Taking Readings: SNG Thoughts

Republicans, Who Are You?

2012-02-13T19:20:00.001-06:00

The linked article by Krugman today and this one yesterday by Tom Friedman point to a glaring fact: the Republican Party has drifted to the real fringe of reality and sensibility. If the electorate follows any Republican nominee, heaven help us all.

As someone who grew up Republican, I have some knowledge of the Republican party as it used to be. Back then, a tussle developed between the "conservatives" and the "moderates" ("liberals" if you're from the New York or New England), and the winner, like Richard Nixon, had a foot in both camps; ditto Jerry Ford. Even Reagan, for all his reputation, was more pragmatic than his legend reveals. But since Regan & old Bush, it's all crazy. Gone are the days of Mark Hatfield and Charles Percy (both of whom died this year). This book review addresses this lost party.

Now we have a no-nothing party. Not that free market perspectives, low taxes, and a strong military are necessarily bad, but from where the current party is coming from, it's just nuts.

Sad, really.

I Like Ike, and So Does Stephen Walt

2012-02-11T13:52:00.002-06:00

Paying attention to issues surrounding the selection of public monuments, over whom to honor and in what form, is instructive although often a bit crazy in manifestation. People can argue over the trivial, no doubt, and just getting a monument would prove more than I'll ever get! However, as I say, it is instructive, and in this case, what the heck, I'll throw my 2 cents in with Stephen Walt. Walt notes that famous architect Frank Gehry wants to portray Ike (a/k/a President Eisenhower) in monument as a barefoot Kansas farm boy! His roots, yes, but how we should think of him and his accomplishments, no way! Ike helped lead an Allied coalition against Hitler's Germany to victory, and then as president he led us through nearly a decade of peace and prosperity. Although Republicans will howl, Ike is the best Republican president since TR (take that, Reagan!). However, as Walt notes, Ike should be honored for what he told us as he was about to leave the White House. And since you might not go to the link Walt's site to read it, I'll save you the trouble. From Ike's farewell address given in 1960:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

And was this his view only as he ended his presidency? Note what Walt quotes him from 1953:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

Those words themselves are worth a monument.

Thomas Homer-Dixon Update

2012-02-11T13:38:00.000-06:00

Homer-Dixon sent out a recent email on updated activities, and a visit to his site led me to read above-linked article on complexity. Complexity is one of the most interesting, and I think productive, theories to arise on my intellectual horizon. It applies to natural sciences and social sciences (which, of course, shade into one anther). Homer-Dixon gives a succinct description of complexity theory and of "panarchy", taken from the work of his fellow Canadian, "Buzz" Holling.

This article deals with climate change, Homer-Dixon's current number one concern. Unlike the enigmatic Seth Roberts (a UC Berkley/Quinghua) professor who takes appropriate skepticism to an extreme of denial, Homer-Dixon looks beyond theoretical skepticism to realities, such as the Arctic, and says we'd better sit up and pay attention. I really admire his work. Deep theoretical understanding combined with first-hand observations and engagement make his work the most compelling and important that I've read on the issue (burning, literally) of climate change.

Shoes

2012-01-31T20:46:00.000-06:00

Yes, shoes. This review of Vivo Barefoot footwear, from running shoes to dress shoes, fits my experience based on the one pair that I own and wear almost all of the time. At this point, other than buying some Converse All-Stars to play ball in, I can't imagine buying a different brand shoe. Yes, I've enjoyed my Vibram Five-Fingers, but these shoes are more comfortable. Great stuff. I agree with this review, next to barefoot, these shoes work best for me.

The Weight Thing

2012-01-24T21:20:00.002-06:00

From Gary Taubes: a succinct summary of the path he advocates as the best hypothesis about our national obesity problem. I've posted about this many times before, but this is a really good summary in a response to an article in the NYT Magazine by a writer who tried all of the conventional methods and found that they just didn't work. She apparently decided it was her weak will and now she's stuck. (I admit that I didn't read the article, so correct me if I'm wrong.) Anyway, you can preview what Taubes has been saying for two excellent books now in this brief summary signed by a lot of knowledgeable folks. To health!

Diet & History

2012-01-23T20:23:00.000-06:00

An interesting TEDx by Stephan Guyenet on the history the American diet. Watch it and you'll know why we as a nation are getting fatter & fatter. Everything has a history, and this is a sad one.

Exercise Anyone?

2012-01-23T08:28:00.000-06:00

The linked photos from Conditioning Research say a lot! I just received some photos of my 99 year old aunt, and I have no doubt that clean living of all sorts helped. (Her brothers, who died young and not so old, did indulge in some unhealthy habits.) I don't know that she formally "exercised", but I think that she has always been quite active mentally and physically, like the nuns study folks. Anyway, if you're doubting your need or ability to go out and exercise, especially when you get older, then take a look at these photos for motivation!

Dialogue is an Ancient Form of Communication

2012-01-18T10:32:00.000-06:00

Cleaning up my computer, I came across this item that I wrote back in 2005. I haven't read it again carefully, but in glancing at it, I think that I'd still endorse its main premises. Sometimes I surprise myself!

The dialogue is an ancient form of communication, perhaps first made famous by the Socratic dialogues of Plato, varied by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Question & Answer form, and in contemporary times the dialogue is favored by psychotherapists, starting with Freud himself. So I have decided to write a dialogue between one character whom I call "The Question Master" (QM) and the Student (S). The dialogue goes like this:

QM: My dear how are you today?
S: Not very good.
QM: Why not?
S: I received a crappy assignment with a bunch of losers.
QM: Why is that bad?
S: They are a waste of time--And my co-worker was equal to them in ineptitude.
QM: So you got nothing out of this?
S: No
QM: Did you learn what you don't like?
S: Well, yes, but I already knew that!
QM: As well as you do now?
S: Well, it's certainly been reinforced.
QM: Ah, reinforcement is a pillar of learning.
S: I could have done without it.
QM: Well, what was so bad about it again?
S: The students weren't motivated to learn.
QM: Why not?
S: I'm not sure, maybe they were forced to come by their parents.
QM: Could you give them motivation?
S: I tried, but it didn't catch on?
QM: Isn't motivation contagious?
S: It can be, it's like fire, you have to have the right conditions to get it going.
QM: Well put. What conditions are those?
S: Well, mostly a person's mindset.
QM: Can you control those?
S: No, who can?
QM: Can you control your own?
S: Well, more so than someone else's.
QM: Well put. So did you motivate yourself to ignite the fire?
S: I tried.
QM: "Do or do not", I once heard someone say.
S: Well, it's not easy.
QM: What's the value of "easy"? About the value of a penny, I'd say.
S: Well, it was just to uphill, it got me down.
QM: What is it?
S: Well, the collective attitude?
QM: So you bought it?
S: Bought what, Question Master?
QM: The collective attitude?
S: Well, I guess so.
QM: Why did you buy it?
S: Well, I didn't really buy it. I caught it like a disease.
QM: Which metaphor--contagious disease or purchase--is more accurate?
S: Disease, I think.
QM: Well, let's pursue that for a moment. Is their a vaccine for the disease?
S: Not that I know of.
QM: Can your thoughts inoculate you?
S: I don't know how.
QM: Two fellows from ancient Rome, one a slave and one an emperor, thought you could inoculate yourself from others.
S: Oh, really? Who?
QM: Marcus Aurelius & Epictetus.
S: Those names are familiar, I think someone gave me books by them.
QM: Now, going with the other metaphor, do you think that you bought an attitude.
S: Certainly not on purpose!
QM: Got flim-flammed?
S: Well, in a sense.
QM: So you gave your "money", your energy, your chi, away to someone on a scam?
S: I don't follow you.
QM: Well, when someone is in a funk, depressed (or more accurately, depressing), they always show signs of a lack of energy. So the person either gave their energy away or allowed it to be stolen from them.
S: Well, that's not always true, some people can't control those circumstances.
QM: That's true, if the body malfunctions, the mind can suffer. Have you experienced this?
S: Do you mean how I feel, in the body, can effect my mind?
QM: Well, have you ever experienced this?
S: Well, yes I suppose so. Sometimes I'm grouchy when I first
wake up. So what's a person to do?
QM: You mean, how can the mind out-fox the body?
S: I suppose you could put it that way.
QM: Well, what does the mind have that the body doesn't have?
S: Well, it's hard to say, let's see, it's a bit of a chicken and the egg problem.
QM: Well put, but chickens and eggs don't co-exist in time together, as each follows the other, while minds and bodies co-exist.
S: And each influences the other!
QM: Well put, but again I ask, how can the mind get the upper hand?
S: Well, the mind can imagine the future, while the body is much more immediate.
QM: True.
S: And the mind can hold the image of the body in time, and the body can't do that.
QM: Yes, indeed.
S: So the mind can anticipate the body, know what it might do.
QM: Excellent. Tell me more.
S: Well, if we know what the body is likely to do, we can do something different, through the operation of the mind, to alter the course of the body.
QM: Can we control the body completely?
S: No, I don't think so, but if we know, for instance, that the body will grow hot in the sun, we can where a hat and a light colored shirt to reduce the heat, and thereby affect the body.
QM: How about the emotions?
S: Wow, are emotions mind or body?
QM: Or both?
S: Yes, maybe so.
QM: So what might one do with the emotions?
S: Well, since the body and mind are both involved, then, actually, you have more tools, as the body can effect the mind and the mind the body.
QM: You are a bright student.
S: What does all this have to do with me, how'd we get here?
QM: Well, you had a bad experience?
S: Oh, yea, a real bummer!
QM: And where was that experience?
S: Here at a camp.
QM: Really?
S: What do you mean "really"?
QM: Well, where was the real action?
S: Well, you know, out there.
QM: So everyone saw and experienced what you saw?
S: Well, they probably saw the same things.
QM: But did they experience the same things--not just see them.
S: Well, maybe not, some just didn't care.
QM: So where did their different experiences come from?
S: Well, you know, what they thought and what they expected.
QM: So where did you're experience occur?
S: Oh, I get it, you're saying that it's all inside my head. Bug off!
QM: Did I say that?
S: Well, not in so many words . . .
QM: How do you know what I meant?
S: Well, a good guess.
QM: Yes, just a guess. Why did you buy that guess? Was it the cheapest, most handy item on the shelf?
S: There you go again with the purchase metaphor.
QM: Why guess? Can you mind read?
S: Well, no. But I can take a guess, can't I?
QM: "Take a guess" Now it seems that you're getting into theft.
S: You get carried away with these metaphors.
QM: Me or you?
S: Well, are you or are you not suggesting that this is "all in my head"
QM: Yes--and no.
S: Brilliant!
QM: Yes, things happened, some things that might have been unpleasant, irksome, even painful.
S: You can say that again!
QM: If everyone shared the same space, the same sounds, the same sights, the same senses, how come they felt differently than you?
S: I know, because of how I interpreted it, what I "bought".
QM: Did you buy anything of value?
S: Well, I know what I don't like and what I don't want to do!
QM: What a valuable lesson!
S: I know what behavior can bring someone down--if that person is inoculated, or isn't suckered into buying into it.
QM: And how did you get here?
S: I was put there, against my will and better judgment, I might note!
QM: What can you do about it?
S: Not much, it's done now.
QM: So you can't change the past?
S: No, can you?
QM: No, sorry, time is a one-way street.
S: So everything remains the same?
QM: Can't you travel down a one-way street?
S: You mean the future?
QM: Yes, is the future closed?
S: Well, not completely.
QM: Somewhat opened, somewhat closed?
S: Yeah, that's a good way to put it.
QM: So what part do you want to travel on?
S: Well, the open part, of course!
QM: A wise decision, indeed.
S: So let me get all of this straight. You're saying that the future is open, the mind and the body are really two peas in one pod . . .
QM: You may say the mind-body.
S: I may, but maybe I choose not to.
QM: It's you choice.
S: Yes, it is, isn't it. Anyways, you also say that I "buy" ideas or attitudes from others and that maybe I have allowed myself to be ripped-off in the process.
QM: Yes, I think that's a fine metaphor.
S: Or you suggest that I've caught a nasty virus that I could have inoculated myself against. You make it sound like a public health problem.
QM: Interesting, do you know anything about that? It's out of my league.
S: I'm working on it.
QM: What fun, your own inter-personal relations public health problem!
S: Fun to you maybe, not to me.
QM: Sorry, carried away.
S: Okay, Question Master, it's late. I gotta go.
QM: Thank you for talking with me. I learned a lot. I ,hoped that I didn't waste your time.
S: Well, I was looking for someone to throw a party for me.
QM: Oh, what kind of a party?
S: Never mind.
QM: Could you not find a host or hostess?
S: I decided I didn't want a party, not any kind of a party.
QM: I'm not sure I follow.
S: Never mind. Besides, I thought that you were teaching me something.
QM: There you go supposing again!
S: Good-night, you weirdo!
QM: Thank you. Sleep tight, don't let the bed bugs bite!

