No, this post is about the costs to our healthcare that arise from our social isolationism. Okay, so the title is a bit misleading, it says individualism, but I tend to not see a dramatic difference. Individualism encourages us to look to no one but ourselves for our necessities, which when taken to its logical endpoint, means we become more isolated. Semantics aside, my argument is pretty simple: our isolationism is costing us in our healthcare spending – and big time.

One thing that we don’t really hear about in healthcare debates, particularly when comparing the United States to other countries is that virtually all of the other countries with universal healthcare also have much tighter social webs, community life, and place less emphasis on individualism. I don’t think there is a direct 1:1 correlation between community attachment and healthcare spending, only that there is an indirect link that probably hasn’t been studied very much. A few areas strike me here as very likely areas where this matters a lot:

1) the elderly. Older people are notoriously lonely, especially in the US. In my relatively limited travel, I’ve noticed that older people rarely live alone in other places, they usually live in multi-generational households. They watch their grandkids (or great grandkids) and their children take care of them. The psychological toll of that constant loneliness really gets to people and lonely people are more likely to be depressed, get sick, and generally be less happy. I imagine that older people like to see their doctors more because they have someone to talk to. Hell a lot of older people I know base a good chunk of their social lives around discussing their health conditions and ailments. Who better than a doctor . . . which leads me to . . .

2) Hypochondriacs. People who think they are always sick. Have a sore thoat? Maybe it’s tonsilitis. Oh God! a bump on your neck? must be a tumor…or so WebMD suggests. More information isn’t good if the person receiving the information doesn’t know how to interpret it properly, but that’s an aside. Without people, family, close friends, co-workers to give us that reality check and tell us it’s ok, every sneeze sends us to the doctor and every chest pain demands an MRI. Which of course leads to . . .

3) Pill Popping. Suburban housewives are huge drug users. They just pop prozac and antidepressants. They put their kids on ritalin because they’re hyper (really? a hyper kid needs medication? Really? God what would have happened to me if ritalin were widely prescribed when I was 5). We turn ourselves into blank zombies. We’re not any happier because of all of the pills. We don’t feel any better. If anything our isolation and self-medication make us feel worse, hate our lives, and become depressed. Which leads me to . . .

4) Psychiatric Care. Now I’ve never been to a psychiatrist, a psychologist, or a therapist of any kind. Some who know me well enough might suggest it could help. Maybe, maybe not. I have, however, known many people with severe problems who were and are on multiple meds and seeing multiple therapists. Some people genuinely need this. For a lot of people, however, I get the feeling that having a loving family around and good, supportive friends would be as good or better. Even people with serious issues could probably benefit from a tight social network. I’m not spouting here, because I’ve seen the difference in people (primarily with depression) who deal dramatically better with their issues when they’re around family and friends than when they feel alone.

And of course all this stems from the belief that *I* (not me specifically, but the Ego “I”) am a special and unique snowflake and my life is worth an infinite amount of money (well as long as I’m not picking up the tab) and of course so are my loved ones’. Now when it comes to *your* life  and you will cost a million dollars for the possibility of living another two months, to hell with you. Ah the Ego bias.

This isn’t nuts, it’s probably a series “well duh” things. I know. But no one’s talking about it.

Point being that we can do a lot to “fix” health care by expanding coverage, cutting costs and all that jazz, but we may still face higher costs than we have to because of our culture of isolation and individualism. I’m not suggesting we all hug and sing kumbaya. I’m not suggesting we have group hugs (although I do enjoy hugs). Point simply being that we’re treating conditions more than we need to or that probably shouldn’t exist as a result of our culture. I don’t know how to “fix” it. I don’t know that it can be “fixed.” Just an observation.

