Hard Choices Ahead...

The kind of political leaders the world needs to thrive in the future, from Thomas Friedman:

We are leaving an era where to be a mayor, governor, senator or president was, on balance, to give things away to people. And we are entering an era where to be a leader will mean, on balance, to take things away from people. It is the only way we’ll get our fiscal house in order before the market, brutally, does it for us.

In my book, the leaders who will deserve praise in this new era are those who develop a hybrid politics that persuades a majority of voters to cut where we must so we can invest where we must. To survive in the 21st century, America can no longer afford a politics of irresponsible profligacy. But to thrive in the 21st century — to invest in education, infrastructure and innovation — America cannot afford a politics of mindless austerity either.

Confucian Ethics and Chinese Kindness

I read a couple of interesting opinion pieces in the Straits Times today. One was by Chris Patten, Chancellor of Oxford University and former governor of Hong Kong, who wrote on the positive role of religion in society. He closed by saying "we should listen to the core messages of all these great religions, above all the Confucian golden rule that we should never do to others what we would not like to be done to us."

I find that Westerners regularly prefer to elevate the morals of non-Western societies and religions above the dominant religions and cultural norms of the West. It was curious to me that Patten chose to elevate the Confucian "golden rule" above every other religious teaching. And it struck me that the message boiled down to the Google motto of "Do no harm."

In contrast to the Confucian teaching, the Christian "golden rule" taught by Jesus in the Bible is to "Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you."

Also in the Straits Times today was an article by Ho Ai Li entitled "Hard to be kind in China," in which she talks about the Chinese cultural norm of not offering help to people in public, even to those who are injured. She contrasts this with the American preference for volunteering to help strangers in need.

How do her observations relate to the Confucian and Christian teachings in their societies? Whereas the Confucian teaching is a matter of restraint, not acting in a certain way, the Christian teaching is a matter of activism, acting in a certain way. Christians, and the societies with strong Christian influences, are taught to actively reach out to do good to people, especially people in need. That emphasis is not as strong in societies with Confucian influences, which tend to emphasize minding your own business and not getting involved in other peoples' (or countries') affairs. We can see this in Chinese versus Western foreign policy as well as in individuals' social behavior.

I wonder if Chris Patten sees a correlation, and would prefer above all that individuals and societies stay out of others' lives?

Social Networking Revolution

I read today that Facebook has changed the way people relate to each other more than anything else since the introduction of the post office.

Do you think that is true? How has Facebook changed the way you relate to others?

An editorial in today's Straits Times by Robin Dunbar of Oxford University stated that "Emotional closeness declines by around 15 percent a year in the absence of face-to-face contact, so that in five years someone can go from being an intimate acquaintance to the most distant outer layer of your 150 friends."

How does Facebook affect that dynamic? I know it occasionally reminds me of my distant friends, but I am not sure it actually brings many of them closer to me. Maybe if I was better at broadcasting what I am thinking and feeling and doing, it would help others feel more emotionally connected to me. But I have to face it, I am not a broadcaster by nature. I am more interactive and inquisitive in relationships, not a pacesetter or opinion sharer.

Where to Retire in the US?

Not the best places, but the WORST states to retire in listed here:

Illinois, California, New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Ohio, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Nevada.

States with the highest cost of living in the third quarter of 2010 were, in order, Hawaii, Alaska, California, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland, Vermont and New Hampshire, according to a Missouri Economic Research and Information Center analysis. The District of Columbia also makes the list.

States with the greatest tax burdens after New Jersey were New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Hawaii, California, Ohio, Vermont, Wisconsin and Rhode Island, joined by the District of Columbia.

Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island and Wisconsin joined California as the 10 most fiscally troubled states.

In a related survey, USAA and Military.com announced this week that Waco, Texas, tops the first-ever "Best Places for Military Retirement" list. In its report, USAA and Military.com focused on U.S. communities that offer "a high quality of life and help maximize military retiree benefits as service members manage their 'first retirement' from the armed forces and begin planning their 'second retirement' from civilian life." Other places on that list included, in order, Oklahoma City; Austin, Texas; College Station, Texas; Harrisburg, Pa.; San Angelo, Texas; Madison, Wis.; Pittsburgh; New Orleans; and Syracuse, N.Y.