The End.

Dan Buettner on the "Blues"

2012-01-17T21:33:00.000-06:00

Researcher Dan Buettner @ a TEDMED talk. Some really interesting stuff about movement (exercise without all the equipment or clothes), food, and how ineffective modern medicine and public policy have been in dealing with issues of preventable diseases of civilization. The good news? Some simple, community changes can reap some real benefits. Very interesting viewing.

1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created by Charles C. Mann

2012-01-14T14:22:00.000-06:00

This book was such an adventure and joy, I hardly know where to start.

If you have an interest in early American (north and south) history, malaria and yellow fever, the silver trade of Bolivia that went to China as well as Europe, Chinese trade with the Philippines, slave revolts and communities, privateering, the world-system of the early modern era--I could go on and on--then this is your book. Mann, a journalist, goes from topic to topic effortlessly, weaving personal observations with wide-ranging research in the scholarship of these topics. He interviews the scholars as well to add a bit of spice to his research into the scholarship on these myriad topics. Not limited by academic boundaries, he can take us from here to there. By listening to this book, I learned a huge amount in this period in which I am distressingly weak. I'm improving, but I have a long way to go. Fortunately, Mann has gotten me off to a great start.

The Columbian exchange, the first significant step in globalization, for good and ill, begins here. Europe, Africa, and China--human, animal, and botanical-- come to the Americas, and vice versa. It's a fascinating topic, and a story that is ongoing as you read this.

An Honourable Englishman: The Life of Hugh Trevor-Roper by Adam Sisman

2012-01-14T14:03:00.001-06:00

In my first semester of college, when I took Western Civ,I had had to read one of my first really grown-up history books, The European Witch-craze of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (an intriguing topic). Now, all these years later, I've read his biography. He's best known for his The Last Days of Hitler, the result of investigation he did immediately after the war for British intelligence. This journalistic endeavor boosted him immensely, and then he went into the history business at Oxford, and later Cambridge. He never wrote the big book, but he was the master of the essay. Alas, while Hitler made his career, the topic also caused him great grief when he mistakenly (and to his credit, preliminarily) authenticated Hitler diaries that were a fraud.

I enjoyed book. For a better reviews (and there are many), go here or here. A well-written biography of an interesting character (as interesting as an academic historian can be!).

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy: The Movie

2012-01-14T13:42:00.002-06:00

The acting and the casting is solid with fine performances. The script makes sense. The staging and setting are well-done in 70's Britain drab, and the score (except for the final piece) creates an appropriate. But in the end, you feel like you've just tried to enjoy a 60-minute Hamlet. Yes, we see the plot, we see some of the characterization, we view the ending. But there's so much more!

I can say this not just because I've read the book, and I find LeCarre a rich writer who can use detail to set contemporary scenes in a world of bureaucrats and spies as well as anyone could imagine. In fact, even modest literary efforts can lose in translation to the screen. (An exception, I expect, is The Godfather, but I speculate because I've not read Puzo's book.). No, the reason that I hold this criticism against this film is because I've viewed--on multiple occasions--the BBC production of it from 1979. It's not that Alec Guiness's performance is better than Gary Oldman's--it is, but Oldman does a good job. No, rather, it's the time that the BBC took, about 4 90-minute episodes, allows the richness of the plot and relationships to come through.This allows you to absorb the intrigues and relationships much as what happens when you read a novel, which, at least in the case of this novel, will not occur in a single sitting. This film starts and moves slowly in the beginning, I think trying to capture that rich texture, but in the end, to get in all of the main plot elements, it has to speed up. There has to be a sacrifice and in this movie we lose the back stories of the other principals.

Thus, it's a good, solid movie, worth seeing. However, to give yourself the best experience, go the Netflicks or your local public library and check out the BBC production. It's a terrific show. You'll appreciate the difference, and for this one occasion, television beats the movies for quality of experience.

Moyers & Colbert

2012-01-12T18:00:00.001-06:00

First, for some background for any younger readers (if there be any). Bill Moyers has been a staple of thoughtful, insightful television journalism since the 1960's. He seems to bring a thoughtful, learned, yet modest and inquiring attitude to each interview, whether it be a woman on the street or someone of the highest learning or office. His initial program will feature two political scientists (Jacob Hacker of Yale and someone from Berkeley), and then he'll do someone on the street, and with each interview he seems to speak to the palace where the individuals are at and draw the most from them. Having him back on the air is good news, indeed.

His interview with Colbert shows he's lost nothing much with his advancing age (good news to those of us not far behind him!). He goes toe-to-toe with Stephen, and in the end, leaves Stephen a bit speechless. Fun viewing.

One side note: Are corporations "people"? Moyers got it right when he said "persons", not "people" (that's Mitt Romney). Colbert got it right when he cited the nineteenth century Santa Clara case decided by SCOTUS. Both sides have to be correct in some sense. Of course, on one hand, corporations are not individuals; on the other hand, corporations are organizations of individuals (human individuals, no androids allowed as of yet) that must have some legal standing and, yes, rights. If group entities, corporations (profit and non-profit), partnerships, married couples, churches, etc. don't have some legal rights as "persons", we're in deep trouble.

The Citizens United case (and I admit to not having read it) does trouble me, but it has to do more with the equation of money with speech than with the characterization of a corporation as a "person". I define "person" as a entity with legal rights under our Constitution--I don't equate person in this context as an individual. (To go further, distinguish a "soul" (religious), a "self" (philosophical/psychological) and an "individual" (biological)--it all depends on what you're asking and why. In any event, the equation of money with speech is a brutalization of our political discourse, and a sad chapter in this history of SCOTUS. (Perhaps more on this later.)

Stephen Colbert Explained (Sort of)

2012-01-08T21:07:00.000-06:00

Stephen Colbert is a comedic genius. I have to admit that I get much of my news from him and his mentor, Jon Stewart. Dependable? Not exactly, but usually good for some laughs, even when one is tempted to cry at the foolishness that they highlight. Anyway, this is an interesting appreciation of this comedic genius.

It Yoga Dangerous?

2012-01-07T18:11:00.002-06:00

This blog post by Martha Peterson based on a NYT article she links to raises some interesting points for me. I've had some back & hip issues for a while, and yoga did seem to aggravate them, although I can't blame the problems on yoga. I don't know what brought them on. I've gotten the most relief and improvement from somatic exercises, like the ones that Peterson teaches, which are based on Thomas Hanna and Feldenkrais. These are very gentle movements and not done to a beat. I'm continuing and expanding my experiments in this area, and I will report more at a later point.

I must say that sometimes vinyasa yoga class seems like fancy calisthenics to me. I've now slowed down on my own--so what if I miss a chataranga? I also try to feel what I'm doing. And, yes, when upside down or twisted this way or that, I do see others around me who are twisted into shapes that I then aspire to, almost always unsuccessfully. So, yes, I plead guilty to competitiveness, and I will try to keep in mind that I should not try to compete. Most teachers are good at stating stating that we should "listen to our own body", etc., but it's a hard lesson for most. A number of participants and yoga teachers (at least at our studio) are intense athletes as well.

P.S. I have now read the complete original article. It does provide food for thought, but as 1HP pointed out, almost any physical endeavor, if not performed properly, or if performed indiscriminately, can cause problems. She also noted our tendency as Americans to push to extremes. Points well taken. Again, my new emphasis is on mindfulness of movement.

Gary Taubes on Best Diet Books

2012-01-07T08:05:00.000-06:00

Anyone who reads this blog knows of my admiration for the work Taubes has done in the field of diet and health. He is to contemporary journalism what a Lincoln Steffens or Upton Sinclair were at the beginning of the 20th century, only this time the target is a set of misplaced scientific paradigms instead of slums or slaughter houses. The list of books Taubes provides is interesting, with most of the books older, revealing some of the extensive historical work he performed in Good Calories, Bad Calories. The most recent book he cited, Sisson's Primal Blueprint, is an excellent choice (and on my 2011 reading list). If you want to consider how to lose weight (in particular, excess fat) to improve your health and fitness, then this would be a great place to start, and then read Taubes's books in reverse order (i.e., Why We Get Fat and then Good Calories,Bad Calories). And another shout out to Five Books, a great site.

Best Books of 2011

2012-01-02T09:49:00.005-06:00

Reported books completed this year. The very favorites @ the bottom:

1. Nasar, Grand Pursuit
2. Wills, Rome & Rhetoric
3. Brooks, The Social Animal
4. Sisson, Mark, Primal Blueprint. A fine guide to primal living. Highly recommended.
5. Kissinger, On China
6. Baumeister, Willpower
7. Lukacs, Hitler & Stalin
8. Davies, No Simple Victory
9. McCall-Smith, The Sunday Philosophy Club
10. Lukacs, The Hitler of History
11. Faber, 1938, Munich: Appeasement & WWII.
12. Diggins, Why Neibuhr Now
13. Parks, Teach Us to Sit Still
14. Taintor, Collapse
15. Phillipson, Adam Smith
16. Lukacs,The Future of History
17. LeGuin, The Lathe of Heaven
18. Armstrong, Karen, The Spiral Staircase
19. Armstrong, The Case for God
20. Frye, The Double Vision
21. Wills, Biography of Augustine's Confessions
22. Overy, 1939: Countdown to War
23. Bacevich, Washington Rules
24. Cowen, The Great Stagnation
25. Foer, J., Moonwalking with Einstein
26. Morris, Why the West Rules--For Now
27. LeCarre, Our Kind of Traitor
28. Taubes, Why We Get Fight & What We Do About It
29. De Vany, The New Evolution Diet
30. Simmon Schama, The American Future: A History. Not having reviewed this earlier was a major mistake on my part. A fine look at the American past and the American now, which points us to the American future.
31. Ferris, Tim, The Four-Hour Body. Very interesting reading based on self-experimentation. Lots of interesting investigations & tips.

Okay, 31 books that I finished this year. The favorites among favorites? Tough, but let's say Kissinger's On China, Morris's Why the West Rules--For Now, Brooks's The Social Animal, Lukacs, The Future of History, Armstrong's The Spiral Staircase, and Parks, Teach Us to Sit Still.

Looking forward, I'm working to finish 3 fine books now: Gaddis's biography of George Kennan, a biography of the British historian H.R. Trevor-Roper, and 1493 by Charles Mann. All great reads.

On Sleep

2012-01-01T12:15:00.000-06:00

Conditioning Research posts another great chart. As for me, now in my 6th decade, I think that nothing quite makes life so good as getting enough sleep. (Well, behind having loved ones, and you might say good books, but they work much better with enough sleep.)

Drew Weston Cheers Obama & the Dems

2011-12-30T16:54:00.000-06:00

Since I've posted a couple of Weston articles critical of Obama, I think that I should post this piece of praise. I concur with Weston's viowpoint: Obama and the Dems did the right thing, and they should gain an electoral advantage by having done so. A true win-win. Also, Weston is right: some, no many, Republicans seem willing to do anything to defeat Obama, including working to keep the economy in the tank during the election. Too cynical? I wish it were so!

Krugman: Keynes Was Correct!

2011-12-30T16:45:00.000-06:00

A succinct and persuasive summary of why policy-makers should be following Keynes's advice and not shunning it. I agree. Remember: Keynes in a crisis; Hayek over the long-term. (Hayek the theorist of limited human knowledge, not the monetary theorist.)

BTW, I've got Wapshot's Keynes Hayek to start reading. So many books, so little time!

Antidote to Stephen Bloom's Bleak Vision

2011-12-30T16:36:00.000-06:00

David Brooks, certainly a big-city guy, captures some of the virtues a small town. This could have happened in Iowa, or many other places for that matter. We make trade-offs with every decision, including where we live. Having grown up in a small town, I understand, to some degree, I think, the limitations and virtues. And, contra Bloom, there are virtues and virtuous people in our small towns. Also, Brooks points to an important distinction: communitarian vs. free-market conservatism. Russell Kirk & Robert Nisbet are good examples of the communitarian perspective to contrast with Friedman as a free-market proponent. The communitarians have some important points, but this view point can prove quite confining as well. Cf. Wendell Berry.

On Cloning

2011-12-30T09:46:00.000-06:00

From May 5, 2010. Again, I don't know what prompted this, but here it is, even if it's a repeat!

Politicians should make the final decisions about whether to legalize cloning. Politicians, when acting as elected representatives of the electorate, have the broadest mandate and the most comprehensive access to information upon which to base a decision.

When deciding whether to legalize cloning, anyone making the decision must consider a number of factors. Cloning represents a brave new world with tremendous potential for good and ill. Politicians, through debate involved in the electoral process, will have the best sense of what the public will accept as legitimate.

We cannot expect religious leaders to make a final decision because too much diversity exists between religious viewpoints, not to mention secular viewpoints. On topics in which morality plays a paramount role, such as abortion rights, we find that no coherent religious point of view exists. We cannot even define a religious point of view because we have a difficult time defining what constitutes a religious stance. Does Scientology count? Do all forms of Christianity count, from Unitarians to Pentecostals? Should all varieties of Jewish practice receive consideration? When we consider that the U.S. consists of religious practices and beliefs from around the world in addition to our Christian and Jewish heritage, from shamanism to Hindu to Muslim to Buddhist, how could we define the class of decision-makers? Without at least a nominally coherent set of decision makers, we cannot expect a coherent decision to issue forth on such a sensitive topic.

The possibility of using doctors—just medical doctors, or do we consider professional scientists in this class as well?—holds some promise, but this class fails in comparison to politicians also. Doctors can provide a scientific perspective on the issue that that we can’t expect lay people, such as politicians and religious leaders, to provide. Setting aside the moral and religious concerns raised by cloning, the scientific concerns of a biologically unique undertaking must raise serious scientific questions. As cloning represents a form of biological reproduction not found among humans or other more highly evolved species in nature, scientific knowledge becomes crucial in helping us assess the potential costs, risks, uncertainties, and benefits of cloning. For all of their knowledge, however, doctors cannot provide us with answers to questions of how we want to shape and form our society. Doctors, like religious leaders and persons from all walks of life, can participate in political decisions and act as political leaders in helping society make these decisions. When doctors enter the public realm, they do so as politicians, not as physicians.

The unique value of politicians in this circumstance arises from their role in democratic society. Politicians must act as generalists. Politicians must know and understand the values and morals of the electorate (notwithstanding the flaws of their personal morality). Politicians must seek scientific understanding of the consequences

"Stars" in Politics

2011-12-30T09:42:00.000-06:00

Cleaning out to start the New Year, I found this essay that I wrote. I don't recall having posted it before, and when I read through it quickly, it still seems basically sound to me. Anyway, I post it for what it's worth.

The U.S. has grown into a polity marked by equality and universal sufferage. Freedom of expression, growing out of the First Amendment to the Constitution, also serves as a benchmark of U.S. politics. Any limitation on the participation of any group—whether of those with whom we agree with or those with whom we disagree—should not be our policy or goal.
The effect of entertainers on contemporary electoral politics is not new. While MTV’s “Rock the Vote” draws the attention of young people in recent elections, it’s basic tenant, that participation in the electoral process is not only socially acceptable, but a genuine good, is not unique. The use of “stars”, names from Hollywood and the entertainment world, has been ongoing at least since the Second World War, when well known actors participated in films supporting enlistment in the armed forces. Ronald Reagan, who served as president of the Screen Actors Guild, and who later served as host of GE Theatre, moved into politics. Reagan joined George Murphy, an actor later elected senator from California, as an example of entertainers who made the transition from fame as entertainers into elected officials. This trend has continued not only in California—witness Arnold Swartzenegger—but also in other parts of the country and involving politicians of a completely different political persuasion. For example, consider comedian-turned-actor Al Franken, recently elected senator from Minnesota. Given that breadth of the political spectrum represented by these few samples, one cannot argue that any particular political party or political perspective gains more from the use of entertainers as candidates or surrogates for candidates. The development of candidates and points of view seems to have little bearing in the eyes of the voting public. A candidate may gave gained name recognition from a career in sports (e.g., Bill Bradley, Jack Kemp, Tom Osborne) or entertainment, but this only provides an initial gateway past the barrier of name recognition.
The issue of concern in this topic must go the role and responsibility of the media. The media, once exclusively the realm of print, but now led by television and internet sources, must play the key role in discerning whether the fame of a entertainer merits the thoughtful consideration of a voter. Some voters, no doubt, would follow the lead of a famous person just because of the person’s perception of the entertainer’s stage persona, but this kind of limited critical thinking is as old as democracy, and it won’t go away by attempting to ban or downplay the roles of the famous in our electoral system. Instead, we need opinion leaders in all forms of media to foster critical assessments of all those who stand for public office. Much of the media have always enjoyed a strange, symbiotic relationship with the famous, including politicians, at once glorifying them and vilifying them; using them and being used by them. To the extent that members of all facets of the media resist the trap of this strange duet, the more useful the media’s role in democratic societies.
As politics in a democratic society should involve a widespread and varied consideration of all manner of perspective in our complex society, to consider limiting or pre-judging any group is a mistake. Instead, society, led by leaders in the media willing to take up the cause of the public good, should weigh and consider perspectives from all manner of sources. The famous will always flourish in democratic societies, whether military leaders, reformers, entertainers, or sports figures. The question, the challenge, for all becomes our collective ability to discern the merely famous from those who hold the ability to provide leadership and judgment in political office.

Interval Training from Conditioning Research

2011-12-26T16:23:00.000-06:00

Roscommon to Imogene recently gave a shout-out to "infographics". I don't know if this is what he meant, but I like this form of information conveyance, and I think that the protocols are well supported. Gotta go sprint!

Habermas on Religion in the Public Square

2011-12-26T15:50:00.000-06:00

Jurgen Habermas is probably the most important philosopher and social theorist in post-WWII Europe. Since the 1960's he has been writing on crucial issues of social and political life in Western Europe (and then all of Europe) from a social democratic perspective. In recent years, after having written or said little in the past on the topic of religion before around 2000,since then he's given a good deal of attention to the issue of religion in the public square. This piece, which addresses this issue, provides a good reflection on the issues as he raises them. What role should religious perspectives play in a modern democratic society? Habermas, who conversed with then-Cardinal Ratzinger on these topics, recognizes the role that the Christian tradition played in establishing many of the norms that have come to govern Western societies (and by extension, influence the East as well). A thoughtful and though-provoking piece on continuing issues of great importance.

BTW, I'd don't know that he's improved, but I tackled some Habermas many years ago, and the reading was not light, so say the least. He is, after all, a German academic!

Time Warrior by Steve Chandler

2011-12-26T15:38:00.000-06:00

I enjoyed this book, except I’d rename it The Honey-Badger Guide to Doing Things. “Doing things”; that is, doing whatever you deem that you should do RIGHT NOW is the key to the book. Focus, creativity, avoiding rumination, action: in 101 short, almost bite-sized chapters, the author Steve Chandler reminds us of what we can and should do. “Just do it” would be another potential title, but not as an ad slogan, but as a way of life. When you think of it, there’s not a lot new here, but it’s a good reminder of things we “know” but don’t do, and this book is all about the do, the focus.

2011 Best History Books from BrainPickings

2011-12-23T12:17:00.000-06:00

I'm new to this site, but I'm impressed with the choices and the quality of the reviews. An eclectic and interesting list.

Jonah Lehrer on the Perils of Causation

2011-12-22T15:48:00.000-06:00

Causation: Wow! What a fun & interesting topic--NOT!

Wait a minute! What is or is not "causation" is a profoundly interesting philosophical and practical question. As a lawyer, in most trials, civil and criminal, causation is a crucial issue. And in the world of medicine that I'm involved in both professionally (injuries and their causes constitute major legal issues) and as a layman (what causes this or that pain, which implies a course of treatment), I think an understanding of causation is very important. In addition, causation, as Lehrer argues in this piece, becomes more and more tricky as we seek to refine it. Indeed, one of my major gripes is that we seem to be constantly looking for "the cause" of "cancer" or "war" or you name it. But in fact, there is no "cause", there are many causes of complex phenomena and we have a heck of a time measuring the data. We try to isolate "the cause" and it's very, very difficult, and it's quite often deceiving.

This piece especially caught my eye because I have a wary attitude toward modern medications. Let me quickly say that I take medications and give thanks for the help modern medicines provide millions in alleviating pain and improving health. That said, however, I think that we look for some magic pill to cure all of our ills. For my view, every medicine is a poison in the wrong dose or circumstance, so we have to be very cautious.

I'm also intrigued about back pain, again for both personal and professional reasons. Professionally, persons injures in auto collisions or during work almost always hear the defense, "oh, look, your x-rays show you have degenerated discs, so you had pain anyway", although the client says "no" or "nothing like this". In other words, the views of degenerative or traumatic change don't tell the whole story. I'm also interested because I've suffered back pain (and now nagging pain in my hip). Surgery, drugs? Not for me. I'm trying physical work and some NSAID. I'm now trying somatics (Thomas Hanna, Martha Peterson, etc.) (which seems to be helping), Egoscue, and Yin Yoga, which also help. And what role stress? See John Sarno's work or Tim Parks's book Teach Us to Sit Still. Our body-minds are so complex that we must be cautious, gentle, and conservative from my point of view. Causation is so subtle and complex (see complexity theory) that we are best to use gentle, conservative treatments, I believe.

Anyway, read this article, and give thanks to that other (than Adam Smith) great figure of the British Enlightenment: David Hume.

Longevity

2011-12-21T17:17:00.001-06:00

Conditioning Research is an excellent health and fitness blog. The post today shows a chart (I like a splashy chart) about longevity, including known factors that contribute to long life, as well as some speculative information. The "live to 1,000" stuff I'm not buying, but leading a long, healthy, and productive life does seem possible. The only immediate dissent I must register concerns the calorie reduction information. Not that it's wrong, but that a better alternative probably exists: intermittent fasting. Sustained caloric reduction is immensely grim by all accounts and may actually rob a person of energy. Instead, intermittent fasting (going for hours or days without eating from time to time) seems to work as well as caloric restriction (rabbit food 24/7). But I don't know that IF has been as thoroughly tested as caloric restriction.