As alluded to above, a proper mythos serves as the foundation for a constellation of universals: ethics, morals, norms, and causal explanations. Such universals are incredibly important in that they allow us to communicate with one another on a moral level and share a common understanding of the sacred and the profane, the good and the bad, the better and the worse. They allow for the smooth functioning of a society or social group because people understand what is and is not within the range of acceptable behavior and, whether they act in accordance with the ideals 100% of the time or not, they are omnipresent. Universals as first principles are not morals or standards per se, they are the explanatory principles behind them; why it is wrong to cheat or steal, why being nice is better than being mean. At a certain point these first principles can only be explained by reference to their effects, consequentialst explanations. Yet even consequentialist explanations rely to a degree on the universals they attempt to justify (i.e. explaining why female circumcision is wrong would very likely result in reference to a first principle which would be explained by how it makes life better, but the definition of better itself relies on other first principles).

First principles do not act on the conscious mind. In fact, they are so ingrained that we would have to sit for a while and draw up a list and then reduce that to the foundational principles.  We learn them both consciously and subconsciously through overt teaching and subtle social cues. We are, by and large, so attached to our first principles, our mythos, that we are often hard pressed to explain them or justify them without some gymnastics. In everyday life, we tend to interact with people who, for the most part, share our mythos so explaining why something is bad is much easier than if there were no common mythos.  An example of this is that it would not be difficult to explain why killing an animal just because you can is wrong if the person you are talking to shares your mythos; it is when they do no that it becomes tricky.

Any mythos is in a sense random in that it relies on first principles for which we have no further explanation. We can explain why we hold a first principle by reference to its benefits (utility) and consequences, but as noted above, we eventually arrive at another first principle within our mythos. Mythic systems are self-contained, therefore our “universals” are not truly universal in that they do not apply to everyone in all situations.

This is not to deny the power of a mythos or to doubt their existence, reality, or efficacy in guiding human behavior. In fact, I think we need a mythos to survive. Humans are storytelling animals and the lack of a grand narrative which provides the basis of a mythic system is practically essential to our wellbeing. For most people the striving for a mythos is satisfied by some sort of religion which provides first principles which give life a certain order. What’s more religion offers the ultimate first principle, the concept of a god or gods which are extrinsic sources of universal principles. Gods are perhaps the highest refinement of mythos because they are self evident and true to their believers, but like any mythos they require a certain leap of faith to transcend objective reality and engage with the concept of an absolute source of order and value.

A mythos is a powerful tool for ordering lives and channeling impulses into socially acceptable pathways, and yet there are as many mythos as there are cultures (though like culturs and languages, probably dwindling as the years go by) probably more. There is a fundamental difficulty, a breakdown of communication when attempting to engage those outside of our mythic system because without the same (or similar) set of foundational principles, we are unable to effectively communicate regarding values. It may be difficult to explain to certain groups why a clitorectomy (femal circumcision) is wrong by referencing human rights or gender equality because more likely than not such groups do not ascribe to those principles. Similiarly it may be difficult to explain universal individual rights to someone from China (as I have seen done several times) without reference to our own values which they may not share. The reason this is significant is that in attempting to engage a person or group with a different mythos, we must be very conscious of our own first principles. Any attempt to explain the right or wrong of something to such a person would likely fall flat or result in defensiveness, or worse claims of imposition of values, if we try to engage them on our terms and in our constellation of values. It would perhaps be more effective, then, to engage those of a different mythos within their own constellation of values using consequentialist examples and linking those to other competing first principles within their mythic structure.

There are those who would rather we turn to religion as the first principle, the mythos. That is one way to do it, and has been the predominant method historically of providing life with order and meaning. Unfortunately there are numerous religions that are heavily influenced by their cultural contexts and a perfect reconciliation of even sects within a religion let alone between religious paradigms  would be nearly impossible. This means taking a step above religion to first principles and acknowledging them when we engage with one another on questions of right and wrong, good and bad, virtuous and debased.

