Scary article in London Times

the american press will not run this story in any newspaper...the basic gist is that our government officials sold nuclear secrets to turkey and israel and we knew that they would send it on to pakistan (which is why despite a 5% popularity rating we still stand behind pervez--he knows way too much about bush and the US). pakistan as many know then sold the info to iran, libya, and north korea (this countries should sound familiar when seen as a group as bush labeled them the axis of evil)...and it is possible that al-qaeda got a hold of them as well...


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece

Good article in NYT

The thing i like about this is that it gives two dominant theories for cyclical poverty, a cultural theory (which i don't buy)--which basically says that there is a culture of poverty and poor kids pick up the cultural traits from their poor parents and repeat them, their kids pick them up etc., and a structural theory--which basically suggests that the social structure condemns people to poverty (which i buy)...so basically if you have a crappy school you are not likely to go to college and therefore very likely (remember 90%) to be in poverty...which means you probably live in a really bad school district and thus your kids go to a really poor school which means they are not likely to go to college, etc. the article discusses mobility. it seems as we start the fourth decade of little to no mobility some people are concerned...


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/us/20mobility.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

More from the CFCF

Activists acting as experts...but sometimes i agree with them...sometimes i don't...
let me know what you think about this issue:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm/article/182

Good idea...NO?

Is this a good idea? Would it work in the US...say in towns where driving makes sense (LA, Houston, etc.)?

Britain: London Gets Tougher on Gas-Guzzlers

Published: February 13, 2008

Drivers of 4x4s, high-powered sports cars and other high-emission vehicles will have to pay $49 a day to enter central London, triple the current charge, while the most fuel-efficient vehicles will get a free ride, said the mayor, Ken Livingstone. Mr. Livingstone, left, who introduced the daily congestion charge on trucks and cars entering central London in 2003 to cut traffic and pollution, said the change is primarily aimed at the big cars owned by people in wealthy parts of the capital. The changes will come into effect in October. Mr. Livingstone said that 17 percent of the cars that visit each day, about 33,000, will pay the $49 charge, while 2 percent will go free. The remaining 81 percent, along with trucks, will continue to pay the current $16 fee.

the politics of regret

we have according to prominent sociologist jeff olick entered into an age of the politics of regret. where it has become politically fashionable (necessary) to express regret for the past. this is a story in the NYT today about Australia, but in the past few years several states have issued apologies for slavery here in the US. What do you think? Should we apologize for past events or keep the past in the past...


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/world/asia/13aborigine.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

Do 16 year olds really want to vote?

You’re 16, You’re Beautiful and You’re a Voter

By ANYA KAMENETZ

Published: February 6, 2008

THE 2008 presidential campaign has made history in many ways, not least being the arrival of a new generation at the polls. Voters under 29 were the first to anoint Barack Obama as their candidate. Reversing a general decline that began in 1972, youth turnout leapt in 2004, and in the early contests in this primary season it was up sharply.

We should hasten the enfranchisement of this generation, born between 1980 and 1995, by lowering the voting age to 16.

Age thresholds are meant to bring an impartial data point to bear on insoluble moral questions: who can be legally executed, who can die in Iraq, who can operate the meat cutter at the local sub shop. But in a time when both youth and age are being extended, these dividing lines are increasingly inadequate.

Legal age requirements should never stand alone. They should be flexible and pragmatic and paired with educational and cognitive requirements for the exercise of legal maturity.

Driving laws provide the best model for combining early beginnings and mandatory education. Many states have had success with a gradual phasing in of driving rights over a year or more, starting with a learner’s permit at age 16. The most restrictive of these programs are associated with a 38 percent reduction in fatal crashes among the youngest drivers, according to a study conducted by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

Similarly, 16-year-olds who want to start voting should be able to obtain an “early voting permit” from their high schools upon passing a simple civics course similar to the citizenship test. Besides increasing voter registration, this system would reinforce the notion of voting as a privilege and duty as well as a right — without imposing any across-the-board literacy tests for those over 18.

And why stop at voting? Sixteen is a good starting point for phasing in adult rights and responsibilities, from voting to drinking to marriage. In reality, this is already when most people have their first jobs, their first drinks and their sexual initiations. The law ought to empower young people to negotiate these transitions openly, not furtively.

We know driving laws reflect reality; whoever heard of the scourge of under-age driving? On the other hand, studies have shown that three-fourths of high school seniors have drunk alcohol. Surveys show that teenagers who drink at home with their families go on to drink less than those who sneak beers with friends. Imagine 16-year-olds receiving a drinking permit upon passage of a mandatory course about alcoholism. The permit would allow a tipple only at family gatherings or school functions for two years — until you graduate or leave home.

The phasing in of credit cards at 16 could work with firm restrictions. A parental co-signer should be required until young applicants have made a year of on-time payments from their own wages. The most important requirement would be passing a mandatory financial literacy test. The applicant would define “compound interest,” correctly decipher the fine print on a credit card agreement and argue with a robotic customer service representative over a mysterious fee. Surely this graduated system would be safer than handing young people a $2,000 line of credit just as they leave home for the first time.

The more we treat teenagers as adults, the more they rise to our expectations. From a developmental and vocational point of view, the late teens are the right starting point for young people to think seriously about their futures. Government can help this process by bestowing rights along with responsibilities.

Tying adult rights to cognitive requirements could also smooth the path to dealing with a much bigger age-related social problem. Demographically, those over 85 are our fastest-growing group. By 2020, the entire nation will be about as silver-haired as Florida is today. We need to be able to test Americans of all ages, to make sure they’re still qualified to drive and to help them avoid financial scammers. From a public health point of view, the silver tsunami poses more of a threat than marauding teenagers ever did.

Anya Kamenetz, a staff writer for Fast Company, is the author of “Generation Debt.”

RIP Plastic Bags

Would this work in the US? Why/Why not?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/world/europe/02bags.html?ref=todayspaper