The Economist Ends the Year With a Jampacked Double Issue
Links to a sampling of articles included
By Denise Rivette
The Economist is my big splurge for reliable news and analysis because it provides news from around the world and, though my subscription is curated for Americans, it still keeps news about America in context with the rest of the world. Every year The Economist puts out a double issue to cover Christmas and New Year’s and this year, as always, there were several interesting articles. I believe I have linked these correctly and that you will be able to access the articles below without a subscription. Each of these articles also provides an audio option. If you have any problems with access, please let me know.
There were excellent articles (links below in bold) that included an exploration of the legalities and morality of requiring people to assist in an emergency by law or leaving the judgement of whether or not to assist to the individual bystander and whether or not to hold people criminally or civilly liable for their split second decisions. California recently revised their laws in response to a recent judicial ruling and other jurisdictions around the world have their own Good Samaritan Laws with varying provisions.
For reference: Montana’s Good Samaritan Law (MCA §27-1-714) provides that “…any other person who in good faith renders emergency care or assistance without compensation except as provided in subsection (2) at the scene of an emergency or accident is not liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions other than damages occasioned by gross negligence or by willful or wanton acts or omissions by the person in rendering the emergency care or assistance.”
“He found that rescues exceeded non-rescues by 800 to one in 1994-2004; and that 100 Americans lost their lives every year trying to rescue someone. Sixty times as many rescuers died as did victims who had been ignored. Americans were not failing to intervene—they were far too willing to do so.”
“Most people are not legal experts and, when the crucial moment arrives, there is no time to consult a textbook.”
—excerpts from The Economist’s Good Samaritan article
One of my biggest takeaways from this 20-paragraph article is that taking first aid classes and/or keeping up with the latest best practices is important and may help to safely and knowledgeably save the life a stranger, an acquaintance or a loved one in an emergency. I will make a point to report on best practices and educational opportunities in the coming year.
The Economist Article: How good are Good Samaritans? When doing the right thing goes wrong. How a car crash in Los Angeles rewrote the law on helping strangers
At the end of the year there are many good causes pulling at our heartstrings. The Economist provides some sound advice in this 9-paragraph article:
The Economist Article: How to Give Money to Good Causes: Let a Balance of Morals, Liberty and Efficiency be Your Guide
Below is a link to a 10-paragraph article on how “Reducing sulphur emissions saves lives. But it could also be hastening planetary warming.”
“Reducing sulphur emissions also lowers (the Earth’s) albedo (the amount of incoming sunlight it reflects). Sulphate particles scatter light. As a result, some of it bounces back into space. Sulphate particles can also serve as seeds for the water droplets that make up clouds. Fewer such seeds can make clouds less bright; sometimes clouds do not form at all.”
“Quite how much of Earth’s accelerated warming can be put down to the reduction in sulphur emissions is uncertain. The workings of clouds are complex and sulphur is not the only factor at play. But atmospheric scientists have long expected more warming when this offset is removed.”
—excerpts from The Economist’s Global Warming article
The Economist Article: Global Warming is Speeding Up; Another Reason to Think About Geoengineering
In my final share, an 18-paragraph article on American air superiority states, among other issues: “The threat is particularly acute in the Pacific, where America has consolidated many of its planes at a small number of bases, such as Kadena in Japan or Andersen in Guam. A war game by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, an American think-tank, found that in a war over Taiwan, Chinese missiles would probably destroy hundreds of American, Japanese and Taiwanese planes on the tarmac.”
“Between the end of the cold war and 2022, the number of fighters in the USAF fell from 4,321 to about 1,420, reckons the Mitchell Institute, a think-tank. That is well below what is needed, reckons General Mark Kelly, the recently departed head of USAF’s Air Combat Command.”
“Decades of hard flying in the Middle East on constrained budgets have led to planes being cannibalised for spare parts. ‘We literally ate the muscle tissue of the air force,’ the general lamented.”
—excerpts from Economist American Air Superiority article
The Economist Article: Is the age of American air superiority coming to an end?
I hope you find one or more of the above articles interesting. If there are issues you would like to know more about, please let me know.