The Ultimate Stephen Bloom Disses Iowa Rebuttal?

2011-12-21T16:21:00.002-06:00

I don't want to create an echo chamber, but hats off to Roscommon to Imogene for pointing out the linked piece in the DMR which shows that, among other things, Iowa has some pretty capable journalists, unlike, say, Stephen Bloom. Good for some laughs. Needed.

More on Hungary: Fascinating & Frightening

2011-12-20T17:07:00.001-06:00

Kim Lane Scheppele of Princeton provides a follow-up in Paul Krugman's blog post to her (and my) earlier post about Hungary and the assent of the radical righ party.Historians among you will know that the minority Nazi party "hijacked" the German government quite legally in 1933, and then took the State down the road to totalitarianism. I'm not Chicken Little, and Hungary 2011 is not Germany 1933; however, right-wing and left-wing extremists, both anti-democratic and disdainful of human rights, pose a threat to the European project. All the problems with the Euro notwithstanding, Europe since 1945 has been a success. (The book to consult: Tony Judt's Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945.) The post-Warsaw block has seen some serious problems, but nothing (bar Russia's regressions) quite like this, I don't think. Something to watch carefully.

Inequality

2011-12-20T12:41:00.001-06:00

I've encountered some interesting considerations about inequality in my wandering readings. In sum, it's a growing problem. Of course, some inequality is inherent in humans, as in other primates. But what I'm referring to is a pervasive inequality that becomes dysfunctional, not to mention unjust.

A good staring point is this Five Books interview with Darin Acemoglu. I think that this shows, like most social phenomena, there is no one answer to the emergence of a phenomenon. See also this presentation by him.

Jack Goldstone, another important social scientist, weighs in with this blog post.

Finally, welcoming back the truth-teller of Iowa (even if he no longer works here), Donald Kaul. Kaul is correct: don't say fault for the precarious situation is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, because it isn't. We'll be damned lucky if we don't repeat the 1930's that way we've set things up like the 1920's.

Creepy Stuff from Hungary

2011-12-19T12:02:00.002-06:00

This guest blog by a fellow Princeton faculty member Kim Lane Scheppele about the constitutional changes in Hungary is enough to send shivers up one's spine. Alas, it seems Hungary didn't realize that we are supposed to have arrived at the End of History! (Fukuyama, what do you say?). This really surprises me,because before the end of the Cold War, Hungary was (relatively) open, tolerant, and prosperous. What is guiding this return to radical, right authoritarianism?

More on Stephen Bloom's Atlantic Article About Iowa

2011-12-18T16:27:00.000-06:00

This video conversation filmed here in Iowa City provides an interesting consideration of the issues raised by Bloom.

This article in the Press-Citizen adds another UI faculty member (non-native) who makes some pointed criticisms of the Bloom piece.

"Embellishments"--an interesting term to discuss some of Bloom's piece. The best news? Those discussing this realize we do have problems, pretty much like the rest of the nation--or world!

Great Reading Recommendations

2011-12-17T13:05:00.000-06:00

Farnum Street came up with this list of lists. Quite a good set of recommendations. Sorry, fiction readers, but very little of that on here, but a lot of very worthwhile recommendations. It's like wandering through a great toy store: so many great possibilities, so little time & money!

Dr. Terry Wahls on Diet @ Iowa City TEDx

2011-12-16T21:48:00.001-06:00

Thanks to a post from Art De Vany, I watched this talk by Iowa City physician Dr. Terry Wahls. Good stuff. Her personal story is quite astonishing. Sure it's N=1, but that one could prove the key.

Also, De Vany points to this talk by Dr. Loren Cordain, another big name in the Paleo diet & health.

Some Good Guys & Some Real Disappointments on Prtecting Our Security

2011-12-16T17:14:00.000-06:00

From Truthdig (an excellent site), I learn that my Senator Tom Harkin and neighboring congressman Bruce Braley voted against the Defense Authorization Act that allows the government to hold citizens without trial. My compliments to them (and I've sent them emails saying so) for their courage & wisdom in so voting.

I'm deeply disappointedthat my Representative Dave Loebsack (D) voted in favor of the act. I wrote him so, too. My disappointment, not quite so sharp, that Senator Grassley voted in favor of this. Actually, I used to have a grudging admiration for Grassley, who showed some independence, but now he simply goes with the crowd, even though he's safe for another 5 years. Sad, but true.

Truthdig links to sites that can tell you how your representatives voted, and I suggest you let them hear from you.

P.S. My earlier post expressed my disappointment with Obama.

Shame on Obama

2011-12-16T16:22:00.000-06:00

Reading about the recent passage of the defense authorization bill, I was unclear what provisions were included and which excluded. Alas, I learn through this editorial from the NYT that arrest without trial has been left in. I feel a sense of shame in all of this. I expect as much from Bush, but not Obama. A bitter pill to swallow. Perhaps it's a good thing that the Republican offerings are of such low and frightening quality.

Stephen Bloom's Iowa Firestorm

2011-12-15T08:25:00.001-06:00

The article that I've linked to by UI journalism professor Stephen Bloom has created quite a firestorm here locally, and around the rest of the state, I believe. I read the article (a preliminary requirement to commenting, in my opinion). I found parts spot-on, other parts exaggerated and stereotyped. Frankly, some person are getting their shorts all in a bunch over this, and I can't get that fired-up about it. I did, however, read some thoughtful responses in our local Iowa City Press-Citizen today. The most thoughtful response came from a UI student that hails from a small town in western Iowa (my native land). I don't know that I could improve upon his take. Another interesting response comes from retired UI political science professor and dean, Gerhard Loewenberg, who points out some factual errors. Finally, even the editorial write-up made some good points.

In sum, we're not perfect, we do have some daunting problems (small town and rural life decline), and we have some bright spots. Unique in our own ways, quite typical in others.

Maureen Dowd on Newt

2011-12-14T11:19:00.000-06:00

Two thoughts:
1. And this guy wants to us to vote for him to become President?

2. Asimov's Foundation series: Paul Krugman, Ian Morris (I think), and Peter Turchin (I think), along with Newt Gingrich, all claim to have been affected and led into the professional study of history or the social sciences (Krugman) by reading about Asimov's hero, Hari Seldon. I missed all this, although I was an avid reader of Asimov the science teacher (if history was my first love, medicine & biology was my second as a nerdy boy). Interesting.

John Lukacs on Knowledge & History: Human knowledge is personal and participant--placing us at the center of the universe

2011-12-14T08:47:00.015-06:00

Besides the catchy title, and with the knowledge that one cannot read too much John Lukacs, I'm posting this article that I found a while ago. His view of knowledge is to some extent unusual and certainly worth considering. In fact, I think that he has a the superb perspective on the matter. How we "know" (epistemology) is a crucial issue in everyday life, not to mention any discipline of study. Very worthwhile and thought provoking--but then what else would you expect from Lukacs? And for your delectation, a few choice quotes from the article:

I was still very young when I saw that historians, or indeed scholars and scientists and human beings of all kinds, are not objective. Many who wished to impress the world thought that they were objective. And there are still many historians and even more scientists of that kind, men with gray ice on their faces.

But isn’t objectivity an ideal? No: because the purpose of human knowledge—indeed, of human life itself—is not accuracy, and not even certainty; it is understanding.

History involves the knowledge of human beings of other human beings. This knowledge differs from other kinds, since human beings are the most complex organisms in the entire universe.

The ideal of objectivity is the antiseptic separation of the knower from the known. Understanding involves an approach to bring the two closer. But there is, there can be, no essential separation of the knower from the known.

We are human beings with inevitable limitations. We think in words, especially when it comes to history, which has no language of its own, no scientific terminology: we speak and write and teach history in words. Besides, words and language have their own histories.

Every human being sees the world in his own way. That is inevitable but not determined. We choose not only what and how we think but what and how we see. According to subjectivism I can think and see in only one (my) way; he in another (his) way. This is wrong, because thinking and seeing are creative acts coming from the inside, not the outside. Which is why we are responsible both for how and what we do or say as well as for how and what we think and see (or, for what we want to think and for what we want to see).

Knowledge, which is neither objective nor subjective, is always personal. Not individual: personal. The concept of the individual has been one of the essential misconceptions of political liberalism. Every human being is unique, but he does not exist alone. He is dependent on others (a human baby for much longer than the offspring of other animals); his existence is inseparable from his relations with other human beings.

But there is more to that. Our knowledge is not only personal; it is also participant. There is—yet there cannot be—a separation of the knower from the known. We must see further than this. It is not enough to recognize the impossibility (perhaps even the absurdity) of the ideal of their antiseptic, objective separation. What concerns—or should concern—us is something more than the inseparability; it is the involvement of the knower with the known. That this is so when it comes to the reading, researching, writing, and thinking of history should be rather obvious. Detachment from one’s passions and memories is often commendable. But detachment, too, is something different from separation; it involves the ability (issuing from one’s willingness) to achieve a stance of a longer or higher perspective. The choice for such a stance does not necessarily mean a reduction of one’s personal interest, of participation—perhaps even the contrary.

mechanical causality is insufficient to understand the functioning of our minds and consequently of our lives—and even the sense and the meaning of our memories. Every human action, every human thought is something more than a reaction. (That is how and why history never repeats itself.) The human mind intrudes into and complicates the very structure of events.

This relationship, this intrusion of mind into matter, is not constant. Perhaps the evolution of human consciousness may be the only evolution there is. In this age of democracy, this intrusion of mind into matter tends to increase. That is a startling paradox, a development at the same time when the applications of mechanical causality govern the lives of mankind more than ever before.

History is larger than science, since science is part of history and not the other way around. First came nature, then came man, and then the science of nature. No scientists, no science.

Our consciousness, our central situation in space, cannot be separated from our consciousness of time.

The arguments of creationism against evolutionism entirely miss this essential matter. The language of those creationists and anti-Darwinists who proclaim the existence of an Intelligent Design is ludicrous: it reduces God to a role model of a rocket scientist or of a brilliant computer programmer. The matter is the unavoidable contradiction not between Evolution and Creation but between evolution and history. History, because in the entire universe we are the only historical beings. Our lives are not automatic; we are responsible for what we do, say, and think. The coming of Darwinism was historical; it appeared at a time of unquestioned progress. But its essence was, and remains, antihistorical. It elongated the presence of mankind to an ever-increasing extent, by now stretching the first appearance of man on this earth to more than a million years—implying that consequently there may be something like another million years to come for us. Ought we not to question this kind of progressive optimism, especially at a time when men are capable of altering nature here and there and of destroying much of the world, including many of themselves?

Niall Ferguson on Charlie Rose

2011-12-13T23:00:00.002-06:00

An interesting & thoughtful interview that touches on "Civilzation", "the Rest", China, its strengths and vulnerabilities, Turkey, and much else. The kind of interview that brings out the best in Ferguson.

David Brooks on Cass Sunstein

2011-12-12T21:37:00.000-06:00

Cass Sunstein is one of the foremost legal scholars of our day. He was a colleague of President Obama @ the University of Chicago Law School before Obama went into politics and Sunstein migrated to Harvard. Sunstein took the job of regulatory chief under Obama, as Sunstein, among his many projects, has written on risk analysis and regulation. (He's really a prolific scholar.) When he took the job, he caught hell from both the Left ("He uses a form of cost-benefit analysis!") and the Right ("He"ll issue regulations!"). How difficult it is to get outside the small boxes that others want to use to contain us. Such small thinking! Maybe he's correct on some matters, wrong on others, but it would help to think about these matters, which he does. Fortunately, Sunstein made it through the Senate and is now (but for the attention of a Brooks column), probably ignored, as no one has much incentive to grandstand about the day-to-day workings of regulators (but which is quite important in the administrative state).

