In a
speech to the European Parliament and the Council of Europe Tuesday, Pope Francis said that today, “the promotion of human rights is central to the commitment of the European Union to advance the dignity of the person.” He warned against treating human beings as objects who can “be discarded when no longer useful, due to weakness, illness or old age.”
But that dignity also requires, he said “the possibility of freely expressing one’s thought or professing one’s religious faith.” Promoting the dignity of the person, said the Pope, “means recognizing that he or she possesses inalienable rights which no one may take away arbitrarily, much less for the sake of economic interests.”
A misuse and misunderstanding of human rights happens today, said Francis, when “the rights of the individual are upheld, without regard for the fact that each human being is part of a social context wherein his or her rights and duties are bound up with those of others and with the common good of society itself.” What is required is “to develop a culture of human rights which wisely links the individual, or better, the personal aspect, to that of the common good, of the ‘all of us’ made up of individuals, families and intermediate groups who together constitute society,” added Pope Francis, quoting a passage from Pope Benedict XVI’s Caritas in Veritate.
Without that proper ordering of the rights of each individual to the greater good, “those rights will end up being considered limitless and consequently will become a source of conflicts and violence.”
“Men and women risk being reduced to mere cogs in a machine that treats them as items of consumption to be exploited,” said Francis, “with the result that – as is so tragically apparent – whenever a human life no longer proves useful for that machine, it is discarded with few qualms, as in the case of the ill, the terminally ill, the elderly who are abandoned and uncared for, and children who are killed in the womb.”
The pope also drew direct attention to Christians persecuted in Islamic countries. “Here I cannot fail to recall the many instances of injustice and persecution which daily afflict religious minorities, and Christians in particular, in various parts of our world,” he said. “Communities and individuals today find themselves subjected to barbaric acts of violence: they are evicted from their homes and native lands, sold as slaves, killed, beheaded, crucified or burned alive, under the shameful and complicit silence of so many.”
“Keeping democracy alive in Europe requires avoiding the many globalizing tendencies to dilute reality,” said the pope. Those harmful tendencies, he said, are “angelic forms of purity, dictatorships of relativism, brands of ahistorical fundamentalism, ethical systems lacking kindness, and intellectual discourse bereft of wisdom.”
He called on Europe to invest in the family, “the fundamental cell and most precious element of any society.”
“The family, united, fruitful and indissoluble, possesses the elements fundamental for fostering hope in the future,” said Pope Francis. “Without this solid basis, the future ends up being built on sand, with dire social consequences.”
¿Por qué los latinoamericanos apenas inventamos o innovamos?
Foto por Andrés Rodríguez
¿Por qué los latinoamericanos apenas inventamos o innovamos? El periodista Andrés Oppenheimer, colaborador de CNN y de otros cien medios de comunicación, ha retomado con ímpetu la hiriente pregunta. La ha planteado en un libro excelente de título imperioso y subtítulo descriptivo: ¡Crear o morir! La esperanza de Latinoamérica y las cinco claves de la innovación.
Me parece un tema extraordinariamente importante que afecta a todo el ámbito hispano, no sólo a América Latina. A principios del siglo XX los filósofos españoles José Ortega y Gasset y Miguel de Unamuno lo debatieron apasionadamente en diversos textos y desde distintos ángulos.
España se atrasaba ostensiblemente con relación al resto de Europa. Ortega sostenía que la decadencia del país se superaba europeizándose. “España es el problema, Europa la solución”, decía. Unamuno alegaba que el genio español era artístico, fundamentalmente literario, y remataba el argumento con un grito desafiante: “¡Que inventen ellos!”.
Si Unamuno hubiera sabido economía en lugar de filología clásica le habría agregado una coda a su boutade: que inventen ellos… y que se enriquezcan ellos. Algunos expertos suponen que el 40% del crecimiento económico de las sociedades se deriva de las innovaciones e invenciones convertidas en bienes o servicios volcados en el mercado.
Los datos son alarmantes. Corea del Sur registra anualmente diez veces más invenciones que toda América Latina. Israel, con menos de ocho millones de habitantes, patenta más hallazgos científicos o artefactos novedosos que 600 millones de latinoamericanos.
No hay ninguna universidad latinoamericana ni española entre las primeras cien del planeta, y apenas comparece un puñado entre las primeras 500. Y no se trata solamente de estudios universitarios: en las pruebas internacionales PISA, consagradas a medir y contrastar los conocimientos de los adolescentes en matemáticas, ciencias y comprensión de lectura, América Latina aparece en la cola, muy cerca de algunas naciones africanas.
En el mundo hispano vivimos a remolque de los países innovadores. Nos movemos en sus aviones, nos curamos con sus medicinas, trabajamos en sus computadoras, nos entretenemos con sus películas y videojuegos, viajamos por su internet, hablamos por sus teléfonos, nos asomamos al espacio gracias al talento que ellos han desplegado y, en definitiva, somos un apéndice casi inerte de ese primer mundo curioso y creativo que va gestando día a día nuestro futuro y la forma en que vivimos nuestras vidas.
