction a man's heart is haughty, but humility goes before honour.
-- Psalms 18:12
I'm only including a couple items here because there are many, many books and articles on the environment and these environmental issues are a good starting point. The first reference is to Crichton's "State of Fear", a bracingly enjoyable techno-thriller with a large bibliography. You can consult sources listed there in researching environmental issues. The second reference link is to a fact sheet on war and the environment. The sections that follow cover a speech given by Michael Crichton, rebuttals to questions raised in that speech, and some links on energy policy and alternatives.
I found the book so engaging, I read it in two days. It is great fun and great fiction. The book also has an author's message section at the end followed by two appendices. The first appendix describes three case histories—two past, one current—of scientific theories and solutions with wide support, but questionable science. If you are in a bookstore, pickup and read this first appendix. The second appendix concerns sources for charts.
An extensive bibliography follows the book's appendices. It covers policy, scientific research, the psychology of decision-making and more with brief author commentary on many items. He includes references to both those promoting and those debunking global warming, and other important environmental writings. Here is one informative example from the bibliography:
Dörner, Dietrich. The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations. Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus, 1998.What prevents human beings from successfully managing the natural environment and other complex systems? Dozens of pundits have weighed in with their unsubstantiated opinions. Dörner, a cognitive psychologist, performed experiments and found out. Using computer simulations of complex environments, he invited intellectuals to improve the situation. They often made it worse. Those who did well gathered information before acting, thought systemically, reviewed progress, and corrected their course often. Those who did badly clung to their theories, acted too quickly, did not correct course, and blamed others when things went wrong. Dörner concludes that our failures in managing complex systems do not represent any inherent lack of human capability. Rather they reflect bad habits of thought and lazy procedures.
I purchased "State of Fear" a short while ago, but only decided to read it after seeing author Michael Crichton give a talk on "Science Policy in the 21st Century" at the AEI-Brookings Institution shown on CSPAN-2 about bad science making bad policy. His talk centered around six questions:
It's a great, thoughtful speech and linked from his Speeches page. Here is an excerpt from the introduction:
As some of you may know, I have spent the last several years exploring various environmental issues, particularly global warming. I have been deeply disturbed by what I have found, largely because the so-called evidence for so many environmental issues is often shockingly flawed and unsubstantiated.
But more troubling, to me, is the degree to which the political process seems to have captured and often corrupted the integrity of the scientific research that is used to formulate policy, and inform policy decisions.
I am also troubled by the insensible and distracting contentiousness that seems to inform so much of current political debate - especially when environmental issues are involved. As a result of this political friction - which is all heat and no light - policy is often established by way of litigation, rather than negotiation and legislation...
In the speech section on how Congress could get unbiased information for setting policy, Crichton describes three models:
By the way, while I am listing ways to get and debate scientific information, I have to mention that the current Bush Administration is changing the traditional role of scientific research, advisors and more. I will refer you to a New Yorker article in the March 13, 2006 issue called "Political Science" that covers i.t An interview with author Michael Specter is online for review. There is also a book "The Republican War on Science" by journalist Chris Mooney that adds to the debate on science policy.
After seeing another, later appearance by Michael Crichton on CSPAN-2 where he spoke to a high school class about his medical education, his writing and science, I finally decided to read "State of Fear". Crichton's Web site has a discussion section on the book and the science behind it with postings from those that agree and disagree with the book.
Listening to Crichton, reading the book, its appendices and bibliography, you might come to the conclusion that there isn't enough reliable data on global warming, the process has been politicized, and "true believers" are the ones driving the process. This could agree with a more conservative or libertarian mindset. Alternatives would include real debates—the "free market of ideas"—rather than a sequence of presentations in Congressional hearings. Individuals could do their own research, through a wide variety of resources to better understand the history, the symptoms, and the variability of the problem. There are powerful corporate forces like the energy, automotive, and utility industries that caution about the economics of a path of preventive measures that may give small result at significant cost. In contrast, environmental group spokespersons are just as aggressive in promoting their point of view and Crichton describes the study of global warming as "an insiders game" without needed outside review.
The bibliography in "State of Fear" is a very good starting point for such a review of research. One entry lists the MetOffice and affiliated Hadley Center weather and climate issues web sites and their article "Climate, the greenhouse effect and global warming - is the climate changing?" as a good introduction. This next section covers those that disagree with the notion that there is not enough science or that the issue is non-existent.
