The Uncataloged Museum is exploring the topic in a variety of blog posts: Part 1, Part 2. Read them, read them, read them, if only to understand why I’m in a bad mood 99.9% of the time.
As someone who works in a small history museum all I can say is YES. Of course, I know I’m not “allowed”…
(Source: nerd-gasms)
I vommed and passed out in the pharmacy this afternoon. I should, therefore, take this post’s advice. I should be in bed. I should certainly not be working. But I won’t, I’m not and I am.
Thanks for all the well wishes during my sick days! I’m back in blogging action now.
As promised, I collected all your sick day food faves so you have a resource for when you’re feeling blah (but hungry).
I got over a hundred responses to my question, and there were definitely a lot of…
(Source: yourhealthista)
Unemployed? You Can Have a Job, But Not a Living Wage Change.org
The New York Times reported last week that many who were laid off during the recession are finding work, but that work doesn’t pay enough to make ends meet. A study by the National Employment Law Project…
(Source: abbyjean)
Here’s 10 minutes of your life you’ll never get back. Also, Tim Robbins was in Top Gun?
This was good but it needed more lines from LOTR. Particularly the part in the third movie when the big bad* gets killed, he’s all “no man can kill me” and the actress whips off her helmet and her hair falls out like a Pantene commercial and she says, “No MAN did.” I seriously laughed out loud in the movie theater.
* I’m not big on details, sorry. Never read the books, didn’t like the movies except the first one was ok.
It’s “I am no man.” And I love it. Though they did horrible things to the character of Eowyn in the movies.
This just went on my wishlist.
Amazon.com: Hope in the Dark: Untold Histories, Wild Possibilities: Rebecca Solnit: Books
There are far too many smart, educated, talented people operating at quarter speed, unsure of their place in the world, contributing far too little to the productive engine of modern civilization. There are far too many people who look like they have their act together but have yet to make an impact. You know who you are. It comes down to a simple gut check: You either love what you do or you don’t. Period.
Edwin Black
Washington DC
October 2000Mankind barely noticed when the concept of massively organized information quietly emerged to become a means of social control, a weapon of war, and a roadmap for group destruction. The unique igniting event was the most fateful day of the last century,…
Very long, but very interesting bit of info history. READ IT.
Stephen Walt’s blog at Foreign Policy inspired my question earlier.
For the most part, I think Walt hits the nail on the head. His thesis is essentially that a lack of political capacity to address major issues is what keeps global problems from being solved. I’d go a step further and say that a lack of political will is tied to this in a big way.
Walt’s solutions to creating a better world:
1. Less is More. As outgoing FP editor Moises Naim suggested in his essay on “minilateralism,” we need to focus less on universal agreements that all states adhere to, and more on achieving agreements among a smallest number of the most important actors in a given realm. I was skeptical of this idea when I first heard it, but I’m increasingly convinced that he was onto something.
Instead of a new Doha Round, for instance, a multilateral trade regime involving the G20 would be far easier (though not easy) to negotiate. Instead of trying for a climate agreement approved by the nearly 200 U.N. member states, focus on achieving an agreement among the top ten producers of greenhouse gases (or maybe even just the top five) and then try to bring in the rest over time. And if the bottom 100 countries never join in, it probably won’t matter that much.
And while we’re at it, we might think about getting rid of some global institutions that don’t seem to be doing much of anything anymore. I’ve heard at least one retired diplomat complain that nothing ever gets done because foreign offices spend all their time preparing for the next (probably meaningless) international summit. He was obviously exaggerating, but do we really need NATO, the EU, the WEU, the OSCE, the G20, the and the entire alphabet soup of existing international organizations? Might allowing some of these organizations to quietly shut their doors help us get the others to work better?
2. Emphasize Accountability. Both internationally and domestically, leaders have to be held accountable for mistakes. Here in the United States, about the only thing that can derail a politician’s career and reputation permanently is a sex scandal (and sometimes even that doesn’t even do it). The architects of major disasters like the Iraq war remain ubiquitous and respected members of the foreign policy establishment, the pundits who backed it continue to publish, and Democrats who backed the war now occupy most of the top foreign policy positions in the Obama administration. So if you curious why we seem to repeating some of the same mistakes in Afghanistan, maybe there’s your answer. I’m all for hiring experienced people, but shouldn’t we try to recruit people who have been right on the really big issues in the past?
3. Raise the Salience of Institutional Reform. Fixing dysfunctional institutions isn’t sexy; it is in fact the essence of wonkish drudgery. Most of us (myself included) prefer to focus on the issues themselves and offer various prescriptions, instead of thinking about how to design political institutions that can bring knowledge and resources together for the common good. Put simply, fixing institutions is boring. But I’m beginning to think that we neglect it at our peril, and it is intriguing to see that some academics are way ahead of me on this issue.
I agree with his assessment, particularly the 2nd and 3rd points. Accountability, both corporate and political, is severely lacking the world over, and especially in the parts of the world where development is most desperately needed. But even in the US, the habit of voters to cast their votes based solely on party and not on voting record keeps ineffective leaders in office. Transparency, transparency, transparency.
Institutional reform is also a major issue, especially when dealing with international human rights issues. For example, the International Criminal Court is not always effective in trying war criminals, even those that are often in the public eye. An arrest warrant was issued for Omar al-Bashir, the President of Sudan, in 2008 for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and criminal responsibility for genocide. He has yet to be arrested and is considered a fugitive. He is also a candidate in the 2010 Sudanese Presidential election.
So to answer my own question: The biggest hurdle to overcome is fixing our political system as a whole. Without sweeping reforms and greater civic responsibility, our institutions will continue to be dysfunctional and ineffective. We need to take a look at the weaknesses and address them in a way that not only creates greater transparency and efficacy, but also the ability to make alterations in the long-run.
But reform will only happen when the political will for it exists.
A really great write-up that follows up with some legitimate questions about the study/article I posted a few minutes ago from Newsweek…
Imagine there was a nasty disease that affected 1 in 100 people. And imagine that someone invented a drug which treated it reasonably well. Good work, surely.
Now imagine that, for some reason, people decided that 10% of the population need to be taking this drug, instead of 1%. So sales of the drug sky-rocket. Eventually some clever person comes along and asks “This is one of the biggest selling drugs in the world - but does it work?” They look into it, and find that it doesn’t work very well at all. For about 9 out of 10 people, it’s completely useless! What a crap drug…
Of course the drug hasn’t changed, and what’s crap was the decision to prescribe it to so many people…
…My personal interpretation of results like those of Fournier et al is this: antidepressants treat classical clinical depression, of the kind that psychiatrists in 1960 would have recognized. This is the kind of depression that they were originally used for, after all, because the first antidepressants arrived in 1953, and modern antidepressants like Prozac target the same neurotransmitter systems.
Yet in recent years “clinical depression” has become a much broader term. Many people attribute this to marketing on the part of pharmaceutical companies. Whatever the cause, it’s almost certain that many people are now being prescribed antidepressants for emotional and personal issues which wouldn’t have been considered medical illnesses until quite recently. Antidepressants also have a long history of use for other conditions, like OCD, but this is a separate issue.