Krugman on Creepy Europe

2011-12-12T17:10:00.000-06:00

Krugman doesn't say "creepy", but I do. We've grown to expect Russia to always languish on the edge (if not over the edge) of despotism, but in this post Krugman notes that economic dislocation, like war, doesn't bode well for democracy. The situation in Hungary seems nasty, and they were among the better off of the former Soviet satellite states. In the U.S., too, we see radicalism resurgent in both the Tea Party and the Occupy movement. Neither group is very coherent or persuasive, but both are fueled by a deep dissatisfaction. We don't need any Father Coughlins or Huey Longs here, nor radical regimes in Europe, so we'd be wise to get things back on track quickly.

Beinart on Obama's Narrative

2011-12-12T16:58:00.000-06:00

"It's all about the narrative" might be a bit of an overstatement, but not much of one. As in trials, the contestant with the best narrative wins. Obama, for all his rhetorical gifts, isn't a trial lawyer, and he has not defined the narrative as he should--and must--if he is to win reelection. Reagan did it as a master. Clinton, who was so effective on the stump, could do it. Bot explicitly and by his delivery, these men defined their campaigns. This is Obama's great challenge.

Ferguson on Britain's Dissent Fiscal Union

2011-12-12T16:57:00.001-06:00

I think that NF is probably right on this one. Besides being downright scarey, this EU/Euro thing is a really complex question of political economy. Indeed, the phrase "political economy" (from whence economics began) is not an anachronism, it's more relevant than ever!

Frum & Brooks on Newt

2011-12-12T16:57:00.000-06:00

For a while I seemed to post constantly on Rick Perry. Well, he's history, but now we have the zombie Newt. This post by Frum, citing Brooks in comparison (and in essential agreement), covers a part of what's creepy about going Newt-ular. My goodness, is this a Republican ploy to sell everyone on Romney?

Sylvia Nasar, The Grand Pursuit: The Story of Economic Genius

2011-12-10T13:25:00.000-06:00

I read this book a few weeks ago and I'm just now getting around to reviewing it. My tardiness in reviewing doesn't reflect on the quality of the book. It's a bit difficult to classify. It's more the story of economists than of economics or of economic thought. Her subjects include Dickens (somewhat of a surprise there), Marx and Engels (no surprise, but Marx was a bum), Beatrice Webb (unusual pick), and then more familiar subjects: Schumpeter (quite the dandy), Keynes, Hayek, and so on down to Sen. If you're new to economics or economists, it's a good introduction, or if you have some familiarity, then it's a good way to learn more about some familiar names. The particulars of each life adds diversity and detail to each one's economic thinking & perspectives. Yes, a good book, but not a great one.

A Draft Letter to the President & My Congressional Respresentatives

2011-12-10T12:22:00.001-06:00

Readers,

Below is a letter that I've drafted & intend to send unless I change my mind, and I invite you to tell me to change my mind if you think it justified. I will mail it on Monday. I'm I nuts? Overblown? I hope so, but I doubt it. Read & consider, and advise:

Stephen N. Greenleaf
345 Magowan Ave.
Iowa City, Iowa 52246
Email: greenleaf.stephen@gmail.com

December 8, 2011

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20202

Senator Charles Grassley
135 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-1501

Senator Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Rep. Dave Loebsak
1221 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. President, Senators, and Congressman:

I watched the opening segment of The Daily Show (http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-december-7-2011-ralph-fiennes) on December 7 of this year. I am always cautious when I watch a "fake news show". I try to be very careful to distinguish the actual from the imagined. However, I believe this segment was real—almost surreal—and I am appalled by what I learned. I am referring to the defense appropriations bill (S. 1867), which provides for indefinite detainment of US citizens. Host Jon Stewart attempted to address this topic with his usual humor. However, his dismay was apparent, and I want to let you know that I share his dismay.

War and the threat of war acts as a corrosive acid that eats to the very heart of democracy and liberty. This issue goes to the essence of our jurisprudence and our constitutional system of government. To allow the indefinite detainment of suspects without trial or hearing would undo the trend of hundreds of years of Anglo-American law that has sought to limit the arbitrary powers of the state and to protect the rights of the individual. I agree with Mr. Stewart that this proposal contradicts the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which intends to protect the individual from unwarranted intrusions by the state.

I am a realist, not a Pollyanna. I understand the threats posed by Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other Islamist organizations. I also understand the threat posed by homegrown terrorists, such as a Timothy McVeigh. In fact, over the course of our nation's history, we have faced all manner of threats to the security of our people and our government. Nevertheless, we have managed—sometimes despite ourselves—to preserve our liberties. Administrations of great American presidents, such those of Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, have been sullied by their actions that unduly and wrongly curtailed the rights of individuals. The Obama administration, along with this Congress, appears to be ready to take the same unwarranted and frightening steps.

In addition to threats posed by terrorists or foreign powers is threat that we face from the arbitrary use of government power against individuals. Over the course of hundreds of years, our legal system has carved out limitations on the sovereign that have become fundamental to our system of laws and government. By this measure you would further erode fundamental protections that our system provides to its citizens.

The erosion of constitutional protections of the individual against the arbitrary decisions of those in power has increased over the last ten years. I have too often remained silent. However, I can no longer remain silent in the face of this of assault on our liberties. I understand that Congress responds to public opinion and rarely leads it. I understand the presidency almost inevitably seeks to expand its powers. However, there are some occasions when new profiles in courage are required, and now is such a time. Please do not send me some pabulum in response to this letter. Please address directly whether you agree with this fundamental alteration in our legal system and its protections for the individual. Please justify why (if you do) believe that American citizens should be held without trial. Please tell me how you reconcile this provision with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Please do not attempt to tell me that the need for Pentagon appropriations requires your support for this action since a failure to fund the Pentagon is not a realistic possibility.

Please know that I will continue to speak out against this assault. I urge each of you to take immediate steps to prevent the adoption of this provision. I urge you to uphold your oath to protect and defend the Constitution, an oath that each of you and I have sworn to do.

Thank you very much for your attention this. I eagerly await your response.

Sincerely yours,

Stephen N. Greenleaf

Ken Rogoff on Capitalism

2011-12-09T20:13:00.000-06:00

This article by Ken Rogoff in a very short space addresses some of the pressing problems with contemporary capitalism. His first point, and one that bears remembering, is that we have no better alternative. To paraphrase Churchill, capitalism is the worst form of government except when compared to all of the others. Does Europe (certainly not!) or China (still young) have a better model of capitalism? No, not really; different, not without significant problems. Rogoff notes, in a very brief and succinct article, five areas where contemporary capitalism has problems: health care, finance, inequality, under valuation of common goods (air, water); under valuation of the future, and consumerism (we sell a lot of food ("good"), and we get fat. Very thoughtful. I think capitalism, with about every system, has a real agency problem, but I don't know the best cure.

Holy Shades of Paul Krugman, Batman!

2011-12-09T19:51:00.000-06:00

Niall Ferguson sounds a lot like Paul Krugman in this piece: we need to expand the monetary supply and spur demand. Ferguson, of course, cites a couple of important works of history, but otherwise, I think that he's saying here what Krugman has been saying for some time. Yes, we do need to tame budget deficits, but in the immediate future, we need to take steps to get out from under this severe economic contraction. Interesting.

A Great Speech on Climate Change--If Only Someone Would Give it

2011-12-07T17:07:00.000-06:00

From my pretty much favorite "conservative" (okay, maybe David Brooks, but it's close)*. Anyway, a speech that any Republican, even any Democrat, should give about global climate change. Seth Roberts should read this.

*Some may worry that I read people like Frum & Brooks, that my latent, inner Republican may emerge from the dark. I think not, but, like a sinner saved by grace, I nevertheless keep that taint of original sin. The faithful, I'm sure, will keep me from wandering into the way of perdition. However, a wee bit of sin doesn't hurt too much, does it?

Skeptical Anticipation: Tinker Tailor Movie Coming

2011-12-04T22:06:00.002-06:00

This interview with lead actor Gary Oldman, who plays George Smiley, is very interesting. I will say, the Brits do take there acting very seriously. In addition, consult this Atlantic article about the incarnations of Le Carre characters. Anyone who knows me, or who has had to sit through some spare time with me, will know of my passion for the two BBC productions starring Alec Guinness as Smiley (along with a superb supporting cast). However, I do like Oldman's take on doing a role that Guinness so made his own: classical roles, such as Hamlet, require actors to step into a prior great's shoes all the time. Who's your favorite Hamlet? Gielgud, Olivier, Burton, Jacobi, Branagh? Just to name a few. And while LeCarre isn't Shakespeare, these characters are rich. So, yes, I'll go, although Iowa Guru threatens a boycott. It can be tough, my beloved James Mason played Smiley in Sidney Lumet's A Deadly Affair (an alteration of the first Smiley book, A Call for the Dead, but it really didn't work all that well. No, it's a tough role to fill.

Here's the link to the movie site. Save me a seat.

Garry Wills, Rome & Rhetoric: Shakespeare's Julius Caesar

2011-12-03T23:04:00.001-06:00

Garry Wills has struck again, this time with his book Rome and Rhetoric: Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. In this slender volume Wills explores how Shakespeare, via Plutarch, grasped the essence of Rome at the time of the transition from republic to empire. Specifically, Wills explores the rhetoric of the leading characters. Of course, Antony's funeral oration is the best known of the set pieces in this play. (My continued apologies to Mrs. Vaughn for having complained about having to memorize this in sophomore English class). However, Antony's funeral oration is not the only example of rhetoric in the play. Before Antony speaks, Brutus addressed the crowd. Wills contrasts the rhetoric of Brutus, which centers upon "mine honor", against the more nuanced speech given by Antony. Antony responds to his audience, whereas Brutus expects his audience to respond to him.

Wills's love of Shakespeare is not new. His previous book on Macbeth demonstrates the care with which has explicates these texts. In addition, he has recently published a book on Shakespeare and Verdi, the great Italian opera composer who composed operas on some of Shakespeare's plays. I haven't read that book yet, but I have a hard time imagining that it could be better than this book. Wills is trained as a classicist and the opportunity to merge his love of theater (and Shakespeare in particular), along with his classical learning, provides us a real treat in humanistic learning.

I always enjoyed Julius Caesar (my complaints and sophomore English notwithstanding), and I think that it is an easily accessible play. In addition, there are a couple of good film productions of it that are well worth seeing, including one with Marlon Brando as Anthony. If you have an opportunity to see these productions or to read this play, Wills's book out would be an excellent introduction and perspective on the play.

Niall Ferguson on the Western Canon & Sequay to the Next Post

2011-12-03T22:15:00.001-06:00

From Ferguson's Civilization: The West & the Rest:

What makes a civilization real to its inhabitants, in the end, is not just splendid edifices at its center, nor even the smooth functioning of the institutions they house. At its core, a civilization is the texts that are taught in schools, learned by its students and recollected in times of tribulation. The civilization of China was once built on the teachings of Confucius. The civilization of Islam -- of the cult of submission -- is still built on the Koran. But what are the foundational texts of Western civilization, that can bolster our belief in the almost boundless power of the free individual human being?

I would suggest the King James Bible, Isaac Newton's Principia, John Locke's Two Treatises of Government, Adam Smith's Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations, Edmund Burke's Recollections of the Revolution in France and Charles Darwin's Origin of Species -- to which should be added to William Shakespeare's's plays selected speeches of Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill. If I had to select a single volume as Koran, it would be Shakespeare's complete works.

Id. 324.

As you will learn from my next post, the admiration of Shakespeare as the author at the heart of the Western tradition--at least since the Renaissance--is not unusual.

What other books, since the advent of modernity, might Ferguson have cited?