Finally there are those who insist that there is an ultimate truth, but we as humans are incapable of comprehending such a truth. In spite of this, we should strive to reach for this elusive truth and order our lives around our imperfect perceptions of truth. The simple response to this is that history provides as many versions of truth as there are civilizations, cultures, and eras, so if there is a higher truth it is awful elusive. Rather than seek such a truth perhaps we should just modestly admit that we will never know and do the best we can for our day and age.

I’m quite literally dropping a very short policy paper on the balance between individual transportation and mass transit alternatives.

Introduction

Urban transportation involves highly complex and interrelated systems which people use as a means to accomplish a variety of ends. Transportation in urban areas can take the form of pedestrian traffic, bicycling, private automobiles, buses, and railways. Each of these forms has its functional purpose as well as limitations. This paper will focus primarily upon the use of private automobiles and mass transit systems (buses and railways) in urban areas as well as their benefits, problems, and potential solutions to those problems.

The Private Automobile

In the United States the primary mode of transportation is the use of private automobiles. In lower density settings this makes perfect sense as automobiles quickly and comfortably can get travelers to their destinations with a minimum of interruption. In higher density areas, however, high automobile usage creates congestion which slows down movement, contributes to accidents and injury, and makes the movement of people and goods increasingly inefficient with each additional user.

Automobile use began in the early 20^th Century and has increased greatly over time such that it is currently the dominant mode of transportation in much of the United States. The use of automobiles was spurred in part by relatively sparse settlement patterns as well as by design in the creation of the Interstate Highway System. For much of recent American history there has been an overriding preoccupation with automobile transportation and the ways to make it more efficient. Unfortunately, most highway planners seem to “have become so preoccupiedwith the production of efficiency in automobile movement that they have builtchoice right out of the environment” (Cervero & Gorham, p. 1). Essentially, this preoccupation with the efficient movement of automobiles has adversely affected opportunities for finding creative solutions to our transit problems and planners have focused primarily upon ways to build more highway capacity.

Increased highway capacity has had numerous deleterious consequences on urban environments. It has led to an increase in suburban sprawl as the ability to drive into the city from further away at faster speeds is coupled with poor land use regulations and with people’s desire for more space in which to live. Additionally, it fails to alleviate congestion as people choose to make more nonessential trips when their travel time between destinations is decreased. Furthermore, this increased capacity coupled with higher use exacerbates congestion as there are now more miles of highway backed up which in turn leads to increased pollution in the form of vehicle emissions.

Mass Transit Systems

The primary alternative to the private automobile is found in mass transportation systems which generally take the form of railways and buses. Mass transit systems have the capacity to transport large numbers of people from one point to another. They also offers increased mobility options to those who do not own automobiles either because of economic circumstances, age, or infirmity. Additionally, mass transit service is available equally to all users while automobiles are available only to those who own them or otherwise have access to them.

Depending on the form mass transit takes, it can be somewhat slower or much faster than transportation by automobile. For instance, buses operating at grade are subject to the same traffic as autos and have to make regular stops to drop off and pick up passengers, making them considerably slower than auto transportation. At the other extreme are bullet trains operating above or below grade which can be several times faster than driving during hours of high congestion. In between are at grade light rail and heavy rail systems operating on separate grades which can be slower or faster than auto transportation depending largely on the time of day, grade at which the track is laid, and number of stops.

Mass transit systems, because of their ability to pick up and drop off large numbers of people in a small geographic area, have positive external effects on their surroundings. Cervero (1995), for instance, notes that office vacancy rates are lower and rents higher in areas where mass transit authorities have formed joint-development projects with private developers to ensure higher-density development near train stations. Mass transit systems also tend to have a positive impact on property values in the vicinity of stops as people are willing to pay more money for easy access to alternative modes of transportation.

In spite of their virtues, mass transit systems are incredibly expensive to construct and operate. Jose Gomez-Ibanez (1996) notes that in general, mass transit systems are subject to decreasing economic viability as more people push out to ever distant suburbs and turn to automobiles for their transportation needs. Some of the economic problems faced by mass transit are inherent in the system—waves for drivers and capital costs—while others are largely external to the system—stability of the local job market, increases in personal income, changing residential patterns. Whatever the case, mass transit systems by and large face ever-widening operational deficits as operators keep fares artificially low to maintain ridership.

