This article was posted by Reuters today. It's hard to believe that the Finns are doing so well, even in the midst of the latest global economic crisis. It wasn't such a long time ago when they were just mediocre at best. But hard work and good education are paying off.
T
SINGAPORE (Reuters Life!)
For those who value their freedom of expression as much as health, wealth, and prosperity, then Finland is the place to be, with an index ranking the Nordic nation the best in the world.
The 2009 Legatum Prosperity Index, published on Tuesday and compiled by the Legatum Institute, an independent policy, advocacy and advisory organization, ranked 104 countries which are home to 90 percent of the world's population.
The index is based on a definition of prosperity that combines economic growth with the level of personal freedoms and democracy in a country as well as measures of happiness and quality of life.
With the exception of Switzerland, which came in at number 2, Nordic countries dominated the top 5 slots, with Sweden in third place followed by Denmark and Norway.
The top 10 were all also Western nations, with Australia (6th place) and Canada (7th place) both beating the United States, ranked 9th. Britain came in at number 12.
In Asia, Japan was the region's highest ranked country at number 16, followed by Hong Kong (18th place) and Singapore (23rd place) and Taiwan (24th place).
Dr. William Inboden, senior vice president of the Legatum Institute, said the lower rankings for Asian nations were largely due to their weak scores for democracy and personal freedoms.
"Many Asian nations have good economic fundamentals, but the Index tells us that true prosperity requires more than just money," Inboden said in a statement.
"Democratic institutions and personal freedom measures are letting some Asian nations down. Furthermore, countries which have low levels of economic stability, such as Cambodia, finish even further down in the overall rankings."
Cambodia came in the 93rd slot while China, with its tight political controls, came in 75th despite booming economic growth.
And the world's least prosperous country? According to the Legatum Index, it is Zimbabwe, with Sudan and Yemen close runners-up.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Aura of Inevitablility
Paul Krugman writes:
Something I’ve been trying to put into words, as I watch a couple of issues close to my heart — health care reform, climate change — is this: the “aura of inevitability”, which used to be one of the right’s great weapons, seems to be working for the other side now.
If you followed the Bushies closely, especially in the pre-Social-Security, pre-Katrina days, you became all too aware of the strategy. Again and again — the recount, the tax cut, the march to war — the Bush team would set out, successfully, to convey the impression that everyone knew they were going to win, that resistance was futile. In the case of the war, in particular, a lot of people who should have known better went along out of sheer careerism: this was going to happen, and anyone who stood in the way was going to bemarked as a loser.
---
---
One more thing: the loss of the aura of inevitability has, I suspect, been an important factor in the rise of the teabaggers and all that. My guess is that the attitudes among the Republican base identified in that scary Democracy Corps study aren’t new, although the sense of powerlessness is; the Monster Raving Loony wing has been an important part of the conservative coalition for some time. Under Bush, however, that wing was kept relatively quiet with dog whistles: people at the top in effect convinced the extreme right that they shared its views, and with a little patience they’d see the kind of America they wanted. Now that’s all gone, and the underlying radicalism of the base is out in the open. And that looks likely to cause a lot of trouble for Republican hopes of regaining power any time soon.
Something I’ve been trying to put into words, as I watch a couple of issues close to my heart — health care reform, climate change — is this: the “aura of inevitability”, which used to be one of the right’s great weapons, seems to be working for the other side now.
If you followed the Bushies closely, especially in the pre-Social-Security, pre-Katrina days, you became all too aware of the strategy. Again and again — the recount, the tax cut, the march to war — the Bush team would set out, successfully, to convey the impression that everyone knew they were going to win, that resistance was futile. In the case of the war, in particular, a lot of people who should have known better went along out of sheer careerism: this was going to happen, and anyone who stood in the way was going to bemarked as a loser.
---
---
One more thing: the loss of the aura of inevitability has, I suspect, been an important factor in the rise of the teabaggers and all that. My guess is that the attitudes among the Republican base identified in that scary Democracy Corps study aren’t new, although the sense of powerlessness is; the Monster Raving Loony wing has been an important part of the conservative coalition for some time. Under Bush, however, that wing was kept relatively quiet with dog whistles: people at the top in effect convinced the extreme right that they shared its views, and with a little patience they’d see the kind of America they wanted. Now that’s all gone, and the underlying radicalism of the base is out in the open. And that looks likely to cause a lot of trouble for Republican hopes of regaining power any time soon.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Robert Reich on Obama's Nobel
Robert Reich, whose opinion I respect, writes very similarily to what I wrote about Obama's nobel award:
--- T
Why Obama Should Not Have Received the Peace Prize -- Yet
President Obama's only real diplomatic accomplishment so far has been to change the direction and tone of American foreign policy from unilateral bullying to multilateral listening and cooperating. That's important, to be sure, but not nearly enough. The Prize is really more of Booby Prize for Obama's predecessor. Had the world not suffered eight years of George W. Bush, Obama would not be receiving the Prize. He's prizeworthy and praiseworthy only by comparison.