Mother Jones magazine has a project called "As the World Burns" that includes the article "Some Like It Hot" that references Crichton's speech at AEI and notes ExxonMobil's support of some 40 public policy groups debunking the science of global warming. The article describes "like-minded individuals and ideologically sympathetic foundations" with a particular slant on the issue and the source of some of their funding. (The contribution dollar amounts are in parentheses, which is entertaining.)
Setting aside any questions about [Fox News columnist] Milloy's journalistic ethics, on a purely scientific level, his attack on the ACIA [Arctic Climate Impact Assessment] was comically inept. Citing a single graph from a 146-page overview of a 1,200-plus-page, fully referenced report, Milloy claimed that the document "pretty much debunks itself" because high Arctic temperatures "around 1940" suggest that the current temperature spike could be chalked up to natural variability. "In order to take that position," counters Harvard biological oceanographer James McCarthy, a lead author of the report, "you have to refute what are hundreds of scientific papers that reconstruct various pieces of this climate puzzle..."
Recently, Naomi Oreskes, a science historian at the University of California at San Diego, reviewed nearly a thousand scientific papers on global climate change published between 1993 and 2003, and was unable to find one that explicitly disagreed with the consensus view that humans are contributing to the phenomenon. As Oreskes hastens to add, that doesn't mean no such studies exist. But given the size of her sample, about 10 percent of the papers published on the topic, she thinks it's safe to assume that the number is "vanishingly small."
In the AEI/Brookings speech, Crichton responded to that latter report:
I think that there are certain kinds of stories that certain journalists find simply irresistible, whether they're accurate or not. I'll give you a recent one. A historian of science named Naomi Oreskes, was invited to write up an essay in "Science" magazine which has been widely reported since. She claimed that she'd inspected the abstracts of 928 articles on climate science from 1993 to 2003 and she had not found a single one which disagreed with the notion that climate change was human caused.
Now, the first thing to recognize is that if you are a reporter following climate science, when you hear 928 articles in 10 years, you immediately know something's wrong. Because the number is far too low. And, in fact, the number of climate articles in the last ten years is closer to 12,000. So, somehow her keyword search was inadequate.
The second thing is that because the exact number of 928 was reported, it is possible to work out which keywords she used to get that number and, therefore, to go back and obtain the actual abstracts that she said she had read. People are doing this. And I'm told, as a preliminary finding, that the claim that none of them contain any negative comment about global warming is far from the truth.
One of the Brookings Institution's Environment Scholars critically reviews Crichton's views on global warming. Here is an excerpt from the PDF of the full opinion piece:
Temperature is the result of many factors, including the warming effects of greenhouse gases, the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions, changes in solar radiation and more. (Think of a game of tug-of-war, in which the number of players on each team changes frequently.) The fall in Northern Hemisphere temperatures from 1940-1970 reflects the relative weight of cooling factors during that period, not the absence of a warming effect from man-made greenhouse gases.
Others disputing the conclusion that the case for global warming is weak include Real Climate, "a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists" where I found an Planetary Energy Imbalance, an article about how well climate computer simulations match the physical record. The Sierra Club has a Web area on global warming. New Yorker magazine contributor Elizabeth Kolbert gives the background basics on historical climate studies, current areas of concern, variability of individual events, and interviews with principal researchers in a three part series titled "The Climate of Man". Unfortunately, it is not available online. (Part One: 25-Apr-05, Part Two: 2-May-05, Part Three: 9-May-05.) While Crichton believes science is being politicized in the global warming debate, this three-part series adequately addresses that charge, especially Part Three. By the way, are the folks that want this issue to go away NOT politicizing it? He does argue for reasonableness. This issue is obviously becoming quite a big fight.
If we can encourage 10 million households in the [Colorado River] basin to put in a couple of compact fluorescent lights, we can eliminate the power needed from Glen Canyon Dam - at a cost that's one-seventh of the power the dam produces.
Owen Lammers, executive director of Living Rivers of Salt Lake City, in article "Electricity output slashed as Powell water level shrinks" in July 2004.
