Sort of Relevant Things:
1. What Isn't For Sale? -Michael J. Sandel (The Atlantic, April 2012): I read this on the train back home. I'm not a huge fan. But three days later I am still contemplating it so I thought I'd share! Sandel argues that we have allowed the market to permeate too many spheres of life. He fears our sense of the intrinsic value of things is being eroded by our sense of their market value. He contends:
Putting a price on the good things in life can corrupt them. That’s because markets don’t only allocate goods; they express and promote certain attitudes toward the goods being exchanged. Paying kids to read books might get them to read more, but might also teach them to regard reading as a chore rather than a source of intrinsic satisfaction. Hiring foreign mercenaries to fight our wars might spare the lives of our citizens, but might also corrupt the meaning of citizenship.I thought the author's point was pretty interesting-- and definitely relevant-- but something about it just seems... wrong? I do not disagree with his thesis-- that there are spheres in life where the market does not belong-- but I do not think my personal opinions on the subject are something I should foist upon society at large. It seems a bit paternalistic. His use of the term "markets" and examples of why they are bad are also a bit nebulous at times. The whole Markets-Are-Bad thing isn't particularly new and Sandel doesn't add much to the argument. (His article is nice and short though, so it scores well in the readability aspect.)
| from theatlantic.com |
Also, it would be nice if he fleshed out his concept of non-markets. How do we decide which spheres to toss out of the market bin? What exactly is this alternative that he is proposing so cavalierly? Will it root out the corruption supposedly endemic to markets or simply replace it with a different version?
(Tangent: I really enjoyed reading Daddy Issues by Sandra Tsing Loh from last month's issue of The Atlantic. Besides being published in the same magazine as the piece above, there are no similarities.)
2. Can Aung San Suu Kyi, Now Free, Lead Burma to Democracy? -Rebecca Frayn (Newsweek, March 5, 2012): While the vows this week were not bad, this piece is even better! It's like an Us Weekly cover story on geopolitical 'roids. But seriously. It's inspiring! I'll admit, my knowledge of Aung San Suu Kyi only consisted of a few NPR reports from when she was released. I didn't know anything about her. Only that she was a really Important Person in Burma. This piece fleshes out the contours of her life nicely.
| from the telegraph.co.uk |
Later that night, Ms. Gartland became Mr. Lomelí’s friend on Facebook and tried to make light of their intense encounter. “See you around the opera house,” she wrote breezily.Is the reporter familiar with the nature of Facebook Friend Initialization? One does not just friend request all randos one meets immediately after an encounter. She makes it sound like its something that naturally happens, like a flower blooming in spring or my Haus running out of hot water in the mornings. There are crucial details left out of this story! Did Lomelí friend request Gartland, causing her to respond back with her "breezy" message or did Gartland friend request Lomeli, with breeziness attached? Enquiring minds want to know! Having been the recipient of such a fb friend request (complete with breezy message) and being a sentient being on planet Earth I contend that these things are never breezy. Just saying.
Things other people have recommended to me that I think are really great:
