 |
|
|
|||||
For totally logical reasons, this year’s Winter Olympics in Italy is bucking the trend of a single host city and splitting its sporting events between two main locations, Milan and Cortina. Milan, the second most populous city in Italy, is the urban setting for indoor events like ice hockey and ice skating. Cortina, a ski resort town 250 miles away, provides most of the snowand hill-based venues for quintessential Winter Olympic sports like alpine skiing and the bobsled. But the two separate locations posed a problem for one of the key parts of the Olympics: the opening ceremony. How could there be one grand show when the sporting action was split in half and separated by hundreds of miles? The solution was to put on the show simultaneously in both places. When the opening ceremony is televised around the world on February 6, its pomp, performances, and athlete parades will be broadcast from both Milan and Cortina, with segments from each location woven together into one show. Creative director and executive producer Marco Balich, a veteran of 16 Olympic ceremonies, says the decision to include both locations became a kind of guiding concept for the ceremony itself. Marco Balich (left) with Claudio Coviello and Antonella Albano (right) – Principal Dancers of Teatro la Scala [Photo: International Olympic Committee] Cortina, he says, is “pure mountains,” while Milan is the opposite, “a total industrial, design- and fashion-driven city.” “The narrative that we figured was going to be interesting was the relationship between a location in a city and a mountain, creating a metaphor between man and nature,” he says. [Image: International Olympic Committee] The dichotomy led to the theme of the show, Armonia, or Harmony. “The message that we humbly propose to the world would be to take the metaphor of man and nature and underline that we need to create dialogue between those two elements,” Balich says. Balich and his firm Balich Wonder Studio used this concept to guide the design of everything from the rainbow of costumes dancers will wear to the spiraling stage for the Milan segment of the ceremony. Caterina Botticelli, Costumes Manager [Photo: International Olympic Committee] Balich, who is Italian, also worked on the last Olympics held in Italy, the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin, and he says that opening ceremony played heavily on Italian history. This year’s version is much more driven by the impact of Italy on the world, and will include references to Italian inventors, Italian design, and Italian fashion. A special segment of the show will honor the late fashion designer Giorgio Armani. Elements of the ceremony will also feature the mountain areas Valtellina and Val di Fiemme, where other outdoor events will take place. All athletes competing in this year’s Olympics will be able to participate in the ceremony. [Photo: International Olympic Committee] Despite the technical challenges of filming the 2026 Winter Olympics opening ceremony in multiple locations, Balich says the overall production is intended to be very analog and very human. “The images that I remember of the Olympics are always human driven, whether it was Muhammad Ali lighting the cauldron in Atlanta or the drumming in Beijing 2008,” he says.
Category:
E-Commerce
Forget Donald Trump. A new analysis suggests the U.S. publics sharp lurch into polarization began in 2008, years before his first presidential campaign. Researchers at the University of Cambridges Political Psychology Lab tracked shifts in Americans views across nearly four decades and found that divisions were broadly stable through the 1990s and early 2000s, before rising steadily from 2008 onward. Using more than 35,000 responses from the American National Election Studies between 1988 and 2024, they estimate that issue polarization has increased 64% since the late 1980s, with almost all of that change occurring after 2008. The research uses a machine-learning approach to move beyond party labels and better understand what actually drives Americans political views. Instead of relying on whether respondents identify as Republican or Democrat, the team grouped people based on patterns in what they believe across a range of issues, from abortion and traditional family values to race, inequality, and health insurance. That distinction matters because in many countries politically opposite parties do not exist, says David Young, a psychology researcher at the University of Cambridge, U.K., and one of the studys authors. You might even want to study countries where there are no parties, like Saudi Arabia, he says. The paper challenges the idea that polarization is solely a Trump-era phenomenon. It points to 2008 as the major turning point, a year that also included the financial crisis, Barack Obamas election, and the widespread adoption of the iPhone-era internet. Our ability to nail down when it starts is slightly divided by the fact that we only have data points every four years, Young says. Still, we know that this increase starts from our 2008 data point, he adds. Thats our best guess at the starting point. The researchers argue that the widening gap is driven less by the right drifting further right and more by the left moving rapidly in a progressive direction. Based on the issues surveyed, the left cluster became 31.5% more socially liberal by 2024 compared with 1988, while the right cluster shifted only 2.8% more conservative. Its not necessarily that left-wingers and right-wingers have become more extreme, Young says. Its more that theyve become more kind of consolidated.