The Way Forward

Automobiles appear to be self-sustaining, with the costs borne by their users. Mass transit, on the other hand, appears to be economically unsustainable with municipalities subsidizing users. Reality, however, is a bit more complicated. Kim (2004) details the phenomenon of cross-subsidization in which countries subsidize a particular mode of transportation through policy choices. Cross-subsidization is characterized by charging users a price below the true cost of their activities and supplying the funds from a general revenue source. In many European countries, gasoline is priced to more accurately reflect the costs of automobile usage such as congestion, pollution, and adverse health effects. In the United States, on the other hand, gasoline is priced well below its true value with gasoline taxes failing to even pay for the highways upon which automobiles operate. So while it is true that mass transit systems are often subsidized by taxpayers, so too is the use of private autos.

Having briefly surveyed the benefits and costs of the two dominant modes of transportation in the United States, the task at hand is to create proposals that will play to the strengths of both private autos and mass transit systems in such a way as to make both more revenue neutral as well as improve their performance to reduce congestion and make transportation more efficient. There are any number of changes that could be made in an attempt to improve the experience of users of both autos and mass transit, however, there are three which seem to provide the most promise for clearly visible results. These three changes are: altering the way neighborhoods are designed, bringing the cost of automobile use more in line with its actual cost, and differential grading for mass transit systems.

Cervero and Gorham (1995) conducted a study of the differences in travel patterns of residents of economically similar and geographically close neighborhoods. They differentiated between older neighborhoods designed on grid patterns, most often near former streetcar lines, and newer neighborhoods designed for autos featuring more impediments to rapid movement. Their study revealed that neighborhood design influences whether people ride share, walk, or bike to their destination, as well as whether they utilize mass transit. Residents of neighborhoods designed along grid patterns were more likely to walk, use bicycles, use public transportation, and carpool to work than those of more auto-oriented neighborhoods. This suggests that a return to grid layouts for newer neighborhoods could help cut down on traffic congestion, reduce emissions, and encourage alternative transportation modes without depriving people of the choice of whether to use an automobile to reach their destination.

Because the United States subsidizes the use and ownership of autos, a second proposal would be to bring the costs of driving more in line with the actual cost of use. These costs can be internalized by users in any number of ways. One such way is to increase the fuel tax to better reflect the generalized cost of highway construction and public health dangers presented by auto emissions. A second way to make users internalize these costs would be to use dynamic tolling or congestion pricing in heavily-trafficked urban areas where costs to public health and infrastructure are most heavily concentrated. Either or both of these proposals would very quickly bring the cost of auto usage more in line with their costs to society in general. Once these costs are internalized, it is also likely that mass transit systems will become more attractive and the fares for such systems would be able to increase without having as dramatic an impact on ridership as would be seen under present conditions. Such a system would, however, be politically unpopular and would require very careful negotiation and compromise to implement.

The final proposal is to provide for differential grading for mass-transit systems. Cervero (1994) states that there are three categories of grading: rows C, B, and A. Row Category C grading is use of public streets open to general traffic. Row Category B grading is the partial separation of mass transit systems from general traffic by providing a separate right of way while still being subject to cross traffic. Row Category A grading is a completely separate right of way for mass transit such as elevated tracks or subterranean tunnels. Shifting from a more general grade (C) to a more separate grade (B or A) would increase capacity, speed, reliability, and safety (Cervero 1994, p. 4-5). A shift to more specialized rights of way, while requiring an initial capital investment, would have the virtue of improving mass transit while simultaneously improving the experience of auto users by taking the transit system off of general thoroughfares and lessening the disruption to traffic flows.

