"Any harm we inflict on nature will eventually return to haunt us."

Want to take a guess at whose quotation this is?   "Any harm we inflict on nature will eventually return to haunt us."    No, it's not Barack Obama or Al Gore.  And it certainly is not President Trump, who is too busy dismantling what those two have been able to do to slow down our contribution to climate change.

No, the quote above is the president of the country that is stepping into the gap left by Trump's policy.   It's from a speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping to the opening of the Communist Party congress in Beijing on Wednesday.

He told the group that China has taken a "driving seat in international cooperation to respond to climate change."   And he continued:

"No country alone can address the many challenges facing mankind.  No country can afford to retreat into self-isolation.  Only by observing the laws of nature can mankind avoid costly blunders in its exploitation.  Any harm we inflict on nature will eventually come back to haunt us.  This is a reality we have to face."

President Xi is emerging as the world leader on climate change.  China has already outstripped the U.S. in manufacture and use of solar panels.  In contrast, President Trump has threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement; and his EPA Director has overturned almost all of his predecessor's regulations.

Here's a typical Trump tweet from 2012:  "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

China has worse problems than we do, with brutal levels of air pollution and industrial carbon emissions.   But at least they are taking a vigorous approach to make rapid progress in the right direction.   They have pledged to cap carbon emissions by 2030 and invest $380 billion in renewable power generation by 2020.  They have a plan to phase out vehicles that run on fossil fuels as soon as 2030.

Only a short time ago, Trump was still referring to climate change as a "hoax."  And he opposes the "Clean Power" plan and endorses the actions of his EPA director.

"America First" is turning into "America Alone."  Trump is leading us in a retreat from world leadership.   Sad.  Bad.

Ralph

Sen. McCain awarded 2017 Liberty Medal

The National Constitution Center has awarded the 2017 Liberty Medal to Senator John McCain for his "lifetime of sacrifice and service."  Following appreciative remarks to the Center and to former Vice President Joe Biden, who spoke admiringly of their long friendship and their work together in the senate, McCain then addressed the group.   Here are some excerpts:

*     *     *     *     *

"Thank you, Joe, my old, dear friend. . . .  We served in the Senate together for over 20 years, during some eventful times . . .  "We didn’t always agree on the issues. We often argued – sometimes passionately. But we believed in each other’s patriotism and the sincerity of each other’s convictions. We believed in the institution we were privileged to serve in. We believed in our mutual responsibility to help make the place work and to cooperate in finding solutions to our country’s problems. We believed in our country and in our country’s indispensability to international peace and stability and to the progress of humanity. . . . 

". . .  What a privilege it is to serve this big, boisterous, brawling, intemperate, striving, daring, beautiful, bountiful, brave, magnificent country. With all our flaws, all our mistakes, with all the frailties of human nature as much on display as our virtues, with all the rancor and anger of our politics, we are blessed.

"We are living in the land of the free, the land where anything is possible, the land of the immigrant’s dream, the land with the storied past forgotten in the rush to the imagined future, the land that repairs and reinvents itself, the land where a person can escape the consequences of a self-centered youth and know the satisfaction of sacrificing for an ideal, the land where you can go from aimless rebellion to a noble cause, and from the bottom of your class to your party’s nomination for president.

"We are blessed, and we have been a blessing to humanity in turn. The international order we helped build from the ashes of world war, and that we defend to this day, has liberated more people from tyranny and poverty than ever before in history. This wondrous land has shared its treasures and ideals and shed the blood of its finest patriots to help make another, better world. And as we did so, we made our own civilization more just, freer, more accomplished and prosperous than the America that existed when I watched my father go off to war on December 7, 1941.

"To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain “the last best hope of earth” for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history.

"We live in a land made of ideals, not blood and soil. We are the custodians of those ideals at home, and their champion abroad. We have done great good in the world. That leadership has had its costs, but we have become incomparably powerful and wealthy as we did. We have a moral obligation to continue in our just cause, and we would bring more than shame on ourselves if we don’t. We will not thrive in a world where our leadership and ideals are absent. We wouldn’t deserve to.

"I am the luckiest guy on earth. I have served America’s cause . . . .  I see now that I was part of something important that drew me along in its wake even when I was diverted by other interests. I was, knowingly or not, along for the ride as America made the future better than the past.

"And I have enjoyed it, every single day of it, the good ones and the not so good ones. I’ve been inspired by the service of better patriots than me. I’ve seen Americans make sacrifices for our country and her causes and for people who were strangers to them but for our common humanity, sacrifices that were much harder than the service asked of me. And I’ve seen the good they have done, the lives they freed from tyranny and injustice, the hope they encouraged, the dreams they made achievable.

"May God bless them. May God bless America, and give us the strength and wisdom, the generosity and compassion, to do our duty for this wondrous land, and for the world that counts on us. With all its suffering and dangers, the world still looks to the example and leadership of America to become, another, better place. What greater cause could anyone ever serve. . . . "

*     *     *     *     *

I"ve not always agreed with Senator McCain.  In fact, I have been highly critical of him at times.   But John McCain is a man of honor -- note his sacrifice for his country during five years as a Viet Cong prisoner of war, and his refusal to accept their offer of early release unless his fellow prisoners were also released.  He stayed in a brutal prison and endured torture rather than take advantage of his rank and having an uncle who was an admiral in the U.S. Navy.

Now he is continuing his work in the Senate, casting the decisive vote to defeat his own party's Obamacare repeal effort, while undergoing chemotherapy for a very aggressive brain tumor.   Which makes it all the more disgusting that the reaction of the President of the United States to McCain's speech was to try to pick a fight.

Does it surprise anyone that the current squatter who occupies the Oval Office reacted to these noble words as a personal attack on him and tried to pick a fight with Sen. McCain, saying in response to a reporter's question:  "Yeah, well I heard it.  And people have to be careful because at some point I fight back.   I'm being very nice.  I'm being very. very nice.   But at some point I fight back, and it won't be pretty."

Asked for his response, Sen. McCain simply said:  "I've had tougher adversaries." 

Let's leave it at that.  Measure the two men by their behavior under stress.  We've seen Sen. McCain at his best, and we've seen President Trump at his way-under-par self (although he can be, and has been, far far worse).

Ralph

Small bites

1.  Travel ban #3:   President Trump recently issued a third version of his travel ban, the strategy presumably being to try to stay a step ahead of the courts so that you always have a new one when they block the last one.  But now #3 has been blocked by a federal judge in Hawaii.

2.  Opioid crisis:  We are in the midst of the worst opioid death epidemic in our nation's history.  In 2016, there were 64,000 deaths from overdoses, an increase from 40,000 five years ago.   President Trump was asked by a reporter whether he would declare a national emergency.   He said yes.  But he also said the same thing in August -- and did nothing in the ensuing two months.  Meanwhile both the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Office of Drug Control Policy are currently without directors.

3.  Trump lies:   This, of course, is not news;  but it has repeatedly been debunked by fact-checkers.   Yet the president just keeps repeating the lie that "We are "the highest taxed nation anywhere in the world."
    What's news is that he was challenged by a Scripps reporter, on camera, who asked the president why he keeps repeating that "when it's been repeatedly seen as objectively false?"  Without missing a beat, Trump replied, "Well, some people say it differently;  they say we're the highest among developed countries.   You can say it that way, but I prefer to say the highest, and I really think it's true."  He blathered on a bit, then turned to another reportere for a question, so the Scripps reporter could not follow up.
   But MSNBC's Chris Hayes had the facts on his show a few hours later.   Showing a bar graph of 33 developed countries and their tax rates, the U.S. was fourth from the bottom, with Denmark at the top as the highest taxed nation.  At 26% the U.S. is even 8% lower than the median of 34%.
   Many acknowledge Trump's political skill at reading the mood of a crowd and responding with what they want to hear.   I think we've under-acknowledged his skill at lying -- so adroitly, so smoothly -- so that the uninformed believe him, and the informed tear their hair in frustration and anger.

4. Climate change:   A rise in sea levels of 6 feet by 2021 would make nearly 2 million homes uninhabitable in the US, adding up to a lost value of almost a trillion dollars, according to a report from ZillowZG.   They also estimated the price level of affected homes.  Unlike our stereotype assumption, only 39% are in the category of luxury beachfront second homes.    About one-quarter would be in the lowest-priced category, owned by people with few resources to take preventive measures or to rebuild.

5.  Trump's many positions on fixing Obamacare.   Pass the vertigo pills.  The multiple, rapid position-reversals that President Trump did on the subsidy payments were just mind-reeling.  Monday, he announced that he was ending the payments, an undisguised act of further sabotage to make the markets fail.  The next day, Senators Alexander and Murphy announced their compromise plan that, if passed by congress, would continue payments with some other changes that satisfied both Republicans and Democrats.    Trump was asked about it in a press event, and he praised their work and the bipartisanship and said he looked forward to moving forward on it.   He all but claimed personal credit for fixing something he himself had caused just days before.
   A few hours later, back at the White House -- and getting conservative pushback -- he switched again, putting out a statement that he definitely was not endorsing the bill but still praising bipartisanship.   But his press secretary didn't get the word until after she had told reporters what an important first step this was and encouraging Congress to continue.  Then later Trump tweeted out messages that went even further against it, ranting about what a disaster Obamacare is and deriding the subsidies as "enriching pharmaceutical insurance companies."
   Trump has no principles, doesn't understand health policy, and doesn't really care.   For him it's all about winning.   He's for what looks in the moment like a win.  No matter what it does, winning is catnip for him.

6.  Confusing the message:   President Trump has been touting tax reform as "benefiting the middle class and denying that the rich will get a "net tax cut."  But a Wednesday interview with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin contradicted this claim.  Mnuchin said:  “The top 20 percent of the people pay 95 percent of the taxes. The top 10 percent of the people pay 81 percent of the taxes.  So when you’re cutting taxes across the board, it’s very hard not to give tax cuts to the wealthy with tax cuts to the middle class. The math, given how much you are collecting, is just hard to do.”
   I'm sure we could find a math whiz up to the task, if that were really the problem.  Paul Krugman put it this way:  "It's not difficult to see how the plan is tilted toward the very top.  The main elements of the plan are a cut to the top individual tax rates;   a cut in corporate taxes;  an end to the estate tax;  and the creation of a new loophole that will allow wealthy individuals to pretend that they are small businesses, and get a preferential tax rate.  All of these overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, mainly the top 1%."

Ralph

Does Trump know what it means to "vet" a nominee?

Does Donald Trump know what it means to vet someone he's nominating to run an important part of government, or to be a federal judge?

Vetting someone for government office means scrutinizing their record for everything imaginable:  job history, financial irregularities, conflicts of interest, overseas travel, qualifications for the job, political affiliations, personal relationships, behavior that might cause a scandal or simply reflect badly on the administration.

From the nominations Trump has made it appears that either:  (1) he has no concept of even considering someone's qualifications or appropriateness for the job;  or (2) he perversely appoints foxes to guard henhouses.

In support of #1 is the high percentage of his nominees who have had to withdraw as there is more scrutiny of their finances or prior activities that raise public objections.  Not because they are deemed to be unqualified or have conflicts of interests with the mission of the position.   Those don't seem to matter to Trump.

This latest withdrawal will be the 12th Trump actual nominee to do so.  That doesn't include names that were floated and dropped before an announced nomination.  Twelve is not an unusually high number -- except when you consider that Trump has made relatively few nominations so far (about one-third of ones important enough to require confirmation by the Senate).

I'm leaning toward #2, because he has in fact made a few good appointments -- and thanks be for those few, like Gen. Kelly, Gen. Maddis, and Gen. McMaster.  And at least Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch has a good legal mind, even if his conservative mind-set is much further to the right than we want.

And Tillerson at least seems to want to be a good Secretary of State but is operating with a scandalously reduced staff.   For example, we still don't have an ambassador in South Korea, as important as that post is right now.   And they seemed to have just eliminated the whole level of Deputy Secretaries, usually the crucial diplomats with vital knowledge of and relationships with counterparts in the region or country that they oversee.

And then there are all the others.  For example, picking Scott Pruit to run the EPA, when his main claim to fame was that, as Oklahoma's Attorney General and as a climate change denier, he had sued the EPA fourteen times challenging its regulations.   Or Tom Price to run Health and Human Services, when his notoriety came from his working to defeat the Affordable Care Act and his scandal-level, inside-trading in med company stocks.   We got rid of him, not because of his conflicts of interest but because he loved chartered jet travel too much.

And then there were the two really really bad choices, Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort, neither of whom must have had any vetting at all.  They both had so many red flags if you wanted to see them.   They came in from the campaign -- and brought Russia and money woes with them.

The behavior in office of all these men (as well as others like DeVos, Zinka, Mnuchin, Ross, and Perry) could well have been predicted by vetting, and even by what was publicly known about some of them.

Which brings us to Trump's latest nominee, Rep. Tom Marino (R-PA) to be Trump's "drug czar," meaning Director of the Office of Drug Control Policy.  He was awaiting Senate confirmation when the Washington Post and "60 Minutes" both ran investigative stories about his past that should have disqualified him for any such post.   Marino had led a successful effort to pass legislation in the House that made it harder for law enforcement to prosecute opioid manufacturers.   As described by the Post:

"A handful of members of Congress, allied with the nation's major drug distributors, prevailed upon the DEA and the Justice Department to agree to a more industry-friendly law, undermining efforts to stanch the flow of pain pills."

Trump was asked to respond to that, in reference to Marino's nomination;  and, as he's done so many times, he pretended not to know about this and said he would look into it.   Two days later Marino withdrew his name from consideration.

But it's not that the Trump people didn't know.   Marino's name had been floated -- by them -- back in the spring as a possible nominee to head the whole Drug Enforcement Administration.   Marino's legislative tilt toward drug makers was known at the time, and after public airing he withdrew from that nomination, citing an illness in his family.   When his name came up again for this new position, a former person holding the office said, "I was shocked . . . it's all part of public record."

Trump really wanted to give Marino a good job.   "He was an early supporter of mine. . . He's a great guy."   But we'll look into the report, he said.   You see, it's never until there is public scrutiny that can't be denied that Trump seems to care about such things.   Whenever he can get away with putting foxes in henhouses, he will do so -- except when it comes to national security, it seems.   We can be grateful that he has respect for "my generals," at least.

Trump's priorities seem to go in something like this order:  (1)  loyalty, rewarding supporters;  (2)  political payoffs and campaign promises;  (3)  getting rid of anything that Obama did;  (4) conservative policy advancement;  (5)  what's good for the American people;  (6)  qualification for the job -- or not;  doesn't much matter.

Ralph

Political scientists discuss the future of democracy

Vox.com's Sean Illing reported on a very important conference held at Yale last week, where a group of top political scientists discussed the state of democracy in America.   According to Illing, ". . . nearly everyone agreed [that] American democracy is eroding on multiple fronts -- socially, culturally, and economically."

And yet, no one thought that we are near the end or that it's too late to solve the problems.   At least, so far, our governing systems of checks and balances are holding.    Still, there was a sense that "alarm bells are ringing."

One professor of politics (at both Harvard and Princeton) said "Democracies die because of deliberate decisions made by human beings. . . . [People in power] become disconnected from the citizenry. . . .  They push policies that benefit themselves and harm the broader population.   Do that long enough . . . and you'll cultivate an angry, divided society that pulls apart at the seams."'

But -- I want to ask the good professor -- isn't that exactly where we are?

Adam Przeworski, a democratic theorist at New York University, said that "democracies thrive so long as people believe they can improve their lot in life."  This basic belief has been 'an essential ingredient of Western civilization during the past 200 years.'"

But Illing also points out that "fewer and fewer Americans believe this is true" -- i.e. that they can improve their lives.   This is due to wage stagnation, growing inequalities, automation, and a shrinking labor market.   "Americans are deeply pessimistic about the future."   In 1970, 90% of 30 year olds in American were better off than their parents at the same age.  In 2012, only 50% were.   "Numbers like this cause people to lose faith in the system.  What you get is a spike in extremism and a retreat from the political center.   This leads to declines in voter turnout and, consequently, more opportunities for fringe parties and candidates."

Beyond polarization, Przeworski suggested that "something more profound is going on."   He believes that American democracy isn't collapsing so much as deteriorating.  "Our divisions are not merely political but have deep roots in society.  The system has become too rigged and too unfair, and most people have no real faith in it."