El libro de Oppenheimer rezuma admiración por los creadores, a quienes ha visitado durante la redacción de su obra. Ha hablado con ellos y los ha entrevistado para conocer sus testimonios de primera mano, pero su intención no es avergonzar a los latinoamericanos por su postración intelectual. Por el contrario, el autor ofrece soluciones a estas graves limitaciones. La obra culmina con cinco recomendaciones encaminadas a revitalizar las tendencias innovadoras. Vale la pena consignarlas. Están cargadas de sentido común.
Primero, crear una cultura de innovación en la que se distinga y venere a los creadores, como se hace con los deportistas, para estimular la aparición de estos talentosos ciudadanos. Cada emprendedor que se frustra es una fuente de riqueza y desarrollo que perdemos todos. Si estamos de acuerdo en que la clave de la prosperidad está en el empuje de personas excepcionales, hallarlas y cultivarlas debería ser una prioridad del Estado.Segundo, es posible y es necesario educar para que surjan los inventores e innovadores. Oppenheimer lo resume con un dato estadístico escalofriante: en Irlanda y Finlandia, de acuerdo con la población, hay cinco veces más graduados en ingeniería que en Argentina. El gusto por las matemáticas y por las ciencias comienza en la niñez. En esa etapa de la vida se puede abordar estas materias como si fueran juegos.
Tercero, eliminar las leyes que ahogan a los emprendedores. En América Latina la madeja burocrática asfixia a los espíritus creativos. Hay que pagar sobornos a funcionarios corruptos. Las leyes de quiebra impiden o hacen muy difícil que quienes fracasen puedan levantarse de nuevo, olvidando que la economía libre es un sistema de tanteo y error donde cada caída forma parte de un proceso de aprendizaje.
Cuarto, hay que invertir en investigación y desarrollo y en fomentar el capital de riesgo. Israel es el país del mundo que proporcionalmente dedica el mayor porcentaje del PIB a investigación y desarrollo. Pero ese dinero debe salir, en mayor proporción, de las empresas privadas. Hay que involucrar a las universidades en las tareas de las empresas. Las universidades no deben convertirse en instituciones antisistema. Eso es suicida.
Quinto, debe globalizarse la innovación y ello incluye servirse de la posibilidad de estudiar en las universidades del Primer Mundo. Corea del Sur, con apenas 50 millones de habitantes, tiene 71.000 estudiantes en USA, la mayor parte en carreras de ciencias, mientras toda América Latina posee menos de la mitad de esa cifra.
En fin: el camino es arduo y extenso, pero cuanto antes comencemos, mejor nos irá.
Ben Carson: Race Relations Were BetterBefore Obama Was Elected
"I think that things have gotten worse because of his unusual emphasis on race."
11.25.2014
Potential 2016 GOP candidate Ben Carson was a guest on Tuesday's
Hugh Hewitt Show to discuss in part Ferguson and race relations. According the African-American Carson, "things were better before this president was elected." The problem, he explained, was the president's "unusual emphasis on race."
Carson is a retired neurosurgeon who is perhaps best known for his speech at the national prayer breakfast where he openly criticized President Obama's progressive policies while Obama was right there beside him. Carson's central argument is that progressives like Obama try to make minorities play the victim game. In his interview with Hewitt, Carson continued his unflinching critique of the failures of both the president and the progressive ideology:
Hewitt: Is it going to get worse before it gets better in the United States? Because, after all, we’ve had an African-American president for six years, Ferguson is a racially-charged situation. You’re an African-American running for president on the Republican side, and I say that with the assumption that you will run, and I know you haven’t formally declared, but you’re all but in. Is it going to be another hundred years before this tableau stops unfolding every time there’s a white-black incident?
Carson: Well, you know, I actually believe that things were better before this president was elected. And I think that things have gotten worse because of his unusual emphasis on race.
Hewitt: Can you explain more? What do you mean by that? How did they get worse, and how did he contribute to it?
Carson: Well, for instance, in the incident with Henry Louis Gates, Skip Gates, and him calling out the police, and you know, how they always do this kind of thing, and the Trayvon Martin case, you know, if I had a son, this is what he would look like, rather than trying to take the balanced, objective look at things, and then, you know, what’s happened here. And then the way, which really irritates me to some degree, the way he and a bunch of progressives manipulate, particularly minority communities, to make them feel that they are victims. And of course if you think you’re a victim, you are a victim. And...
Hewitt: Was Michael Brown a victim, Dr. Carson?
Carson: Well, he became a victim based on perhaps not having a well-established ideal of how to relate to authority.
Hewitt: Let me also ask you when you say things were better before this president, some have said the President plays the so-called race card. Do you think he does?
Carson: Yes, absolutely.
Hewitt: Is he doing so right now?
Carson: He’s trying very hard not to, because I think he is aware that people are suspicious of him doing that. So you know, we keep an eye on him and hope for the best.