Conclusion

Both automobiles and mass transit systems provide users with a means to accomplish other goals while simultaneously imposing costs on society at large. While there is no perfect solution to our transportation problems, our current system is seriously out of balance and would benefit from changes. Some of the changes are relatively modest such as providing separate grading for mass transit, while others are more ambitious such as dynamic tolling and redesigning neighborhood layouts. While all of the suggestions detailed above would individually benefit users of all modes of transportation, their benefits would be most apparent and widespread if used in conjunction.

In years like this, no two “best of” lists will look alike. But here are mine, with the caveat that there are several movies that, while they’ve attracted praise, I haven’t seen, including Frost/Nixon, Wendy and Lucy, The Reader, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Let the Right One In, Revolutionary Road, and The Wrestler.

Top 10 Movies

1. PARANOID PARK (director Gus Van Sant)

Before the bigger and more prestigious Milk, Gus Van Sant directed this small work about a 16-year-old skateboarder who accidentally kills a security guard. The film indulges in long silences and casual conversations, and like Van Sant’s 2003 release Elephant (about a Columbine-style school shooting), Paranoid Park is as much about the ordinary lives of teenagers as it is about the more extraordinary and violent parts of the story. The result is riveting.

2. RACHEL GETTING MARRIED (director Jonathan Demme)

Rachel Getting Married is simultaneously joyful and awkward, not unlike most actual weddings. The wedding here goes beyond the typical, though, thanks to the just-out-of-rehab sister of the bride, played stunningly well by Anne Hathaway. The entire cast is pitch perfect, and Jonathan Demme’s direction is characteristically affectionate. While the families coming together in Rachel Getting Married are not quite ordinary, the experiences depicted are impressively real and identifiable.

3. MILK (director Gus Van Sant)

Gus Van Sant sacrifices a great deal of the experimental creativity he brought to Paranoid Park (and most of his other more independent fare) in Milk, delivering a disappointingly conventional film. Still, the script is abnormally intelligent, and the ideas explored should be of interest to anybody who cares about how to effect political change (and not just in the area of gay rights). The movie is both intellectually stimulating and emotionally powerful, especially in its first hour, and its obvious parallels to contemporary political movements make it the most relevant film made in recent memory.

4. THE DARK KNIGHT (director Christopher Nolan)

What made The Dark Knight special was not that it used a superhero story as a parable about contemporary political issues – the X-Men movies covered that ground first. The Dark Knight stands out because it asked more questions than it answered. Not unlike reality, the movie gave rise to a wide array of plausible interpretations, from neoconservative apologia to liberal internationalist rebuke. That’s the result of complex, layered storytelling, far more interesting than a lot of the more preachy, obvious commentary Hollywood has produced in the past couple of years.

5. SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE (director Danny Boyle)

Slumdog Millionaire is filled with hokey sentimentality, and while the story provides for an interesting look at life in India, it is otherwise pretty hackneyed. But it’s also genuinely exciting and fun to watch, thanks mostly to Danny Boyle’s energetic direction and a very good soundtrack (which includes everybody’s new favorite song, M.I.A.’s “Paper Planes”).

6. SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK (director Charlie Kaufman)

Do not go see Synecdoche, New York if you want to see something uplifting (if that’s your cup of tea, Slumdog Millionaire is right up your alley). Synecdoche is far from a pleasant experience, though I think it would be wrong to say that it is depressing. Ultimately it is about the danger of self-importance and the need for real human connection. It takes a while to reach that conclusion, and it’s not always a fun ride getting there, but it is just as weirdly fascinating as we have all come to expect from Charlie Kaufman.

7. 4 MONTHS, 3 WEEKS AND 2 DAYS (director Cristian Mungiu)

4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days is a powerful movie that tells the story of a young woman helping another young woman receive an illegal abortion in communist Romania. The awfulness of the experience is related in disturbing but meticulous detail, and it is not easily forgotten.

