Big Think Blog

Today, the New York Times reports that shape-shifting New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg is watching the primary dogfight and licking his chops. If it’s still a partisan, shit-flinging eight-way tie in a couple months’ time, aides say, Bloomberg might run for President.

Now this may have New Yorkers excited, but the mere fact that this Democrat-cum-Republican-cum-Independent might run (and win?) says something about our crusty political system. As both Republicans and Democrats vie for their parties’ fringes, the national agenda is inevitably skewed and the entire process sputters and, well, fails. (See the Democratic Congress’s less than stellar record after last November’s mandate.)

The continuing hype around Bloomberg’s still unannounced candidacy implies that he, even as an independent in our staunchly two-party system, has a fighting chance. Now that I just saw a cow fly by my window, I recommend having a look back at my fellow Big Thinker’s earlier post about Independent Joe Lieberman’s endorsement of McCain and the question, are two parties enough?

If you’re looking to shed your 2007 skin to release a healthier new you in the new year, the noted spiritualist Deepak Chopra might suggest a yoga regime. What’s that? Your joints are too stiff for “downward-facing dog”? All I can say is hold your excuses until Mr. Chopra has had a chance to school you on yoga’s “big picture.” If you find the world around you in disarray (and it’s a safe bet for 2008), perhaps a union of the body, mind, and spirit could be just the thing to grant you and this crazy, mixed-up world a more harmonious tomorrow. According to the master, if you’ve ever been in love, you’ve already got what it takes for yoga.

Where are we headed? We’ve asked just about everyone about their outlook for the future, and responses run the gamut from optimistic to pessimistic, from crystal ball clarity to downright uncertainty. We’ve assembled some of the more interesting responses in a feature that we hope will stir your own responses.



Our mission is to bring everyone’s outlook to the table as we look and move forward as a human race. We very much want to hear your voice in Big Think’s chorus of conversation in 2008 and beyond. So tell us, what do you think?

We asked Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman how he thought this age would be remembered, and, with five days until the Iowa caucus really really kicks off the 2008 election, I felt Krugman’s answer seemed especially clairvoyant. Have a look.

As a rather tumultuous year for U.S. foreign policy winds down with a fittingly dramatic denouement in Pakistan, it’s worth having a listen to Ambassador Dennis Ross, the special Middle East envoy under President Bill Clinton, talk about the art of diplomacy.





Ross’s distinction between the caliber of one’s diplomatic tactics and the quality of one’s aims seems especially relevant in light of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, and the looming chaos in a nuclear-armed Pakistan. What happens when both tactics and aim fail? What happens when your diplomatic means run out, and you have few allies to draw on?

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto today has raised a potentially catastrophic challenge to Pakistan and the Bush Administration’s new strategy in the region. In recent months, the Administration has shifted its support increasingly toward Bhutto, in recognition of Musharraf’s own loosening grip on power, his failure to curb extremists and a new commitment to backing democratic reforms. With Bhutto’s death, the elections that the U.S. government has been pushing for are now in doubt—opposition candidate Nawaz Sharif has already announced his party will not participate.

The U.S. now faces sensitive decisions as it reassesses its own national security interests and its commitment to helping push democracy forward in Pakistan. Most critically, on which side will the Bush Administration err if stability and democracy seem at odds, at least in the near-term?


Lee Hamilton, vice-chairman of the 9/11 Commission and a member of President Bush’s homeland security advisory council, addresses the dilemma posed by democratic intervention. In this clip, he lays out why he believes the U.S. must be more pragmatic in its approach and that it is unrealistic to think we can bring democracy to places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan.

A family can be reminiscing and happy, sitting around the fire talking about holidays past when someone asks, “Who is everyone voting for this election?” Then watch the joyful red and green of the season turn to the divisive red vs. blue. But, must politics be the Scrooge of the holidays?

In this clip, Senator Ted Kennedy talks about politics in a way that might not send half the dinner table heading for the egg-nog. So here’s to happy holiday meals and civil political discussion in the new year!

We’re beginning to shift gears from Christmas, a time to reflect and give thanks, to New Year’s, a time to look forward and set goals for the future. It’s customary to pay at least token tribute to longstanding ambitions like trimming the waistline, securing a promotion or picking up a musical instrument. What we don’t often think about is what personal resolutions we should be making in the interest of our common aims.

The individual’s role in shaping our collective path is by no means certain. If you use your air conditioner half as much, will you make a dent in global warming? No clue. But, there does seem to be a growing consensus that the individual—you and me—has some role to play. Probably the most common theme that has emerged in the interviews we’ve conducted so far is that of individual responsibility and agency. Often, it emerges in answer to the question, “What is a question we should be asking ourselves?” (one of Big Think’s core 10 Questions), and the most common answer given is “What can I do?” Here, actress and playwright Anna Deavere Smith asks that very question.



While this answer at first seems hokey, if not trite, it is less so upon reflection. As we confront ever bigger problems, the burden of solving them is going to fall not only to governments and international organizations, but to private associations, like the global technology sector, and, yes, even to private individuals. To the extent that the individual has any role in the solution, we’re going to have to figure out just what that role is, how we can minimize its burden as well as maximize its impact. In addition to everything else you do in your day, from trudging to work at ungodly hours to picking up the kids and grandma at their various soccer clinics and medical appointments, do you really need to worry about what you can do to stop the ice caps from melting? Perhaps (esp. if you live on the beach).

So, Big Think resolves to make the question of responsibility—what must be done, who has to do it and when—a leading topic of our discussions in the New Year, and every year to come that we’re still around. Knowing each of our roles is a necessary first step in acting on them.

The holiday season certainly offers ample reminder of what Jesus wouldn’t, or at least didn’t do: buy a half-dozen aromatherapy candles from his local Pier 1 in the event he forgot anyone on his shopping list, play chicken with fellow irate motorists in crowded mall parking lots, and eat all manners of food he might not otherwise because they’re slathered in chocolate and whip cream.

But, what Jesus would do is another matter entirely, and a question relevant to both believers and non-believers alike.

The New York Times has a story today that is a case in point. The article chronicles the work of tax expert and law professor at the University of Alabama Law School, Susan Pace Hamill, who has turned to Biblical teachings to emphasize inequities she sees in the tax codes of many states. The article quotes Hamill as saying that since Judeo-Christian ethics “is the moral compass chosen by most Americans”, these policies must be compared to the underlying values on which they were founded. Hamill asserts that the bottom heavy taxation of many states places too much of the tax burden on the poor and too little on the rich. Needless to say, Jesus would not pleased with some of Hamill’s findings (she cites Alabama, Louisiana, South Dakota, Florida, Nevada and Texas as the “sinful six”).

Can we fairly determine his outlook on matters on which Jesus did not speak? When does Biblical interpretation become Biblical misinterpretation? Where is that line and how do we know when we’ve crossed it? If we don’t ask ourselves these questions first, what Jesus would do becomes less a matter of reflection and deliberation than a stamp of approval.

We asked Rev. Peter Gomes, the Pusey Professor of Christian Morals at Harvard and Minister of Harvard’s Memorial Church, about the challenge of Biblical interpretation and how he approaches the dilemma of being fair in his treatment of the text.

All my reading in the check-out line has convinced me that Americans are simultaneously at their happiest and their most disappointed this time of year. Great expectations coupled with the fact that reality is her own mistress who bows to the will of no man create a strange internal dissonance, even when all the lights and the good holiday cheer say “be happy, dammit!”

Harvard psychologist-cum-happyologist Daniel Gilbert explains that internal drift, and answers that most nagging of questions: what is happiness?