For various reasons, I have one spot in the house that has a bulb on 24/7. I recently replaced the 60w bulb with a 14w compact flourescent. Here are the quick calculations for cost savings:
60 watt: .060 kw x 24 hrs/day x 365 days/yr x .09 dollars/kwh = $47.30/year 14 watt: .014 kw x 24 hrs/day x 365 days/yr x .09 dollars/kwh = $11.04/year Savings: $36.26/year
The Nebraska Public Power District has a page on compact flourescents to help you decide to choose these lamps over incandescents. I did a quick check of foot-candle (fc) output in my basement workshop and found the 60w bulb output 22 fc and the 14w output 11 fc at startup, increasing to 28 fc after a minute or two, maintaining that level. I would choose an incandescent for short-term lighting needs, like a pantry.
Personally, I think much policy is developed to keep the oil lanes open. If we could get our collective energy appetite down through better efficiency, it would give us more security, better air and water, and make alternative sources and technologies more competitive. The sense of urgency and the collective will to do so is lacking, unfortunately. Here is a quote from a magazine article, Over a Barrel:
Whereas official U.S. policy still blames OPEC for our oil woes, even right-of-center, pro-business outlets like Business Week, The Economist, and Fortune have acceded that the biggest risk for U.S. energy security isn't "foreign" producers or even environmentalists, but rather a decades-old domestic energy policy that remains focused almost entirely on finding new supplies while doing nothing to curb demand.
The last time we explored innovative energy policy as a nation was during the Carter administration, 1976-1980. One example of a domestic option consistently defeated is raising gasoline taxes. Gas prices are far below Europe and Japan. Arguments against it are that it is a regressive tax, and it's social engineering. Here's one fellow's blog post on the issue. Conversely, it's been said the alternative of improving CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) results in lighter, and deadlier, vehicles rather than power train innovations. A short ride on an East Coast highway will convince you that we desire speed and power in our vehicles. Since 1987, the fuel efficiency of passenger vehicles in the U.S. has actually declined, by more than five percent. We have work to do.
Here's a quote from Michael Crichton's "Author's Message" section at the back of "State of Fear" that is appropriate here:
There are many reasons to shift way from fossil fuels, and we will do so in the next century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon-conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fearmongers. So far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transport in the early twentieth century.
To counter that opinion though, a number of years ago I remember reading—albeit in an environmental group newsletter—about General Motor's aggressive practices to eliminate the competition of the electric trolley buses I saw in Philadelphia growing up. In a search, I found "General Motors Streetcar Conspiracy" that reviews both sides of the issue. The author of the original 1974 report wrote a related article. GM's Advanced Technology group now has and is market testing a hybrid bus and consumers can now purchase a Toyota Prius gas/electric hybrid or the Honda Civic Hybrid. A ride in a friend's Prius reminded me of the quiet trackless trolley. I see there is a documentary called "Who Killed the Electric Car?" also. You can read a brief review on Sojourners. (The market only works if we have all the choices.) LA Weekly has an article "Who's Resurrecting the Electric Car?" that is worth reading. It covers electric muscle cars!
An example of one innovative international organization is the Institute for Transportation Development Policy (ITDP) whose goal is "to promote environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation policies and projects worldwide." They work on a number of fronts and you can find much interesting reading about their programs. For example, I remember reading about China's plans to outlaw bicycles in Shanghai to make room for the cars being produced in the region. This is a troubling "transportation for the few" option winning out over a viable option for many city residents. Other countries are trying more innovative, and integrated approaches.
In addition, the largest financial companies assembled the Carbon Disclosure Project to track company exposure and liability on the global warming issue.
The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) provides a secretariat for the world's largest institutional investor collaboration on the business implications of climate change. CDP represents an efficient process whereby many institutional investors collectively sign a single global request for disclosure of information on Greenhouse Gas Emissions. CDP then send this request to the FT500 largest companies in the world. More than 350 of the 500 largest corporations in the world currently report their emissions through this website.
The Web site is plainly designed but has much information regarding their efforts.
It is no surprise that the language used to describe an issue or option makes a difference in the information returned from a search. Here are the Google link results returned for two search strings:
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
-- Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
It was Chicago Cardinal Joseph Bernardin who coined the phrase "a seamless garment of life," which clearly links the "life issues" of abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, nuclear weapons, poverty, and racism as critical components of a consistent ethic of life...
One young student at [a talk given at] Notre Dame passionately reminded the group that a legal practice that kills four thousand unborn children every day is an urgent moral imperative. But she was then reminded that nine thousand people each day now die of AIDS, thirty thousand children perish every day because of hunger and diseases mostly due to poverty, and as many as half a million are lost each year in international conflicts and wars. All agreed that a more consistent ethic of human life is sorely needed.