8. WALL-E (director Andrew Stanton)

A lot of film critics I respect have put Wall-E at the top of their lists, and I certainly don’t want to give the impression I didn’t find it an immensely entertaining and innovative film. But I also found the social commentary a little obvious, certainly not of the caliber Pixar delivered in The Incredibles and Ratatouille. Still, Wall-E achieves something extraordinary as a matter of storytelling, and its first half hour is just amazing.

9. CLOVERFIELD (director Matt Reeves)

Cloverfield (along with The Dark Knight and The Bourne Ultimatum) is the sort of movie that future generations will screen in intro to film classes to demonstrate the influence the 9/11 attacks had on American filmmaking. Just as the advent of nuclear technology gave rise to cautionary tales like Them! and the original The Day the Earth Stood Still, 9/11 gave rise to Cloverfield, a movie about an unexpected and inexplicable threat emerging out of nowhere to destroy New York City. It is at once supremely entertaining and anthropologically captivating.

10. MAN ON WIRE (director James Marsh)

A documentary about a French guy who in the 1970’s illegally walked on a high wire across the World Trade Center towers without a net, Man on Wire is exhilarating, suspenseful, and life-affirming.

Honorable Mentions: Burn After Reading, Funny Games, Iron Man

Top 5 Casts

1. Rachel Getting Married
2. Burn After Reading
3. Milk
4. Synecdoche, New York
5. The Dark Knight

Best Leading Performances

Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married)
Sean Penn (Milk)

Top 10 Supporting Performances

1. Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)
2. Emile Hirsch (Milk)
3. Bill Irwin (Rachel Getting Married)
4. Josh Brolin (Milk)
5. Samantha Morton (Synecdoche, New York)
6. Rosemarie DeWitt (Rachel Getting Married)
7. Aaron Eckhart (The Dark Knight)
8. Brad Pitt (Burn After Reading)
9. Michelle Williams (Synecdoche, New York)
10. Tom Newton (Synecdoche, New York)

Honorable Mentions: Frances McDormand (Burn After Reading), Debra Winger (Rachel Getting Married), Michael Caine (The Dark Knight)

Top 5 Directors

1. Gus Van Sant (Paranoid Park)
2. Jonathan Demme (Rachel Getting Married)
3. Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire)
4. Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight)
5. Andrew Stanton (Wall-E)

Honorable Mention: Charlie Kaufman (Synecdoche, New York)

Top 5 Screenplays

1. Dustin Lance Black (Milk)
2. Charlie Kaufman (Synecdoche, New York)
3. Gus Van Sant (Paranoid Park)
4. Jenny Lumet (Rachel Getting Married)
5. Joel & Ethan Coen (Burn After Reading)

Honorable Mention: Christopher & Jonathan Nolan (The Dark Knight)

It’s been a particularly busy year, with big stories emerging in politics, the economy, and international affairs. I originally was just going to do a Top 10 People of the Year list, but there got to be so many people that I decided to split it up into the two lists you see below. Some of these are predictable, some not so much. Discuss.

Top 10 American Newsmakers of the Year

1. BARACK OBAMA, President-Elect of the United States of America

Duh. His campaign will be a model for future political operations for years to come, his victory was an historic landmark, and he is probably the most influential President-Elect in modern history. Enough said.

2. BEN BERNANKE, Chairman of the Federal Reserve; and HENRY PAULSON, Secretary of the Treasury

The biggest story this year outside the election has, of course, been the steadily declining economy. The framers of that story at its most critical moments were Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson. While their navigation through the crisis has been less than sterling, they have been the ones holding the reins on this side of the Atlantic (but see Gordon Brown, below).

3. DAVID PETRAEUS, Commander of US Central Command

The story to come out of this year’s improvements in Iraq should not merely be the increase in troop levels. Rather, it should be COIN – the military’s shorthand term for counterinsurgency. The centerpiece of counterinsurgency is to peel off persuadable elements of the insurgency, teaming with them to fight the more hard-core elements. No man was more responsible for implementing this strategy in Iraq than General Petraeus – and no man outside of the Pentagon is in a better position to carry the lessons learned over to Afghanistan.