David Brooks: The Social Animal

2011-12-03T15:45:00.002-06:00

David Brooks is a socialist.

Okay, he’s not a socialist in the sense that you and I might think of as socialist. In fact, David Brooks has never made such a statement about himself that I know of. However in his book, The Social Animal, he describes his alter ego as a socialist. However, his alter ego is the strangest and perhaps most unique socialist that you've ever heard of. The kind of socialist that Brooks is speaking about is not of the Marxist-Leninist variety, nor of the Maoist variety, or of any other off-the-shelf varieties. Instead, his alter ego is what most of us would think of it as a well, an Aristotelian, or a Burkean, or, in more contemporary terms, a communitarian. In other words, Brooks thinks that most folks who describe themselves as socialists today are in fact statists.

The above gives you a sense politically of where Brooks is coming from, which should come as no surprise to anyone who has read his columns in the New York Times regularly. The Brooks alter ego in The Social Animal is someone who admires the politics of Hamilton, Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt. He believes that the state should be useful and is necessary, but is should not be dominant. He stands between free-market libertarians and the statists (i.e., whom everyone else thinks of it as socialists).

I listened to The Social Animal with a great deal of enjoyment. Brooks brings valuable perspectives to this book. First, Brooks is a keen observer of contemporary social mores. He can be satirical, but always with a light and humorous touch. Secondly, he’s deeply taken with the neuro-psychological revolution that is ongoing. Only a small portion of the book is really dedicated to Brooks pithy observations about the society around us, and more of it is centered on what we have learned about humans as social animals. Of course, this perspective is as old as men and women have been thinking about society. Names like Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Locke, Burke, and Toqueville pop to mind. Brooks brings contemporary scientific (especially brain) research and contemporary social science research to the table. Brooks does this by using the conceit borrowed from Rousseau’s Emile, wherein the education (not just schooling) of individuals serves as a vehicle to expostulate about his perspectives on learning and behavior. (I think it's safe to say Brooks would be very critical of Rousseau's political thinking.)

I enjoyed this book very much. It was fun to listen to. Brooks did well to choose the stories of individuals to draw us into a narrative that provides doses of contemporary scientific thinking that become relevant and easily palatable. Of course, I have to also have to say that I'm easily sold on this book because I agree with most of his perspectives. If anyone has read this blog before, they know that I often have cited my agreements with Brooks. While I don't consider myself as politically conservative as he considers himself, I think the differences are those of shades and not of absolutes. I, too, admire the tradition of Hamilton, Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt. However, I do believe that the contribution of FDR is one is crucial for modern America. Indeed, the second Roosevelt's political program and economic program is vital to our well-being and extremely relevant today. Obama probably could not find a better role model than Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Theodore lived in an earlier, less industrialized age. We need the likes of FDR and Keynes more than ever.

In the end, a highly enjoyable and recommend a book

Now Reading: Wills on Shakespeare & Rome and Gaddis on Kennan

2011-11-28T08:34:00.001-06:00

I've now embarked on these two very promising titles:

1. Garry Wills, Rome & Rhetoric: Shakespeare's Julius Caesar (2011).

2. John Lewis Gaddis, George F. Kennan: An American Life (2011)

Fun reading ahead!

Niall Ferguson's Civilization: The West & the Rest

2011-11-28T08:28:00.001-06:00

Niall Ferguson's Civilization: The West and the Rest (2011) describes six "killer apps" that defined Western civilization and led to its preeminence in the 500 years between 1500 and 2000. Ferguson is a lively and engaging writer who steps into the sweep of a 500-year history with verve and flair. Ferguson is not adverse to controversy, and he doesn't shy away from making judgments. This has made him a controversial figure within the ranks of some historians. In addition, he moonlights as a commentator on current events. Nevertheless, I think we can disagree with him and still find him very persuasive.

Ferguson argues that competition, property rights and liberty, modern medicine, the Scientific Revolution, consumer goods, and the work (or word) ethic distinguished Europe and its progeny (North America and Australasia) from its rivals in the Ottoman empire and China, both of which were surely were more advanced than most of Europe as of 1500. Indeed, the "great divergence" begins about 1800.

Some have criticized Ferguson for underplaying the detrimental aspects of European colonial empires. However, I find these criticisms unpersuasive. Ferguson, who certainly has a combative streak in him, argues that colonialism, for all its downsides, nevertheless has some good sides. In some sense, this is simply a truism. Ferguson certainly notes some of the horrors associated with colonial rule. He does not spend much time dealing with the day-to-day indignities that colonialism entailed. Nevertheless, his critics seem to miss the point. That point is that Western civilization brought cultural, scientific, and industrial advances to portions of the world where they would not have arisen or where they would only have arisen much later.

Perhaps Ferguson is most interesting in this work when he talks about where we go from today. Has he argues in his book, Japan was the first of the Asian nations to take up and apply the "killer apps" of the West. Other Asian nations have done so quite successfully, and China is now in the midst of making an incredible transformation. Ferguson notes, however, that few of the Asian nations have "downloaded" all of the apps. For instance, China has only a limited sense of private property and no real democracy. Russia has some vestige of democracy, but no real sense of property rights. Ferguson suggests that in order for any nation to get all of the benefits of this heritage, all of the "apps" must be downloaded and run.

Ferguson also delves into where we might head from here. His greatest concern is that empires in the past have often collapsed quite suddenly. Rome, the Soviet Union, and numerous other examples show a sudden and drastic collapse as opposed to the stereotype of a slow decline. He ponders the possibility that current Western nations may suffer the same fate. Knowing that it is very difficult to predict the future (a point about which I think that he would agree), one can only speak conditionally; nonetheless, this prior pattern causes some concern. By the way, Ferguson delves into complexity theory and sudden tipping points that might cause collapse, an important and fruitful perspective.

This book makes a fine companion to Ian Morris's book. Both deal with the transition that distinguished Western Europe and its offspring from the remainder of the world. This is one of the great historical phenomena. It is the dominant narrative of the past 500 years, and Ferguson conversation in an engaging and worthwhile manner.

In sum, I highly recommend this book, and I enjoyed a great deal. If you're looking for a good overview of what happened and why, this is it an excellent place to start.

QT: Niall Ferguson on Debt, the EU & the US

2011-11-22T21:50:00.000-06:00

We are in a hard place. Yes, we need to reduce debt, and yes, we need stimulus. We have to put the petal to the metal and then drive like granny. Not an easy course to successfully follow. No, I don't think that Washington is quite like Athens or Rome, but we do need to be careful. Sticky wicket, I say.

QT: Jack Goldstone Gets It Right on the Supercommittee

2011-11-22T14:17:00.000-06:00

Goldstone posts his comment from back in August and I must say, he seems to have nailed it from the beginning. President Obama needs to step up vigorously on these issues.

QT: Drew Weston Again on Obama

2011-11-17T08:20:00.000-06:00

I don't want to belabor a point, but I think that Drew Weston has again found a serious weakness in President Obama's decision-making regime. One senses a lack of strong, forceful leadership from the president. My hopes were buoyed by his adoption of a new stimulus program to go to Congress, but everything seems to be languishing. I do believe that the American electorate, as it so often does, foisted its hopes onto Obama in a way that he never justified, nor did he discourage. Indeed, every politician has to hope for such a magical time. However, the downside is that difficult decisions need to be made, and those difficult decisions define the decision-maker at each turn. Thus, a blank slate can no longer remain blank, and some hopes can no longer be projected onto that person. Obama is bright and has good instincts, but I share a sense that he lacks the fighting characteristics that made someone like FDR a great president.

Johan Huizinga on History

2011-11-16T22:08:00.001-06:00

I'm listening to David Brooks's The Social Animal (quite fun), and he throws in this quote from the great Dutch historian Johan Huizinga about the feeling he received from engaging history:

A feeling of immediate contact with the past is a sensation as deep as the present enjoyment of art; it is an almost ecstatic sensation of no longer being myself, of overflowing into the world around me, of touching the essence of things, of through history experiencing the truth.

In my own modest way, I understand what Huizinga says. The stories of history often engross me, and they have since I was a little guy. Not just "what happened?" but more a matter of "what's going on here?", something deeper than--although dependent on--narrative. Perhaps call it narrative plus. I think great novelists can capture it, and I suspect that great novelists and great historians have much in common (hat tip to John Lukacs). Anyway, an interesting quote (found @ p. 233 of Brooks book).

Henry Kissinger on George Kennan

2011-11-13T11:38:00.000-06:00

Yesterday I posted an entry about Henry Kissinger, and in doing so I noted that he, along with George Kennan, are probably the two most important figures in American foreign policy outside of some presidents (and more important than some presidents). In the New York Times today, Kissinger reviews the new biography of George Kennan by John Lewis Gaddis. Kissinger's review is lengthy and thorough. Kennan is a complex figure, and Kissinger argues that Kennan would offer both realist and idealist visions that often contradicted each other. This trait limited Kennan's work as a policymaker, but it contributed to the deep insights that he could provide to those in power. As John Lukacs also notes, Kissinger remarks that Kennan is a superb prose stylist.

This new book is going to near the top of my reading list. As readers of this blog may recall, Lukacs has written about his friend can in a short biography and Lukacs published a selection of the letters that they exchanged over the course of around 40 years. It will be interesting to compare perspectives of the authorized biographer Gaddis with those of the friend Lukacs.

Kennan is an intriguing figure, who, like many number of great persons, he is at once contradictory, vexing, and inspiring. Full of very human foibles, but full of striking insights and accomplishments as well, I'm sure that this book will prove worthwhile. I look forward reporting on further in the future blog post.

Kissinger: National Geographic Documentary

2011-11-12T18:36:00.001-06:00

Along with George Kennan, probably no other other American in the 20th century--excluding some presidents--has had such a profound (and controversial) influence on American foreign policy than Henry Kissinger. Love him or hate him (and he's been the subject of strong emotional reactions for a long time), this recent interview, which runs about an hour and a half, takes us into his world. Still quite sharp into his 80's, he reflects on his time as national security adviser and has Secretary of State. His interviewer, Niall Ferguson, who's undertaking an authorized biography of Kissinger, is barely heard in this interview, as the words come almost exclusively from Kissinger. Because of his incredible role in relations with the Soviet Union, China, the Middle East, and Viet Nam, his reflections on these events and situations is bound to hold interest.

On the other hand, the interview doesn't hold the pathos, sense of revelation, and soul-baring that Robert McNamara's interview in Errol Morris's film, The Fog of War, displayed. Perhaps it's the Irish-American McNamara's personality vs. that of the German-Jewish immigrant Kissinger's that accounts for the differences. In any event, if you're interested in recent history and American foreign policy, it's well worth the time to view this.

I found this to take a moment say again what I fine collection our public library (ICPL) holds. Another gem!

QT: A Better Food Pyramid

2011-11-06T13:37:00.001-06:00

Although I'm an imperfect practitioner (hell, I'm pretty imperfect at about everything), I do think that Mark Sisson has the best all-around advice on health and nutrition. (He's a bit less draconian than Art DeVany, so maybe that's why he gets my nod by a nose.) Anyway, here's his (and my perfect) food pyramid. Yea, that's right. Try it, and I'll bet you like it (i.e., feel better & test better.)

QT: More Chris McDougall on Running

2011-11-06T13:30:00.001-06:00

If anyone could convince me to run, it would be Chris McDougall. I joke that I only want to run if I'm chasing or being chased. But more likely, it just wasn't ever comfortable, whatever that means. Anyone, here is more McDougall (of Born to Run fame) on the latest in barefoot running. Don' miss this video, either. I just might try it!

Austerity vs. Stimulus: The False Dichotomy

2011-11-03T17:33:00.000-05:00

This conversation highlights a big problem, well, maybe a couple.