Category:
E-Commerce
Its tax season. Americans will pay an average of $10,489 in personal taxesabout 14% of the average households total income. Most will do so because they think it is their civic duty. Many believe they are morally obliged to obey the law and pay their share. But as tax day approaches, many Americans will bemoan their tax bill and complain that it is unfair. So, how are we to know if paying taxes is the right thing to do? Perhaps philosophy has some clues? Reasons to obey the law Many philosophers agree that we should obey the law. In The Crito, for example, Plato describes Socratess choice after the Athenian jury sentenced him to death for impiety. Crito, a wealthy friend of Socrates, arranges for him to escape from the prison a night before his execution. Socrates refuses saying he ought to obey the law. In explaining his decision, Socrates hinted at roughly three reasons why it would be wrong for him to break the law: First, he had chosen to stay in the city for many years despite being at liberty to leave if he did not like the laws. Second, he might hurt other peopleby damaging the state if he disobeyed. Finally, he had benefited from the laws in the past. More recent scholars endorse many of these claims. Eighteenth-century philosophers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that citizens agreed to the law of the state by continuing to live in the place. Locke, for example, held that if a man owns or enjoys some part of the land under a given government, while that enjoyment lasts he gives his tacit consent to the laws of that government and is obliged to obey them. Twentieth-century British philosopher R.M. Hare suggests that citizens should obey the law to promote good social outcomes. Another British philosopher of the same era, H.L.A. Hart argued that citizens should comply out of fairness to others who obey. He held that it is unfair, and therefore wrong to benefit from their actions, without doing the same for them in turn. Is there a moral duty to pay taxes? Yet it is hard to see why these arguments would give the average citizen a moral responsibility to pay their taxes. Most of us never consented to the law. We were simply born here. Leaving would be costly, and even the chance to emigrate is dependent on another countrys willingness to accept us. Given the amount of government waste and its total budget, individual citizens could think that their tax bill is unlikely to make a difference to the services the government can provide. Even if they agree with how the government spends money, they might therefore conclude they have no reason to contribute. After all, one persons $10,000 is not going to determine whether the military can secure national borders. The most commonly defended argument from scholars for why one should pay taxes is a duty of fair play. Fair play is the notion of reciprocity, the idea that you should not take advantage of others. As philosophers like George Klosko argue, people benefit from their fellow citizens paying their taxes. They enjoy the roads that everyone helps pay for, the fire departments they fund. They ought to pay back fellow citizens who benefited them, just like you ought to do something for a friend who gives you a ride to the airport. The case against paying taxes As a philosopher who studies civic ethics, I have argued in a recent paper that this kind of responsibility still does not explain why one should pay taxes. The idea that we have to pay your taxes because other people have benefited by paying theirs rests, from my perspective, on a wrongly narrow view of what it means to satisfy ones duties of reciprocity. All that reciprocity requires is that one should compensate people for the work they have done that benefits us. Just like we can repay a friend who gives us a ride to the airport by doing something else that benefits themsay, making them dinner or helping them moveso, too, can we repay our fellow citizens by doing something other than paying our taxes. Lots of actions benefit your fellow citizens that you might pay for: taking a pay cut to do legally discretionary work to help the environment, volunteering to do policy research, choosing a career in public service over a more financially rewarding line of work, and more. If you do enough such acts, it could be argued, you would have no duty of reciprocity to pay your taxes. You would already have done enough to compensate your fellow citizens. Why pay taxes Given this, the best argument for paying our taxes, as I argue in my paper, is intellectual humility. And here is what it means. Satisfying these duties of reciprocity requires successfully compensating our fellow citizens for all the burdens they took on our behalf. As one can imagine, it is a hard calculation to make. It is difficult to know if we have done enough. If we choose not to pay taxes because we think we have already repaid our fellow citizens in other ways, we run a strong risk of getting it wrong. Paying the tax bill is one way of avoiding that risk nd making sure we treat our fellow citizens fairly. Brookes Brown is an assistant professor of philosophy and the director of the Law, Liberty, and Justice Program at Clemson University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||