I'd rather Obama had won it after Congress agreed to substantial cuts in greenhouse gases comparable to what Europe is proposing, after he brought Palestinians and Israelis together to accept a two-state solution, after he got the United States out of Afghanistan and reduced the nuclear arm's threat between Pakistan and India, or after he was well on the way to eliminating the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons. Any one of these would have been worthy of global praise. Perhaps the Nobel committee can give him half the prize now and withhold the other half until he accomplishes one or more of these crucial missions.
Giving the Peace Prize to the President before any of these goals has been attained only underscores the paradox of Obama at this early stage of his presidency. He has demonstrated mastery in both delivering powerful rhetoric and providing the nation and the world with fresh and important ways of understanding current challenges. But he has not yet delivered. To the contrary, he often seems to hold back from the fight -- temporizing, delaying, or compromising so much that the rhetoric and insight he offers seem strangely disconnected from what he actually does. Yet there's time. He may yet prove to be one of the best presidents this nation has ever had -- worthy not only of the Peace Prize but of every global accolade he could possibly summon. Just not yet.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/
--- T
Why Obama Should Not Have Received the Peace Prize -- Yet
President Obama's only real diplomatic accomplishment so far has been to change the direction and tone of American foreign policy from unilateral bullying to multilateral listening and cooperating. That's important, to be sure, but not nearly enough. The Prize is really more of Booby Prize for Obama's predecessor. Had the world not suffered eight years of George W. Bush, Obama would not be receiving the Prize. He's prizeworthy and praiseworthy only by comparison.
I'd rather Obama had won it after Congress agreed to substantial cuts in greenhouse gases comparable to what Europe is proposing, after he brought Palestinians and Israelis together to accept a two-state solution, after he got the United States out of Afghanistan and reduced the nuclear arm's threat between Pakistan and India, or after he was well on the way to eliminating the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons. Any one of these would have been worthy of global praise. Perhaps the Nobel committee can give him half the prize now and withhold the other half until he accomplishes one or more of these crucial missions.
Giving the Peace Prize to the President before any of these goals has been attained only underscores the paradox of Obama at this early stage of his presidency. He has demonstrated mastery in both delivering powerful rhetoric and providing the nation and the world with fresh and important ways of understanding current challenges. But he has not yet delivered. To the contrary, he often seems to hold back from the fight -- temporizing, delaying, or compromising so much that the rhetoric and insight he offers seem strangely disconnected from what he actually does. Yet there's time. He may yet prove to be one of the best presidents this nation has ever had -- worthy not only of the Peace Prize but of every global accolade he could possibly summon. Just not yet.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/
Friday, October 09, 2009
Obaman nobel
Olen yllättynyt ja vähän pettynytkin Obaman rauhanpalkinnon saamisesta. Hän on ollut virassaan vajaan vuoden, mutta ei ole vielä saanut mitään konkreettista aikaan rauhan puolesta. Palkinto annettiin siinä toivossa, etta Obama kenties saavuttaisi jotain maailman rauhan eteen joskus tulevaisuudessa? Hyvä puhuja sai kiitosta?
Palkinto oli rajusti poliittinen. Uskon etta siinä oli enemmän kysymys vastenmielisyydestä George Bushin hallintokautta kohtaan kuin halusta palkita Obaman "toivo" tulevaisuudesta. Palkinto olisi saattanut olla kohdallaan muutaman vuoden kuluttua, kun Lähi-Idän rauha on sovittu tai Iran luopunut ydinasehaluistaan, tai Pohjois-Korea ydinaseistaan. Nyt palkinto tuli etuajassa ja halventaa koko instituutiota.
Martti Ahtisaari sai palkinnon vuosikymmenien ahkerasta puurtamisesta rauhan hyväksi maailmankolkilla, olematta julkisuuden valoissa tai puhujapöntöissä. Obama on luvannut luopua Tsekkiin suunnitellusta ohjuskilvestä ja aikoo keskustella Iranin kanssa. Hyvä. Mutta hän ei ole vielä lopettanut Irakin eikä Afganistanin sotaa, joita hän niin äänekkäästi kritisoi vielä vuosi sitten.
Nyt on tekojen aika, Mr. Obama.
T
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Sikainfluenssa
Sikainfluenssa on nyt rantautunut Seattleen ja sen kouluihin oikein toden teolla. Tyton koulusta 10% oppilaista on poissa sairauden takia - luultavasti juuri tuon flunssan takia. Lukiosta 25% oppilaista on kotona sairaana. Kovin vakavalta flunssa ei ole kuitenkaan vaikuttanut ainakaan viela. En ole kuullut yhdestakaan sairaalatapauksesta lahipiirissa.
Tyttokin sairasti jo flunssan. En tieda oliko se juuri sita pahamaineista flunssaa (taalla ei enaa testata virusta, jos ei joudu sairaalaan sen takia), mutta oli kuitenkin kipeana viisi paivaa.
T
Tyttokin sairasti jo flunssan. En tieda oliko se juuri sita pahamaineista flunssaa (taalla ei enaa testata virusta, jos ei joudu sairaalaan sen takia), mutta oli kuitenkin kipeana viisi paivaa.
T
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)