Yes.  I say yes.  And better as well, I say.

Why?  Well, there’s obviously the biology vs. socialization debate, and that’s all well and good.  But–purely anecdotally–I’ve gotten along better with just about all of my female bosses.

An amazing quote from Primo Levi:

A  good point from alternet:

Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus have written a book — Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility (Houghton Mifflin, 2007) — that challenges the way we are used to thinking about solving social problems. The conventional wisdom writ large, especially for progressives, is that when things are bad, people need to be scared into changing their habits, whether it is to protect the 50 million people who lack health care, or the behaviors that contribute to potential climate catastrophe. Most of us assume that we have severely limited resources, that growth is bad, and we need ever-increasing amounts of regulation to save the future.

In their book, Nordhaus and Shellenberger suggest something very different. They argue strongly that scaring people is no way to make change. For example the 250 million people with health care will not be inclined to fight for those who don’t have it, unless they feel confident in the future, and that the health system will improve for them too, since people don’t want what exists to get worse in the process of expanding care.

The same for climate catastrophe: As Nordhaus and Shellenberger put it: “Cautionary tales and narratives of eco-apocalypse tend to provoke fatalism, conservatism, and survivalism among voters — not the rational embrace of environmental policies. This research is consistent with extensive social-science research that strongly correlates fear, rising insecurity, and pessimism about the future with resistance to change.”

The Pope on relativism:

Once that shared recognition of natural law is withdrawn, the Pontiff warned, there is no means of resolving public debates other than a contest of political strength. Then process of legislation becomes “not the search for good but the search for power, or rather the balance of power.”

The problem facing contemporary democracies, the Pope said, is a form of ethical relativism, based on the mistaken notion that “relativism guarantees tolerance and mutual respect.”

In fact, the Pontiff said, this relativism has caused a profound crisis in society, so that “the fundamental essentials are at stake: human dignity, human life, the institution of the family and the equity of the social order–in other words the fundamental rights of man.” The crisis can only be overcome, he said, by restoring an appreciation for the natural moral law “in conformity with right reason– which is participation in the eternal Reason of God.”

If you agree, you should read Richard Rorty, who has a wonderful position in response–that we ought simply to eliminate suffering and find the most pragmatic means of doing this–which requires no univerals.

It’s more complicated of course, and it’s pretty easy to envision a fascist world where the only truth is tied to power (whether its violent coercion or media-driven manipulation). Many would argue this is already the world we have today.

I don’t think so though.  I still like to believe in human freedom and I believe in the capacity for, if nothing else, the belief in the transcendent, and the capacity to appreciate another’s suffering and think that it matters.

Her kids are safe!  They’re being adopted!  OMG!  Read the scoop here!

Why not?  Seriously, as Christians, why not?

Anyways, Christians have this to debate as we discuss the child health debacle.

Young Christians less attracted to rightwing teachings.

Rightwing Christians less attracted to Republicans.

Freakonomics, baby:

The theory sounds great, but evidence confirming it has been hard to find. Julie Cullen and Brian Jacob, my good friends and co-authors, haven’t done school choice proponents any favors with their latest paper (the full version of which can be found here). Using kindergarten lottery outcomes that determine which kids get into the most sought-after schools, they are able to compare the outcomes of those who win the lottery versus those who lose. The students who win the lotteries go to “better” schools and have “better” peers, but they don’t have better outcomes. These results confirm the earlier findings that Julie, Brian, and I obtained when we examined the impact of lotteries on high school outcomes in Chicago.

Why don’t the kids who get access to “better” schools do better? That is a difficult question. Part of the answer is likely that the definition of “better” is based on outputs, like how high the test scores are at the school or what fraction of its students attend good colleges. That sort of metric ignores the fact that “better” schools tend to attract “better” kids. These are kids with strong families and good academic backgrounds. So even if the school is not at all good at adding value, it will still have the best outputs, because it had the best inputs. If the school does not have high value added, there is no reason to expect that a child who transfers there will do better than she did at her previous school. Parents don’t have good information on the inputs to a school, only the outputs, so it is difficult for them to accurately assess value added.

Yes, I recognize this concert happened a long time ago.  But holy smokes, this is a great band.  There’s a real grace and spirituality in each of their song.

Here’s the thing: I recognize that Christian rock is supposed to bring grace and peace, but it’s often cheap, sentimental, trite.  Whereas real art, I don’t know, it connects us to something larger than ourselves, or at least the sense of it.  The National is art.  And it’s great.

From here, here, and here:

The disclosure of secret Justice Department legal opinions on interrogation has set off a bitter round of debate over the treatment of terrorism suspects in American custody and whether Congress has been adequately informed of legal policies.

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who heads the intelligence committee, scoffed at the president’s assertions that his administration has been forthcoming.

“The administration can’t have it both ways,” the senator said today. “I’m tired of these games. They can’t say that Congress has been fully briefed while refusing to turn over key documents used to justify the legality of the program. The reality is, the administration refused to disclose the program to the full Committee for five years, and they have refused to turn over key legal documents since day one.”