-- Jim Wallis, "God's Politics"
Can faith, compassion, understanding, and tolerance meet community needs on issues where the opposing sides can't ever seem to reach a working middle?
There is no way I can cover this topic well but I'll include a few links.
A number of years ago, my employer decided to switch insurance providers to save money. The new company refused coverage for a "pre-existing condition." The condition was something for which I finally sought care with the previous company and wanted to continue that care. No go. By the way, the drinkers and smokers lied on the application and got full coverage.
In contrast, I visited Greece in 2000 and was bitten by a dog patrolling "his" beach while I went by on a scooter. The health care facility didn't have the latest equipment but provided excellent care at no cost. The higher sales taxes didn't seem so bad.
By the way, I recommend reading the entire text of Hillary Clinton's speech rather than listening or reading the quick summaries of sound-bite journalists and commentators. The speech is really wide-ranging on statistics, policies, options, and finding common ground as we near the 10th anniversary of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, a nonpartisan, non-ideological organization."Seven percent of American women who do not use contraception account for 53 percent of all unintended pregnancies," Clinton said. That number drew gasps from her pro-choice audience. I bet if she translated it to abortions, it would knock folks in Ohio out of their chairs. How many abortions are you willing to endure for the sake of avoiding the word "condom"?
New Yorker magazine had an article by Margaret Talbot on Justice Scalia describing his dedication to intellectual consistency that placed him in league with other Constitution "originalists" deriding evolving Constitutional law. A letter to the editor quoted Justice Scalia's opinion in Herrera v. Collins (1993). Here is the quote from the original concurring opinion:
There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.
There are additional articles discussing the Constitution linked from the Privacy section below. If you are interested in Justice Scalia's opinions see the book "Scalia Dissents: Writings of the Supreme Court's Wittiest, Most Outspoken Justice" by Kevin A. Ring.
The [Terri Schiavo] case is full of great ironies. A large part of Terri's hospice costs are paid by Medicaid, a program that the administration and conservatives in Congress would sharply reduce. Some of her other expenses have been covered by the million-dollar proceeds of a malpractice suit - the kind of suit that President Bush has fought to scale back.
-- NPR commentator Daniel Schorr
Site also includes links to advocacy groups.
In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares.
"The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear", BBC documentary.Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.
H. G. Wells, "The Outline of History"Let us, then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of a bitter and bloody persecutions.
-- Thomas Jefferson[Author] Margaret Atwood is intrigued by why Jesus never wrote anything down - he didn't want it to become dogma. I never even thought of that question before, quite frankly. That did surprise me, to hear a writer who is a professed agnostic say she has wrestled with that question. She believes that he didn't write it down because he wanted the spirit to be the carrier of the experience, not doctrine, creed, or dogma.
-- Wrestling with faith and reason: An interview with Bill Moyers
The title of this section of my page lists the components and results for those fighting to alleviate poverty at home and abroad.
Hope is not a feeling; it is a decision. And the decision for hope is based on what you believe at the deepest levels—what your most basic convictions are about the world and what the future holds—all based on your faith. You choose hope, not as a naive wish, but as a choice, with your eyes wide open to the reality of the world—just like the cynics who have not made the decision for hope.
Jim Wallis, "God's Politics"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because God has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. God has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.
Jesus (Luke 4:18-19)
There are two ways that religion is brought into public life in American history. The first way—God on our side—leads inevitably to triumphalism, self-righteousness, bad theology, and often, dangerous foreign policy. The second way—asking if we are on God's side—leads to much healthier things, namely, penitence and even repentance, humility, reflection, and even accountability. We need much more of all these, because these are often the missing values of politics.
In all... the moral contradictions are too great to ignore. The deepening injustice of America's growing wealth chasm is increasingly impossible to justify. It's becoming a moral, and even a religious issue.
Alabama has long had one of the most regressive tax system in the country. A family of four earning $4,600 a year has to pay income taxes—a lower threshold than any other state. Property taxes are the lowest in the nation, which primarily benefits the timber industry in a state were 71 percent of the land is timber... [and sales taxes are highly variable.]
...Alabama, like most of the fifty states, faced a severe budget crisis with a deficit of $700 million. Yet it is obligated by its constitution to have a balanced budget. So on May 19, 2003, Governor Riley addressed a special session of the state legislature. "We cannot balance our budget with cuts alone." Riley said, "not unless we are willing to lay off thousands of teachers and cancel all extra-curricular activities, open prison doors and put convicted felons back on the streets, and force thousands of seniors out of nursing homes and take away their prescription drugs."