4. SUSAN RICE, UN Ambassador-designate and former Obama foreign policy adviser; and BRENT SCOWCROFT, former National Security Adviser

Rice and Scowcroft are far from ideological twins: the first is a liberal internationalist strongly committed to strengthening international institutions and promoting human rights; the second is a hardheaded Republican realist. But they share an antipathy toward the neoconservatives who gained control of George W. Bush’s foreign policy, and they represent Barack Obama’s dueling foreign policy sympathies: Rice is reportedly Obama’s most trusted foreign policy adviser, while the only Republicans whom Obama has given a voice in his administration are those with close ties to Scowcroft.

5. HILLARY CLINTON, Secretary of State-designate and former Democratic presidential candidate

Hillary Clinton’s story is an epically sad one. There is little doubt she is a talented and qualified figure, but she was forced to compete against a political phenomenon running a brutally efficient campaign, all while she was surrounded by incompetents and buffoons (including her husband). Even worse, the degree to which she broke barriers has been hampered by a viciously unfair media machine capable of seeing her only as monster or machine – anything but a history-making woman.

6. GAY AMERICANS

The results of Prop 8 make it hard to remember that 2008 was actually a pretty good year for the LGBT community: two state supreme courts recognized a right to same-sex marriage; restrictions on HIV-positive immigrants were lifted; and majorities were strengthened in support of ENDA and overturning Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Oh, and we came the closest we’ve ever come to a successful vote on marriage equality. But the real story is the aftermath of the Prop 8 vote: the gay community has been nationally mobilized and is now in a better position to effect change than it ever has been.

7. STEVE JOBS, Chairman and CEO of Apple, Inc.; and ERIC SCHMIDT, Chairman and CEO of Google, Inc.

The iPhone, the G1, Google Chrome, the new Macbooks. Apple and Google remain the frontrunners in technological innovation.

8. DAVID AXELROD & DAVID PLOUFFE, former senior Obama campaign operatives

The men behind the political arm of the Obama campaign shouldn’t be overrated. The key to their success was not their innovative use of the Internet, their fundraising prowess, or their impressive branding. It was their candidate. But those other things will become the hallmark of future political campaigns, and that’s no small feat.

9. SARAH PALIN, Governor of Alaska and former Republican Vice Presidential candidate

That Sarah Palin is probably the most popular Republican in the country says all that needs to be said about the current state of the Republican Party.

10. RACHEL MADDOW, host of MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show

This was the year America learned that progressives can succeed on television, with Rachel Maddow taking the crown as Queen of Cable News. But she’s not significant just because she’s liberal. She’s also got a damn good show that is smart, substantive, and entertaining. At a time when cable news is almost universally noise, from Hannity to O’Reilly to Olbermann, Maddow demonstrates that you don’t have to shout to have an entertaining news show.

Honorable Mentions: Nancy Pelosi; Tina Fey; Ron Paul; Michelle, Malia and Sasha Obama; Nate Silver

Top 10 Global Newsmakers of the Year

1. GORDON BROWN, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

In any other year, the Prime Minister of the UK would not top this list. But when the financial crisis hit, it was Gordon Brown’s plan to inject capital into the struggling financial institutions that the rest of the world ended up copying. Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke’s original plan to buy up bad assets was abandoned in the wake of Brown’s actions, leaving Paul Krugman to ask: “Has Gordon Brown saved the world financial system?”

2. ASIF ALI ZARDARI, President of Pakistan

His state is on the verge of collapse and has found itself at the center of more than one international crisis. Barack Obama argued military strikes against the state might be appropriate in certain circumstances; al-Qaeda operatives are occupying its northwest territory; and the terrorist attacks in India have heightened the already high tensions between the two states. Whether Zardari is able to hold his country together is the most important international relations question of the coming years.