This includes basic components of democracy like commitment to rule of law, a free press, the separation of powers, and to the basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property.   Daniel Ziblatt of Harvard calls these "the soft guardrails of democracy."   Research has shown that Americans "are not as committed to these norms as you might expect."

It goes all the way to the top.  Our current president has little knowledge of what our Constitution mandates and what rights it guarantees.   He bangs the drums for building up our military power, but is unconcerned that our collective security agencies have determined that Russia really did hack into our electoral system -- and we fully expect them to do it again in our next election.   Instead of caring about that, Trump set up a phony commission to investigate the virtually non-existing "voter fraud," led by the nation's zealot-in-chief Kris Kobach, who has made a career as Kansas's Attorney General, trying to suppress minority voting and opposing immigration.

Many of us think that Trump and some of his administration would really like to just ignore -- or better yet, do away with -- all this messy democracy stuff.  Just let our wannabe-king decide everything and order it to be done, his way.

But, back to facts.  In a survey cited at the conference, 18% of Americans agreed that a military-led government would be a "fairly good" idea.

Harvard's Daniel Ziblatt identified two "master norms" of a democracy:  (1) mutual toleration, meaning we accept the basic legitimacy of our opponents:  and (2) institutional forbearance, meaning politicians responsibly wield the power of the institutions they're elected to control.   He says we are "failing miserably" on #1, and we're hardly better on #2.  Ziblatt continues:

"Most obviously, there's Donald Trump, who has dispensed with one democratic norm after another.   He's fired an FBI director in order to undercut an investigation into his campaign's possible collusion with Moscow;  and he has . . .  regularly attacked the free press and refused to divest himself of his business interests.

"The Republican Party, with few exceptions, has tolerated these violations in the hope that they might advance their agenda.   But it's about a lot more than Republicans capitulating to Trump."   He mentions the unprecedented blocking of Obama's nomination of a Supreme Court nominee and endangering the nation's credit rating by shutting down the government to try to defeat Obamacare.   He sums up:  "American democracy is increasingly less anchored by norms and traditions -- and history suggests that's a sign of democratic decay."

Duke University professor of economics and politics, Timur Kuran, argues a somewhat different point.   He says:  "the real danger isn't that we no longer trust the government but that we no longer trust each other."

He says we are divided into separate "intolerant communities," where each defines itself by opposition to the other.   "They live in different worlds, desire different things, and share almost nothing in common.  One group, which he calls "identitarian" activists "concerned with issues like racial/gender equality;  the other group he calls the "nativist" coalition made up of people suspicious of immigration and cultural change.

Kuran continues:  "The practical consequence of this is a politics marred by tribalism.  Worse, because the fault lines run so deep, every political contest becomes an intractable existential drama, with each side convinced the other is not just wrong but a mortal enemy."

Again, some statistics:  In 1960, 5% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats objected to the idea of their children marrying across political lines.   In 2010, it's 46% of Republicans and 33% of Democrats.    Pew Research studies show something similar in their finding that in 2014, 36% of Republicans and Republican leaners say that Democratic policies "threaten the nation."  And 27% of Democrats say the same thing about Republicans.  Pew says that those numbers have doubled since 1994.  And "it's not merely that we disagree about issues;  it's that we believe the other side is a grievous threat to the republic."

Illing ends his report on this conference of political scientists on a pessimistic note:   "Something has cracked.  Citizens have lost faith in the system.   The social compact is broken.  So now we're left to stew in our racial and cultural resentments, which paved the way for a demagogue like Trump.

"Bottom line:  I was already pretty cynical about the trajectory of American democracy when I arrived at the conference, and I left feeling justified in that cynicism.   Our problems are deep and broad and stretch back decades, and the people who study democracy closest can only tell us what's wrong.  They can't tell us what ought to be done."

*     *     *

Well, yes, that is a real downer.   But it mirrors what I feel these days.

I do know one thing:   Donald Trump may not have created this, but he definitely makes it worse -- because he revels in the adoration of even this small base of angry, unthinking, right-wing people who want someone to stoke their anger and to promise them easy solutions.   Trump is just the demagogue for that job.  But I don't know what's going to happen when that small band of "lock her up" shouters realize that he can't (and never intended to) come though for them.