The governor then went on to propose a tax-reform package that include higher property taxes, higher income taxes on the wealthy, and no income taxes on the poorest people. The plan raised the threshold to pay income tax for families of four to $17,000—paying for it in part by raising corporate taxes on the timber industry.
Governor Riley said, "I have spent most of my life fighting higher taxes. While in Congress, I always voted against tax increases because I know the hardships they place on a family and on a business. no one wants to raise taxes—especially me. And I don't like being forced to do it now—but I believe we have no other choice."
The plan was approved by the state legislature and then went to a statewide public referendum, where it went down to defeat—due in large part to a huge advertising campaign by the state's wealthy business and special interests. But Alabama's churches—including the Methodists, Presbyterians, Southern Baptists, Episcopalians, and Catholics, along with Jewish leaders—supported the changes. Though the tax-reform plan ultimately failed, I believe it was one of the most important political stories in many years and, just perhaps, has planted a seed that will only grow in the future.
The key question is, What caused the governor's change of heart? I turns out that he is deeply Christian and realized that his faith had something to say about the budget and tax situation. "According to our Christian ethic, we're supposed to love God, love each other, and help take care of our poor," he was quoted by CBS News. "And this is a step in the right direction." Here is a conservative Republican governor who has been reading his Bible and decided to put his Christian faith first.
I include this long excerpt because it includes details in defining the problem, difficulties in the solutions, the role of faith, and the successful campaign to defeat the measure despite strong religious community support. You can read Alabamans Protect GOP Brand for another take on this. God's Politics is an amazing and hopeful book. In the run-up to the Iraq war I wondered if non-violent alternatives, other than marches, had disappeared and were no longer an option. The coalitions, statements, and persistence of the actions and policies profiled in this book present very viable options for peace, poverty, and fair trade, to name a few. You can read the first chapter online. (Read 3/2005)
CSPAN2 broadcasts a series of programs on the weekend featuring BookTV authors and discussion. If you have a good, broadband connection, you can view a RealPlayer video of a discussion of the book God's Politics and the differences between religious right and liberal left policy focus in a wide-ranging AfterWords discussion between author Jim Wallis and Randy Tate, former Congressman and director of the Christian Coalition.
There is a large reader comment section on the article page. The article also mentions Death by a Thousand Cuts: The Fight over Taxing Inherited Wealth as a companion resource in learning more about the issue. That book covers the machinations in Washington, D.C. by conservatives to eliminate the "death tax" and move the country's tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class.Both focus attention on a truth about American society that runs counter to most people's deep-seated beliefs: There is less social mobility in the United States now than in the '80s (and less then than in the '70s) and less mobility than in many other industrial countries, including Canada, Finland, Sweden and Germany. Yet 40 percent of respondents to a Times poll said that there was a greater chance to move up from one class to another now than 30 years ago, and 46 percent said it was easier to do so in the United States than in Europe.
I often see this quote in articles and decided to get its context. I found The Bible online—King James Version (KJV) and others listed by book in the "B" index of Project Gutenberg—downloaded the full text file and searched for "always with you" finding the quote by Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. The context note here is mine, which paraphrases the surrounding lines.
26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
Context: When Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, a woman anointed Jesus' head with oil and his disciples protested saying the oil could have better been sold and the profits given to the poor. Jesus responded in this way and said not to trouble the woman because she did a good work upon him in preparation for his burial. This event was just prior to the Last Supper.
There is another article, "What Religious People Think About the Poor" posted on the Web site Religion Online—"Full texts by recognized religious scholars"— that reviews economics, religious involvement, and attitudes.
As stated earlier, I'm reading many articles and books to understand the background of international and domestic issues and conflicts and the political philosophies that come into play. In the past, I remember reading a book from the Cato Institute—a libertarian think-tank—and realizing conflicts would still resolve in litigation or arbitration of some kind with a difference of non-participants not being involved. In comparison, governmental regulation's role in disputes would also involve litigation but have taxpayer-funded legal participation. I mention this because I recently found a long article on Anarcho-Capitalism that examines the issues, outcomes, pros and cons of such economic philosophy. I also believe this approach may be driving current policy development and therefore, the article is worth reading.
