Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
Published Letters: 13 Editor's Choice: 3
Speaking of behavior modification via clothing (one proposed alternate use of materials which can read a body's state and perform first-aid as necessary), is there any way to determine whether or not clothing contains nanotechnology? It wouldn't seem far-fetched, then, to consider a pair of jeans which help you lead the life of happiness and joy as advertised in commericals, all thanks to nanotechnology on the part of the jeans manufacturer. Essentially, we're talking about modern-day, rose-colored glasses. If we can't taste, see, or feel nanotechnology, then I wonder if we're placing a lot of trust (too much?) in corporations, particularly in their ability to behave ethically...
"If salmon poo needs to be cleaned up and properly disposed of, well, that's not a way of making salmon cheaper -- it's potentially a way of making salmon more expensive."
Although I can understand the thinking that produces such a reaction, the reality is that cleaning up salmon poo IS a way of making salmon cheaper...in the long term. Short-term thinking seems to pervade business, which, I suppose, explains how companies can sacrifice their future for larger profits in the present. The question is whether investors will be content for companies to continue these short-term practices, when these companies could instead secure their future profits through actions in the present (such as cleaning up salmon poo). I'm just curious as to when investors will begin to ask the necessary questions.
"Democracy depends not just on elections but on a rule of law, on stable institutions, on basic economic security for the population, and on checks and balances that forestall a tyranny of the majority. ... Bush is on the whole unwilling to invest sufficiently in these key institutions and practices abroad."
Considering Bush rose to power under the specter of questionable election results, it's only natural that he emphasize the importance of elections in democracy. As both recent and old events (NSA wiretapping, Iraqi prisoner abuse, Abramoff fallout, ENRON, and many others) indicate, the rule of law isn't exactly a strong point of this administration. Neither are the concepts of "checks and balances" (claiming absolute executive power for one) or "stable institutions" (turnover within institutions such as the CIA, FEMA, Homeland security, the EPA, and others).
In describing the requirements for democracy, Juan Cole has described exactly what the Bush administration would have us forget: people in glass houses should not throw stones. And I fear that America is quickly becoming a glass house. Not only is Bush "unwilling to invest sufficiently in these key institutions and practices abroad," but that same unwillingness is evident within his own country. What, may I ask, is the state of New Orleans? How are the Supreme Court nominations going? What about funding for higher-education student loans?
As long as the American people are focused on the Greater War On Terror (never mind exactly what that is), important issues like these are swept under the rug. In doing so, we weaken the foundation of this country in return for a short-term facade of strength and, perhaps, hubris.
Here's an idea: why not take that billion and create a scholarship fund?
It seems to me that there's better use for this money than to simply remember the events of September 11: namely, to ensure that something as horrible as this doesn't happen again. And it seems to me that education is a better long-term solution than, say, economic sanctions and force projection.
Of course we should remember September 11. I'm just saying that as long as we're building something, perhaps it should be an investment in the future, not merely a remembrance of the past.
I just watched "An Inconvenient Truth" last night, which is why this particular line from Stephanie Zacharek's review struck me: "Superman doesn't really exist, and in the face of the unspeakable, there's no one who can save us."
As "An Inconvenient Truth" points out, faced with an uncertain future and drastic change, we are the only ones who can save ourselves.
I had gathered for a while that [liberals] had felt themselves very underserved in the media, and a reasonable analysis would suggest that's true overall.
The liberal media is under-serving the liberals? Who would have thought?
...if that kid doesn't show up for class. Which was too often the case when my dad was teaching in high school.
Some other letters have pointed out the difficulties and challenges faced by teachers in the educational system, and from what I've heard I think they are pretty accurate.
I think that this book is valuable for providing insight into the lives of teenagers, but it would be nice to see the teachers' side of the story as well...although I think that they'd probably be too busy to write it.
According to Woodward, [Bush] and his neocon brain trust see the battle against Islamic extremism lasting two generations...
And as they've proven time and again (except for perhaps Florida in 2000), these people are great at predicting the future!
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