My best hope is that Robert Mueller's investigation will reveal some things so bad (money laundering, criminal financial dealings with oligharchs with mob connections, as well as obvious obstruction of justice), that Republicans in congress cannot not impeach him.    But . . . what then?

Ralph

No, Harvey. No excuses for sexual assault

Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein has been credibly accused by multiple actresses and models of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and even rape when they were young aspirants and he was the big man with power over careers.

This has been going on for decades and was apparently a pretty open secret that nobody really talked about -- because he was so powerful and could make or break careers.  He also apparently used legal threats and pressure to silence victims.    But there are several instances where comedians or presenters at the Oscars would make jokes about it.   So there's also the problem of why was it tolerated?

Harvey has now been fired by the company that bears his name and that he co-founded with his brother.   Several of the board members resigned when the news came out;  the four remaining board members, including his brother, voted to terminate his association with the company.

And Harvey's reaction?   It took less than a few hours for him to start saying he "needed help" and talking about therapy to help him overcome this problem.   No, Harvey, you don't get off that easy.    You can't -- after decades of treating women this way and pretending that it's normal for powerful men to have their way with women -- then suddenly seek sympathy by calling it a "problem" and you look forward to getting help and "being given a second chance."  Why hadn't you sought therapy during the last thirty years?

No, for three decades you play the predator-as-normative in this environment, rely on your  power to squelch or buy off accusers -- and then, when finally exposed . . .  it's you who is the pitiful victim of "a problem" who merits a "second chance?"    I don't think so.

We need more sincere evidence of contrition;  convince us that you really see what you did and got away with -- and reveled in getting away with.   And then you serve some long penance to prove your sincere remorse.  Then the industry may give you a second chance, because you are a very talented man who has produced some really good movies.  And you've also done a lot of good with your money going to progressive causes.

But none of that gives you the right to use vulnerable young women for your selfish, invasive demands.   Exactly how much have you done to try to make up for the damage you did -- other than to buy and intimidate them into silence -- before you were exposed by some very brave women and some courageous, persistent journalists?   True contrition, penance, and second chances require more than suddenly becoming an advocate of therapy for your "problem" -- after money and high-paid lawyers can no longer buy your way out of scandal and possible criminal charges.

You can't manipulate your way back by playing the "therapy card."   I speak as a retired member of the therapeutic community.   You have the right to a good therapist who will try to help you look at what you have done and why, in the overall context of your life -- and work to resolve that.  It requires work -- on your part;  it will take years, and real success depends largely on how genuinely you delve into yourself.   It isn't something you can just purchase and wave like a flag.

Ralph

A bit of light in our world of darkness

In 2014 Malala Yousafzai became the youngest person ever to be awarded the Nobel Peach Prize.   She was 17.

Her father ran a school for girls in an area of Pakistan that was largely under the control of the conservative Taliban.  When she was only 11, Malala began her activism with a speech she gave to the press club titled "How Dare the Taliban Take Away My Basic Right to Education."

In 2009, at age 12, she began writing a blog for the BBC about life under the Taliban, which issued an edict forbidding the education of girls.  They subsequently destroyed over 100 schools for girls.   Malala was becoming more widely known as a high-profile advocate for girls education.  In 2011 she was awarded the National Youth Peace Prize.

All of this put her on the Taliban's hit list.   On October 8, 2012 when she was 15, a Taliban gunman entered the school bus she rode, asked for her by name, and shot her in the head and neck.

She was severely wounded but survived, with expert medical treatment in England, where she and her family moved and currently live.   The Taliban's attempt to silence her, and her heroic courage to continue advocating for the education of girls in Pakistan, made headlines around the world.   She was invited to speak at the United Nations and was runner-up for Time's Person of the Year -- at 16.    She has met with President Barack Obama and Queen Elizabeth II.

In the face of continued threats from the Taliban, Malala was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in October 2014.

This fall Malala, the girl who was shot for speaking up against the Taliban's attempt to suppress the education of girls, began her undergraduate studies at Oxford University.   Like other students, she is embarking on a great educational adventure at perhaps the most prestigious university in the world, where she plans to concentrate on philosophy, economics, and political science.

But now, at the ripe old age of 20, she already is a Nobel Peace Laureate, along with Albert Schweitzer, Theodore Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, and Barack Obama.

Ralph