By the way, there is an organization attacking AARP on Social Security called USA Next/United Seniors Association. AARP reviews the organization in an online article and Public Citizen describes them as a front for the pharmaceutical manufacturers who provides 98% of their funding, and lists how they spend their money on issues ads.
If we began to do this now, the first-year cost would be $8 billion; that is $2,000 times the roughly 4 million children born each year. The second year would cost $16 billion and so on until we were contributing $2,000 per year to a savings account for every child from birth until age 18. When fully implemented, the cost would be $144 billion per year. To put this $144 billion per year into context, this year's combined spending for Social Security and Medicare will exceed $750 billion.
...This is a clear and straightforward concept. Why haven't we done something like this?
Over the last 30 years, both political parties seem to have stopped generating truly new ideas. And political mechanics have taken over in place of the visionaries who thought up Social Security in the first place.
This would be a basic support that would supplement the personal savings and investments of personal plans like the one described in the book "The Wealthy Barber". O'Neill's plan is to redirect the current government plan to something more sustainable keeping the idea of a "safety net". (By the way, I remember reading $8 billion buys us two months of our current efforts in Iraq.)
If you view your problem closely enough you will recognize yourself as part of the problem.
-- Ducharme's AxiomNearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
-- Abraham Lincoln
There are a number of areas of study that explore who we are as human beings. A cynic could describe our basest drives, like other mammals, as ensuring our personal genetic material survives and thrives. This drive would include having yourself, your family, your clan, your tribe, and your nation succeed as well. I mention this because in addition to the scholarly pursuits of anthropology, sociology, psychology, and philosophy, we can also find the dark and brutal beliefs and behaviors of eugenics, ethnic cleansing, and racism.
Alternative solutions would have to include respect, empathy, and compassion. I found a definition of compassion in the book "Destructive Emotions" as "more than feeling for another [empathy] but a concerned, heartfelt caring, wanting to do something to relieve the person's suffering." In other words, recognition as a precursor to action/intervention. It's possible that the economics of Adam Smith's invisible hand or enlightened self-interest or even noblesse oblige would work to maximize human happiness.
See also the links above in the Faith, Family, Security and Justice section.
Chapter Four, "Paul Van Riper's Big Victory: Creating Structure for Spontaneity," covers military strategy on the field by following a creative hands-on leader, Paul Van Riper. Later in the chapter, he is involved in war games against a team of strategists with computer models prior to the Iraq war. Van Riper wins with unexpected, creative behavior and strategy based on delegated decision-making. What is disconcerting is that the military brass re-ran the war game with several restrictions on the "enemy" so the technological team would win. This led me to the conclusion that the goal at the administrative level was not to win effectively, but to sell or defend the purchase of and focus on equipment and technology. This is especially troubling after we have seen many related assumptions proved wrong in the Iraq conflict. You can get a quick summary of the "Millennium Challenge" war games in an article in the UK Guardian and you can catch the "Ready or Not" episode of the TV show JAG for a fictionalized account of a similar war game.
Another fascinating section of the book covers recognition of microexpressions, emotions displayed briefly on the face. using the Facial Action Coding System (FACS). It describes the work of Paul Ekman, who also trains police to more effectively use empathy in their work.
Here are strategy points from the Maple inteview:
See also the News About the News section of the Media, News, and Advocacy page on how to find the correct information among the political spin and half-truths.
You have zero privacy anyway, get over it.
Scott McNealy of SUN Microsystems commenting on a change in Intel chip features.
Privacy policy is a contentious issue. In times of war and terrorism, people are often willing to support policies that restrict personal freedoms but may provide a stronger sense of security and safety. I added this section on privacy after hearing a radio interview with the author of "The Digital Person" (see below) where he argued for policy based on information privacy as differing from policy based on information secrecy. Policy based on the latter would—and does—allow the selling of much user information in commercial databases like a commodity. i.e., once it is out there, it is available for trade with little accountability. Recent news shows that these databases can be compromised. The distinction between privacy and secrecy is important and would help to better develop policy, protect against identity theft, government intrusion and more.
Note, privacy policy impacts a number of areas. For example, the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade established a right to abortion as a privacy issue. Privacy case law has developed based on the First Amendment—freedom of speech and assembly— and the Fourth Amendment—unreasonable search and seizure, and the 9th amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In the digital information age, customer databases and digital rights extend the impact of privacy policy.