3. HU JINTAO, President of China

The Beijing Olympics, China’s massive stimulus plan, and the weight of America’s national debt have caused American awareness of China’s influence to grow. And the line is being drawn between those who view China’s emergence as an opportunity and those who view it as a source of inevitable conflict.

4. NOURI AL-MALIKI, Prime Minister of Iraq

One of the most fascinating stories of the year was the unfolding of negotiations over the Status of Forces Agreement between the U.S. and Iraq. Nouri al-Maliki played a strong hand surprisingly well, and the result was a SOFA that largely resolved the debate over American forces in Iraq without the incoming President ever having to make a decision.

5. THE SOMALI PIRATES

Every part of the Somali pirate story is representative of a new international system. A big part of Somalia’s brokenness is due to the United States’ support of Ethiopia’s invasion – a lesson in the limits of American power. The result is a failed state in which pirates are able to amass arms and roam the high seas – a lesson in the increasing influence of non-state actors. And the emerging solution is an international coalition organized through the UN to better patrol the region by air, land and sea – a lesson in the need for multilateralism.

6. ALI KHAMENEI, Supreme Leader of Iran; and MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, President of Iran

Iran’s influence has ebbed over the course of the year, as its economy has crumbled and as Barack Obama’s election has already begun to undermine its international standing. That decrease in influence should probably be seen as encouraging, but it could also end up making the situation all the more volatile if Iran begins to feel backed into a corner – and if Israel begins to perceive a greater threat.

7. LUIS MORENO-OCAMPO, prosecutor of the International Criminal Court

It’s been a busy year for the ICC, throwing its weight around in Sudan, Uganda, and the former Yugoslavia. As the ICC becomes more active, its record will either strengthen or undermine the case for using international institutions to address the world’s problems. So far, it’s looking pretty good.

8. ROBERT MUGABE, President of Zimbabwe

Dictatorships are generally bad. They’re especially bad when the dictator implements a lot of really bad policy that cripples the economy. And they’re even worse when there’s a glimmer of hope that the dictator is losing power in a slowly democratizing country, only to have the dictator hold onto power through violent repression of the opposition.

9. VLADIMIR PUTIN, Prime Minister of Russia

Russia isn’t as important as many think, but its very lack of importance is making it a thorn in the world’s side. All things considered, Putin’s attempts to assert himself on the world stage should be among the easier crises the United States faces internationally – but only if we don’t adopt a provocative, conflict-oriented approach to things.

10. REVOLUTIONARY ARMED FORCES OF COLOMBIA – PEOPLE’S ARMY (FARC)

The tensions in South America don’t generally hold the same kind of threat-of-global-chaos that exists in the Middle East or South Asia. But this year FARC’s hostage-taking shenanigans heightened tensions among Colombia, Venezuela, and Ecuador, making clear that this is another hotspot the world needs to keep its eye on.

Honorable Mentions: Omar al-Bashir, Mikheil Saakashvili, the Guantanamo prisoners, Stephen Harper, Joseph Kony

Many Europeans accept nudity as natural. Many Europeans also say that nudity and sex on television is totally okay. Sex is human. Bodies are ordinary—even naked ones. They do not understand Americans preoccupation of censoring all nudity on TV, while Americans allowing so much violence on television. (Child movie censors in Europe censor for violence, not nudity, while in the US, it is often the reverse. The movie “Chronicles of Narnia” in Germany is rated equivalent to the US’s PG13). The European illustration about TV censorship makes sense to me. Why DO we care so much about nudity? Why DO I feel bashful about being in the buff around others? Why wouldn’t I trust my friends and family to see me naked?

I think my shame of being nude stems from our culture. But why is it shameful to be nude in our culture? Why is it in some cases illegal to be nude in our culture? I’m tired of being prude. And I just decided that I will walk from the shower to my room in the morning without clothes or a towel on regardless of what the members of my household think.