The press promotes the idea of a dichotomy of thinking where I think none exists. Ferguson agrees that some stimulus further stimulus could prove useful (and that it did keep us from going over the cliff), and Krugman acknowledges that in the long-term that we need to get our fiscal house in order by dealing with debt. The press does us a disservice when they promote this either-or thinking. Of course, Ferguson, who seems to relish verbal brawls, may make matters appear more stark than they are. His point, that things could crumble quickly, seems worth heeding, but Krugman's worry of a slow crumble (slow growth, high unemployment) also presents dangers. We're in a tight spot, and sound thinkers need to navigate between the extremes.

I might note that this video piece by Ferguson supports my point, although his endorsement of tax reform as a third way strikes me as misguided at best (more below). Not that we couldn't stand to improve our tax code (see Robert Franks & Richard Thaler for some really innovative ideas), but how does this really help us? On the other hand, putting people into meaningful work--read infrastructure upgrades--seems very doable and worthwhile.

Note to Ferguson: You're right that we're always fighting the last war (see his comments on Milton Friedman and Keynes), but he fails to say that history NEVER repeats itself. Of course, "this depression is different", but how different? I think we are seeing some new wrinkles (as Ferguson notes re inequality). So, he's right to suggest new answers, but I doubt the tax system. Also, corporate taxes may not work in principle, but then they are "persons" (NOT "people"). (Persons is a legal term in this context.) Anyway, new thinking and updated perspective are always needed, but the tax code business seems quite lame.

Ferguson loves to pick a fight, I think.

My motto, Keynes in crisis; Hayek day-to-day.

On China by Henry Kissinger

2011-10-30T21:49:00.002-05:00

When I was an undergraduate in my class on 19th Century Europe with David Schoenbaum, he assigned us to read A World Restored, Kissinger’s work on the Congress of Vienna that created the post-Napoleonic European state system that lasted until the First World War. Of course, we knew who Kissinger was, as he was then serving as Secretary of State, and before then he served as Nixon’s national security adviser. Since then, I’ve read a big chunk of his book Diplomacy (very interesting, but I got distracted, by another book project. I’m definitely going back). Thus, as you can discern, Dr. K has some credentials with me. But, I thought, isn’t he really an expert on the European state system, you know, Westphalia, Vienna, Versailles, etc.? What does he know about China? I know that he went there to pave the way for the rapprochement led by Nixon, but just another stop on a busy itinerary, right?

Wrong, wrong, wrong. At age 88, he’s published a very engaging, nuanced book about China’s relation to the world that provides a fascinating and lasting impression. In fact, Dr. K has been to China on over 50 occasions, and he continued to meet with Chinese leaders well after he left office. Thus, we get the insights and thoroughness of a great scholar as well as the insights of a statesman who lived and contributed to much of the history that he discusses.

Dr. K understands Chinese strategic thinking. For instance, think of the Japanese game called “go” as the eastern counterpart to chess in the West. These two games display different perspectives on strategic thinking. After this foray into culture, Kissinger goes deeply into Chinese history in the 19th century, as China comes under domination by the Western powers. He recounts how China begins its long march back to great power status (where certainly it is today). Kissinger documents the Chinese perspective very well (at least from my limited knowledge). Of course, when he becomes a player, things begin to get more interesting in the book and in the world. The great Chinese leaders now come alive under first-hand observation. What a treat!

The final part of the book allows Kissinger to analyze how the future might unfold in light of the past. The historical example most often cited as a precedent for U.S.—Chinese relations is the rise of Germany in the second half of the 19th century and how that challenged Great Britain, the dominant power. Of course, we know that these two leading powers collided in WWI, a huge calamity. Are the U.S. and China destined for a violent encounter as China rises relative to the U.S.? Kissinger gives hope that this precedent need not prove the case. In this discussion, Kissinger shows himself the true statesman and diplomat. Careful and nuanced considerations of national interests, strategic, economic, and cultural (including human rights issues)—all must be carefully weighed, valued, and applied. No, there are not quick and easy answers, but answers, he believes, can be found.

A terrific book (best of the year)? I should also add that I listened to it, and the narrator, who sounded quite American most of the time, pronounced Chinese names as I would expect 1HP to have pronounced them, so this lent an air of authenticity to the reading.

1HP: After you’ve read this book, I would be delighted to share a guest post.

Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength by Roy Baumeister & John Tierney

2011-10-30T21:09:00.001-05:00

Social psychologist Baumeister and science journalist Tierney have teamed up to provide a popular account of type of academic work that Baumeister and his colleagues have conducted. This body of research has given us a new perspective on the age-old problem of the will. Actually, as scholars as diverse as Hannah Arendt and Garry Wills have written about the fact that St. Augustine developed the idea of the will in Western culture, a concept that the Greeks never really developed (although they were quite concerned with issues of self-control and self-regulation). Augustine was trying to understand why he didn’t always do as he would have himself do, a problem explored in Greek culture (witness Odysseus binding himself to the mast, Aristotle on habit, and St. Paul on why he does what he would not), but never directly addressed. No writer until Augustine addressed this topic head-on. In any event, having perceived myself as suffering a weak will, I’ve certainly read on the topic, and I find this book a welcome and useful addition to this literature.

The authors do a good job of mixing the findings of academic research with reports on contemporary and historical individuals as exemplars of willpower. David Blaine, the magician and stunt artist (which I do not intend as a derogatory term), David Allen (of GTD fame), Eric Clapton (recovering alcoholic), Oprah (dieting victim), and Stanley (of “Dr. Livingstone, I presume” fame), all provide true stories of individuals dealing with particular problems of will. This mix of reporting academic research with real-life examples works well (although how their findings and conclusions fit with Victorian willpower isn’t as completely explored as I would like).

The takeaway: we have a certain amount of willpower (which can increase with training), but which declines with use (thus drawing on the some ideas of Freud as the ego as a fixed reserve). Interestingly, researchers have found that a dose of sugar (energy) works to increase willpower when it begins to flag. In addition, dieting, as the “perfect storm” for challenging willpower, gets an interesting chapter to itself. Think about it: you’re exerting extra willpower and you’re short on energy, so the brain orders (loudly) “eat!”. That’s why it’s important to develop life-long good habits.

One other area that they don’t explore is the Buddhist mindfulness tradition and other traditions (Gurdjieff, for instance) and how the academic research might fit with spiritual and philosophical ideas of willpower. Indeed, many religious traditions contain examples of extraordinary self-control and awareness. How does this all fit in? I suggest that we have to write that chapter ourselves.

In the end: a fun, interesting, and useful book. Recommended.

QT: Niall Ferguson TED Talk on the Great Divergence

2011-10-02T13:30:00.000-05:00

Niall Ferguson provides a TED talk summary of his forthcoming Civilization: The West and the Rest (2011). In this talk and book (I've read reviews of its publication in the UK this spring), he provides an account of why China, especially, fell back from the West (Europe, U.S./Canada/and Autral-asia) at the beginning of the 19th century, and how China, other Asian nations, and perhaps Latin America, have closed that gap and will likely soon end it. An intriguing and important issue. Ferguson does a fine job of making his points.

QT: Tyler Cowen on Republican Confusion

2011-10-02T11:24:00.000-05:00

Tyler Cowen argues persuasively that Republican no-tax ideology (or should we say zealotry) will lead to higher taxes and a worse fiscal position for the U.S. government. Ironic, yes, like a lot in life. Getting through it requires thought, which the Republicans are woefully short of. So sad.

QT: NNT on Taxes

2011-10-02T11:21:00.000-05:00

I think that he has a very good point here. Of course, some investors, say Warren Buffett & Charlie Munger, have exercised significant skills (including self-restraint), but a fair amount of success in this area is a matter of luck. Add Robert Frank's suggestion of a progressive tax on expenditure (if this is the right term), we'd probably all be better off.

QT: Jack Goldstone on Why the Deer in the Headlights

2011-09-25T22:13:00.000-05:00

Jack Goldstone, a scholar, asks a very direct and important question that has motivated much of his career research and that proves very relevant today: why do government officials, with all of the experts and resources that one could hope to muster, make such poor decisions? His answer, they are politicians concerned about holding office first, and leaders only second. One's first thought might be, well, they ought not to be concerned about reelection. But even if we could convince someone to leave a prestigious, good-paying job, a second reason should compel caution. Without holding office, one cannot do anything in terms of enacting a political agenda . So, caution, and kicking problems down the road. I predicted that Obama would be on the receiving end of some real time bombs, and this has proven true. He has to deal with some of them; others, such as global climate change, he (and most of the rest of the world) seem willing to kick further down the road. So, do we have weakness of will in societies?

QT: David Frum on What Obama Did Wrong

2011-09-25T21:25:00.001-05:00

Not the usual Republican hatchet job. Instead, a thoughtful and useful critique. Query: can Obama learn from these mistakes?

QT: Was the Bomb Necessary?

2011-09-24T16:01:00.000-05:00

New scholarship about the Japanese and how WWII came to an end in the Pacific. Maybe the A-bomb wasn't the key factor, in which case . . . . Such constant probing and questioning really can challenge our conventional thinking, and that's a very good thing. An intriguing article.

QT: About Collective Violence & Rioting

2011-09-24T15:55:00.000-05:00

As I'm afraid that we're likely to see more unrest around the world, for good (Arab Spring?) or ill (London riots), this is a pertinent piece. Jack Goldstone on revolutions is a good source also.

QT: On my "to read" list: A.S. Byatt on a Norse myth

2011-09-24T15:52:00.002-05:00

This sounds like a very interesting read. And as a LeGuin fan, and knowing of Byatt by reputation, it all seems like a good idea. However, I don't find it in bookstores or libraries here.

QT: Dr. Kurt Harris on What to Eat (and not to eat)

2011-09-24T15:48:00.001-05:00

Here's an interesting summary of a primal perspective from a doc that trained here in Iowa City. Now he works in the area of primal (my term, not his) nutritian. He seems quite sensible in his recommendations. Within this general train of thought you can find a lot of very thoughtful and useful recommendations about how to improve your physical being.

QT: Jack Goldstone on Why Growth is Gone

2011-09-24T15:44:00.001-05:00

Sad, but likely true. Of course, policy-makers aren't helping.

QT: Tony Judt on Contemporary Politics

2011-09-24T15:43:00.001-05:00

Only shortly before his untimely death did I become acquainted with the work of historian Tony Judt. This piece is a timely meditation on what we're losing, on how the post-WWII consensus worked well in the U.S. and Europe. This piece is an elegy for what we're losing, if not for what we've lost. Like most of the pieces I've now read for him, he appears to have great insight.

QT: Paul Krugman on Economic Quackery

2011-09-24T15:39:00.001-05:00

Krugman ponders the last one of the questions that I posed earlier. He can't seem to figure it out, either.

QT: Jack Goldstone on Failing to Learn from History

2011-09-24T15:37:00.000-05:00

Jack Goldstone makes a similar point to John Juddis noted in the previous post. Isn't this a fascinating subject? Are we repeating the mistakes of the past? I know Bernacke doesn't want to, and I doubt many others do, but many politicians and many in the electorate seem hell bent on the deficit issue when we're teetering on the edge of a depression. BTW, who is John Maynard Keynes, anyway?

QT: John Juddis on Economic Doom

2011-09-24T15:33:00.001-05:00

John Judis has written a fascinating article on our economic predicament. Alas, so few seem to know history, not just Mitt Romney suffers this shortcoming. Why do we want to repeat the 1930's? Okay, we can't ever exactly, but we can make it way too similar if we continue down our current path.

Check out Paul Krugman's comment on the article (and where I first learned of it).

QT: Jack Goldstone on the Econ Crisis Redux

2011-09-24T11:16:00.002-05:00

Goldstone sounds a lot like Krugman, although Goldstone is a historian and social scientist who has written about revolutions, the coming of early modern Europe, etc. Worthwhile, because in these times, history is our best guide.

QT: David Frum on the Great Recession

2011-09-24T11:13:00.000-05:00

QT = Quick Takes. I'm going to cite some interesting reading that I've encountered and have been meaning to post. Here favorite Republican thinker (not an oxymoron) David Frum has a worthwhile take on America's troubles given to a Canadian audience. If more Republicans were like Frum, we'd have a much better result. Anyway, I find many of his contentions quite worthwhile and convincing.

June 1941: Hitler & Stalin by John Lukacs

2011-09-24T11:08:00.000-05:00

Published in 2006 and weighing in at 164 pages, this is another John Lukacs gem. While in my last post I pondered the incredible evil of these two totalitarian dictators and how difficult it would be to weigh the relative evils of themselves and their systems, this book gives things a different look. Lukacs notes that both men were "statesmen", not in a laudatory sense, but in the sense that each of them ran great states that had goals of securing and aggrandizing their positions. They each had goals, and they cooperated in dividing Poland between them in 1939. Then, in June 1941, Hitler launched Operation Barbarosa, invading the Soviet Union. Stalin, who had received numerous warnings from varied sources, refused to believe the warnings. He nearly suffered a nervous breakdown when it happened.

Lukacs recounts these events well, including the use of recently released Soviet archives. But Lukacs does not answer the question of why Stalin refused all of the warnings. Perhaps no one can. Nevertheless, this is a fine portrait of the two leaders who cooperated and then crossed one another, and told by a master historian. Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union led to his eventual downfall. What if he had succeeded? He came close to winning the Second World War. On the other hand, Stalin did succeed eventually and ended up controlling virtually all of Eastern Europe for nearly 36 years. Great forces may set the stage for history, but individual human decisions still create the action.

Norman Davies: No Simple Victory: WWII in Europe 1939-1945

2011-09-23T22:37:00.000-05:00

We can think of WWII as well picked-over territory. Persons my age grew up with it in books, films, and television. If, like me, you're a history buff, it makes for easy pickings. However, I think that there's more to this event than simply easy access and relatively recent memory. Less than 10 years before I was born, when my parents were in the prime of their youth, the world was a hell in large measure. Why and how this could be? How leaders deal with the stark facts of the age? These questions are not easily answered, and their continuing consideration by historians remains an area of fascination. Anyway, this is just a prelude to why I listened to this book and read others like it.

This particular book is fascinating because Norman Davies, is primarily a historian of Eastern Europe, and he places his emphasis on events that occurred on the eastern front. WWII, in Europe, was decided in the east, with the Americans and the Brits and their allies in the west playing an ancillary role. The Soviet army, with guns at their backs from the commissars, as well as in their faces from the Nazi's, defeated the Third Reich. Davies makes all of this clear. In addition, he raised in my mind a further question: was Hitler worse than Stalin, our ally? I'm not so sure, and that's not because I think any less of the Nazi regime. The art of comparative terror and evil is perhaps beyond comprehension, but if we attempt it, we see that we did indeed "supp with the devil" (Churchill on the alliance with Stalin). We did not know the full extent of Stalin's evils at the time, but now we do. Davies makes all of this clear. That politics--and war--makes strange bedfellows is a truism, but for all of it's truth, when one stops and examines it, it nonetheless boggles the mind.

If your looking for a history of WWII (excluding the Pacific theater), you would certainly do well with this effort. I know that there are some newer ones and more comprehensive histories, but this does open one's eyes to the horror and craziness of it all. I recommend it highly.

E. Dionne: If He's Happy, I'm Happy

2011-09-09T09:38:00.000-05:00

I missed the President's big speech last night since I was traveling and meeting with clients. However, if Dionne's report is accurate--and from the snippets I saw in TV, it is--then Obama has done what I believe he should do: not only propose a new jobs program, but also lay down the smack to the Republicans. He did both. Bully for him! And good for all of the rest of us!

I spoke to a local Democratic legislator Wednesday night after we both heard former Labor Secretary Robert Reich speak @ the IMU, and I shared these concerns. As she pointed out, Obama has to compromise because the Republicans were putting a gun to our heads with the politics of threat. However, I argued, and still do, that Obama has to rally his troops and show the nation who wants to do what. Protect the very wealthiest from tax cuts? Allow joblessness to linger? Pick up the failed policies of the 1930's? Not for me buddy, and not without going down with a fight. You go Obama!

David Frum: What Inflation?

2011-08-24T11:50:00.000-05:00

David Frum continues to amaze me because he keeps pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. In this case, that we don't have an inflation problem, we have a deflation problem. We are in a depression. It's refreshing to read and consider thoughts of someone who considers himself a conservative but who has an open mind. It shouldn't be that way. What we call conservative thought (free market, limited government, etc.) isn't crazy, it has some sound points. But the current crop of Republican presidential candidates are like Stepford wives, all parroting the same contra-factual mantras. It's really crazy, and really sad. Frum should run!

Alexander McCall Smith: The Sunday Philosophy Club

2011-08-21T22:17:00.001-05:00

On whim I picked this up @ ICPL, and I found it a delightful read (and it has nothing to do with WWII). If you know Smith from the No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency, you'll find that his manner transforms well to his native Scotland. Ms. Dalhousie, the protagonist, is a rather appealing character. She edits the Journal of Applied Ethics, having studied philosophy at Cambridge, and her comments on life, philosophy, and any manner of subjects are light and engaging. You rather feel that you'd enjoy knowing this woman (and feel badly that the love of her life--who hardly seems worthy in retrospect--passed her by). Smith has a way of making his characters engage you, much like Precious Ramotswe does in the No. Ladies Detective Agency series. (Does Smith have some special insight into women?). Anyway, an engaging and fun read. No action packed adventure, just lots of careful people assessment, hypothesis development and testing (and discarding), and appreciation of this small slice of humanity. I'll read another one!

John Lukacs: The Hitler of History

2011-08-21T20:34:00.000-05:00

After reading about the events of 1938 leading up to the Munich Conference of that year that gave the world "appeasement", I went back to the great historian John Lukacs's consideration of Hitler in this book. (I'd read it about a decade ago on a trip to Montreal with Iowa Guru & Africa Girl. Memories associate well with places.) As with virtually all of Lukacs's work, it bore re-reading. Lukacs treats Hitler for what he was: a human being, a politician, and even--perhaps--a statesman. After all, Hitler had political aims in his war (and WWII was his war, Lukacs argues). As with most of Lukacs's work, it's hard to summarize because he throws out nuggets of insight here and there like he's blithely sowing seeds along a garden path. This is a book about other books and historians as much as Hitler himself, and this, too, makes it different, interesting, and well worthwhile.

Am I Smitten? More on Rick Perry

2011-08-19T10:57:00.000-05:00

Am I smitten with Rick Perry, or what? This guy intrigues me, and as this post by Michael Tomasky contends, he makes George W. Bush look wise, intelligent, and informed. Wow--now that's a talent! Whereas W used to whisper some of his nonsense, Perry uses a bullhorn to advertise his ignorance and prejudice. If you think about it, from George H.W. Bush to George W. Bush to Rick Perry: isn't this a strong argument for devolution? Darwin in reverse?

The other point of this article is another call to arms for President Obama. As a fellow b-ball player, I understand that Obama doesn't want to get into an elbow swinging match with his opponents, that's sucker stuff. Obama, however, shouldn't want not get even, but to get ahead (thanks Walter "Clyde" Frazier). The greats, like Jordan, Magic, Bird, West, Robertson--they didn't put elbows into opponents mouths, they put stilettos between their ribs. Obama is a cool guy (in more ways than one), but he has to coolly put it to his political opponents, with just a touch of fire. Maybe Obama needs to spend some time watching NBA Classics.

David Frum on Sarah Palin & The Lesson We Should Learn

2011-08-18T09:48:00.000-05:00

David Frum is lining up as my second favorite conservative writer behind David Brooks. We might disagree about a number of things, but I imagine that I would have a very enjoyable conversation with the guy if we sat down to talk shop. In this particular article, he tells us the brains are important in choosing presidential canidates, character and not demographics are important in choosing presidential candidates, and that women weren't fooled by Sarah Palin, but men, apparently going all instinctual, were. Three points that make a lot of sense to me. His asides in the column about Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are right on point as well.

I Told You So Edition--Thank you, Christina Romer

2011-08-16T16:11:00.000-05:00

In follow up to this post, I can't help but point out this article by former Obama administration economist Christina Romer (and now Berkley econ prof) about FDR's administration and its errors, including the budget-balancing business of 1937 (along with Fed money restrictions). I guess great minds think alike. I'm glad that I posted before her article appeared. :)

If Karl Rove thinks this . . . . ?

2011-08-16T16:05:00.000-05:00

My goodness, if Karl Rove thinks that Perry is off his rocker, what should the rest of us think? This adds to my sense that Republicans are utterly bankrupt when it comes to compelling leadership, and the rank-and-file are dominated by the Christian Right (which out to be an oxymoron, but sadly isn't). How sad! How different from the British Conservatives. David Cameron strikes me as intelligent and reasonable, albeit misguided with his current austerity program. Do the Republicans have anyone in that league? If they do, they're hiding for fear of the Tea Party types. Sad and scary.

Et Tu, China? Niall Ferguson's Assessment

2011-08-15T22:43:00.000-05:00

Courtesy of Walter Russell Mead's blog: Ferguson seems not so sure that China won't hit the same problems that we did with a real estate bubble of its own. Very interesting! Bubbles, everywhere, all ready to pop!

Rick Perry: Could This Guy Become President With These Views?

2011-08-15T22:40:00.000-05:00

I thought that George W. Bush was one of the least qualified and least capable individuals to have been nominated or elected president. Events, I contend, bore me out. Now we have this guy Perry. Why on earth would we vote him into office? If his views that Yglesias quotes from his book aren't enough, note this Krugman analysis of his supposed big selling point. Are we as a country really going off the deep end?

Munich, 1938: Appeasement & WWII by David Faber

2011-08-13T16:34:00.000-05:00

David Faber's book (2008, 437 p.) focuses on the events leading up to the Munich Conference of 1937 wherein Neville Chamberlain and the French (with Mussolini looking on) bargained away parts of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in return for "peace in our time". Well, it didn't work. In fact, Faber's book, which focuses primarily on Hitler's actions (and luck) and British diplomatic efforts, shows how Hitler ran the table of Austria and most of Czechoslovakia without firing a shot. Chamberlain does seem clueless in the face of Hitler. Faber's narrative is detailed and interesting, but I would have appreciated more background on the primary players, like Chamberlain & Halifax, and those in the Foreign Office, in addition to Eden, who questioned appeasement. The diplomatic efforts were intense, but no one in power was willing to call Hitler's bluff, if it was a bluff (an interesting historical question). An interesting book, but not one to approach without a firm background knowledge. (I believe my background knowledge to have been adequate but I would have benefited, as I mentioned, from more scene and character setting.)

1937: Deja Vu All Over Again?

2011-08-12T17:18:00.001-05:00

I've been saying (even if no one is listening) that FDR took us into a severe downturn in 1937 with his budget-balancing mania (Keynes apparently didn't get his message across in time), and it looks like the Obama administration is doing the same thing. Of course history doesn't repeat itself (exactly), but sometimes you can see the same pattern.

Krugman: A Sense of Humor Amid the Wreckage

2011-08-12T09:06:00.000-05:00

Krugman's sense of humor today is worthwhile, one post on "academia nuts" and this cartoon. Krugman, one senses, has an appreciation of the "animal spirits". Anyway, I read him for laughs as well as insights.