Favorite Movies

C & I were talking about favorite movies, and so I had to come up with a list. But before getting into the list (and a long one it is), three movies deserve a shout-out as precursors to later viewing preferences. These three movies I remember seeing at the "old" Page Theatre, before it so spectacularly burned down. These are:
South Pacific (1958). I remember my mother taking me to see this. It combines WWII and the musical. While I'm not at C's level as a musical lover, nonetheless, I am a life-long fan. And, of course, WWII has been an interest that I've kept my whole life. Maybe trying to understand that phenomena is what got my so interested in history. Or maybe I was just googly-eyed for Mitzi Gaynor.
Journey to the Center of the Earth (1959).This starred James Mason, whose brooding presence has always intrigued me. Also, this is my first cinematic encounter with SF and fantasy. (I don't remember seeing the Disney films at this age.). Now, the special effects look crude and the script cheesy, but I loved it.
Sink the Bismarck!. (1960).This was such a treat to see. Not only seeing the film, but my parents bought me a copy of the 45 rpm record of Johnny Horton's "Sink the Bismarck". The movie, in black and white, stars Kenneth Moore and the lovely Dana Wynter, who was very pretty in my seven year-old eyes. Part of the story is told from the headquarters of the Royal Navy where they tracked the Bismarck and then battle footage. A very cool movie—well to my seven-year old mind.
Okay, now the real list. I will put them in no special order of preference, although perhaps some very favorites and earliest seen toward the top.

1. Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964). I saw this in high school on television, and the image of Slim Pickens riding the Bomb down, waving his cowboy hat, struck me right away: this movie is out there. The craziness and relevance of it? 1HP was assigned to watch it as a part of her international relations class about 30 years after I first saw it.
2. Fail- Safe (1964). This movie came out around the same time as Strangelove, but Fail-Safe was grittier, grimmer film. Henry Fonda, of course, makes an excellent president. A chilling film—I think that I went into shock when I heard the high whistle the first time that I saw it, and it still gives me a chill on seeing it again. Directed by Sidney Lumet.
3. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969). What can you say about this, except Newman & Redford are so good in this, plus I like Katherine Ross, too. Redford's drollness is too good, and Newman provides the perfect foil.
4. Dr. Zhivago. This is the only "epic" film on my list, but I have a certain sentimental rationale here. C & I went to see it in March 1970, on what I believe was our third date. She flattered me by asking questions about the personages and events of the Russian Revolution. What a great start for us! David Lean directed and Robert Bold (A Man for All Seasons) wrote the screenplay.
5. The Graduate (1967). C & I went to this in Hamburg, Iowa (yes, you read that correctly) after our freshman year in college. The film arrived in Hamburg a bit later than in other venues, it seems; however, I was ripe for seeing it. I think that I've seen it more times than any other movie. As social satire and commentary goes, it's hard to beat. Dustin Hoffman is great. Again, the lovely Katherine Ross, plus other great character actors. Directed by Mike Nichols.
6. Star Wars: A New Hope (1977) and Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (1980). You may ask why Star Wars: The Return of the Jedi is not on the list, and I must say that it seems to me not quite as compelling as the first two. However, the difference may lie with the company I kept for the first two. For Star Wars, as it was first known, I took my young nephew Andy as an excuse to go; for The Empire Strikes Back, my nephews Eron & Jake came along with C & R to the movie theatre in the Quad Cities to see it. This company enhanced the viewing experience; however, who could not fall for the combination of Saturday matinee serial thriller with hero myth, romance, and an American tough-guy character?
7. The Third Man (1949). A shout-out here to the Bijou Theatre at the University of Iowa. Before VHS and CDs, if you wanted to see an older movie, other than the potluck of television, you went to the Bijou. At was at the Bijou that I saw The Third Man for the first time, a great film directed by Carol Reed and starring Joseph Cotton and Orson Wells. The screenplay is by Graham Greene. The chase scene through the sewers of Vienna—great stuff. Also, a wonderful soundtrack based on the zither. (Very popular in the Amana Colonies!) A compelling story and a very well made film. If you like this, try the Greene-Reed collaboration in "A Fallen Idol".
8. Kagemusha: The Shadow Warrior (1980). While living in Champagne and before the birth of 1HP, Con and I took a chance on this movie, and we were blown away. The action, the colors, the staging, the story—this film seemed to us a masterpiece, and our first introduction to the great Akira Kurasowa.
9. Sanjuro. I am embarrassed to say that while in college, and even after C and I discovered foreign flicks, I shied away from the Japanese films. I'd seen Rodan and Godzilla—no thanks. How foolish I was! Kurasowa's chopstick westerns are a real treat. I picked this film over the more well-known and highly acclaimed Seven Samurai and almost equally well-known Roshomon, both great films. I picked this one because is combines a whimsical mirth and the action film.
10. North by Northwest (1959 ). First impressions can so deceive us. My earliest encounter with Hitchcock was to get up the courage to watch Psycho. Then The Birds on network TV, but I think that I had to wait to see this one. Gary Grant and Hitchcock (and James Mason!) and others make this a great film, I think my favorite among Hitchcock films (and he made many great ones).
11. Death in Venice (1971). This film by Italian Luchino Visconti was gorgeous: gorgeous filming and gorgeous music (Mahler's 5^th Symphony adagio movement). Dirk Bogarde plays the lead in this terrific adaptation of Thomas Mann's short novel.
12. The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara (2003). I think that this will be the only documentary on my list, but we can almost view it as a tragedy. Errol Morris's documentary on Robert McNamara, including extensive interview footage of McNamara, displays to me an almost tragic sense of the man. He was not evil, he wanted to do well for his country, his family, and himself, yet Viet Nam, and all that it entailed, dragged him down. The film, I think, treats these issues fairly.
13. Henry V (1989). This is my favorite Shakespeare on film. One reason, perhaps, is that I borrowed my nephews Eron and Jake to come with me to Omaha to watch it with me. (Thanks, fellas, as you may have thought me nuts to drag you out to such a movie.) Branagh's version was just right, with a great supporting cast, including Emma Thompson as the French princess. Their scene together at the end was just right. I'd seen Olivier's version before seeing Branagh's, and it's certainly wonderful, but Branagh's young king comes closer to getting it right. For fun, compare Olivier's and Branagh's St. Crispin Day speeches—so different!
14. The Philadelphia Story (1940 ). It's a Cary Grant movie. It's a Kathryn Hepburn movie. It's a Jimmy Stewart movie. It's all three in one! Quick, witty, insightful. It's just a great movie. George Cukor directed.
15. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (1979) and Smiley's People (1982). Okay, C already complained that these are not movies. True, they were made for TV; however, because of the quality of the script, acting, and production design, I have to treat them as films. These are to me what the Godfather films are to C. I'm not sure that I can quote as well as her from the script (a frightening ability that she possesses when she quotes Vito or Michael to me), but still, if you want more, I'll give you an earful. Alec Guinness is superb as Smiley. The supporting cast consists of great actors.
16. The Shop Around the Corner (1940). This is a late discovery for C & I, but it's a gem. It stars Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullavan in what served a prototype of the more recent You've Got Mail, which is good, but not as charming as the original. Also, great character actors support the two stars.
17. To Kill a Mockingbird (1962). The first of some trial movies, this is one that I can't imagine everyone wouldn't find a favorite. What more can be said about this film?
18. Anatomy of a Murder (1959). This film is a grittier look at the world of criminal trials, and with Jimmy Stewart in the first chair, we get a pretty good account. The trial scenes are realistic enough to please me, but punchy enough for a general audience. One of the best trial movies.
19. The Winslow Boy (1999). This is another late find by C & I, and it's a gem. Directed by David Mamet (whose other films are quite good) and based on an older play, Mamet brings to life a delicate situation involving a young man accused of theft in Edwardian Britain, a barrister, and the boy's sister. The sexual tension and repartee between the barrister played by Jeremy Northam and the sister played by Rebecca Pidgeon works very well. A delightful film.
20. Twelve Angry Men (1957). Sidney Lumet puts Henry Fonda and eleven other outstanding actors in a small jury room, and he comes out with a truly compelling drama about a jury deciding a criminal case. Not having been privy to the inside of a jury deliberation, but having sought a lot of reports about what goes on, this strikes me as pretty realistic, as well as providing an outstanding drama. You have to really appreciate that the director and the actors could make such a confined space work in a movie.
21. The Black Stallion (1979). Thank goodness for your own children and my nephews because they give you an excuse to see some great flicks. This one is beautiful. It's a boy and his horse movie, very well done. A fine film score as well.
22. Into the West (1992). Our whole family saw this at the local mall. What a great blend of current Ireland, Irish mythology, and a nod the American Western. A fine soundtrack, too.
23. The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951). Early SF film, but really fine. It sticks with you. Michael Rennie and his robot friend lay down the smack to planet earth. Not to be missed, and don't forget the crucial words!
24. The Matrix (1999). SF taken up a notch. Great actions and XF, plus a compelling and fascinating story.
25. Love and Death (1975). Woody Allen had to get on my list, of course, but which one? While most would say Annie Hall, I have to go with this one as my sentimental favorite. From nods to Russian literature to slapstick, this has it all. "You must be Don Francisco's sister!"
26. Ferris Beuller's Day Off (1986). This is a family favorite. Pure fun.
27. The Shooting Party (1985). This is a little known film starring James Mason as the host at a hunting party at an English estate in 1913, before the outbreak of the Great War. It evokes England and Europe as it was on the eve of the cataclysm, with its class structure, petty concerns, and sense of foreboding. Mason's brief scene with John Gielgud is worth any price of admission. Also with Edward Fox and Gordon Jackson.
28. Joyeux Noel (2005). This is one of the most recent films on the list. It's the story of the spontaneous truce on the front in WWI. It provides a glimpse into the horror of the Great War and the humanity that continued to exist despite it. Beautifully done.
29. Paths of Glory (1957). Stanley Kubrick directs Kirk Douglas in this indictment of injustice set during the Great War. It's a war movie and a trial movie. Its trial scenes are among the best. It's a really compelling drama, which, like Joyeux Noel, finds some hope amongst all of the barbarity.
30. The Awful Truth (1937). The screwball comedy with Gary Grant and Irene Dunn is a favorite in this genre, and it's a great genre. Irene Dunn is a treat to watch.
31. The Thin Man (1934). This film, and the sequels, are great with William Powell and Myrna Loy—and of course, Asta! Pure enjoyment.
32. Chinatown (1974). This is at the opposite of The Thin Man in the detective/mystery category. It's noir done in color, with a great script and compelling performances by Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway, and John Huston.
33. It's a Wonderful Life (1946). One can't get too much Jimmy Stewart, and we need to have some Capra-corn for our viewing menu. This is classic, classic.
34. Harvey (1950). This play turned movie is great because of Elwood P. Dowd and his friend, the pooka, Harvey. If you want some laughs, this is a great choice. Of course, Elwood wouldn't be Elwood if Jimmy Stewart hadn't played him.
35. Waking Ned Devine
    (1998). The best of Irish blarney with veteran actors Ian Bannen and David Kelly giving hilarious and touching performances.
    
36. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
    (1980). This Ang Lee film goes where no martial arts film had gone before it: a sophisticated plot and characterization, beautiful cinematography, and—oh yes—great martial arts scenes. It was a "wow!" when C and Berna and I first saw it on a volleyball trip in the Chicago burbs, and it still is today.
    
37. Hero
    (2002). I couldn't leave it at Crouching Tiger, and Hero, by director Zhang Yimou, is a great piece of work. Jet Li and Zhang Ziyi star in this beautiful martial arts epic. The Tan Dun soundtrack is quite fine, also.
    
38. Last of the Mohicans (1992). Thinking of epics, and noting that I don't have any Westerns down, I do especially like this version of the great American novel. One wouldn't think a British actor (Daniel Day-Lewis) could pass for an American Indian, but he does. A well-done tale of the frontier.

I'm going to stop now, although I know that I'll think of more. Your comments invited. Thanks to all of those who went with me (most named herein)—many of my memories associate with whom I was with. And to borrow from Roger Ebert: see you at the movies!

John Gray Reviews Matt Ridley’s Rational Optimist

John Gray puts his finger on many of the misgivings I had about Ridley's book, The Rational Optimist (upon which I commented earlier). Gray's review in the New Statesman makes an interesting point about distinguishing evolution, progress, and actual human history. In addition, Gray points out that Ridley was chairman of Northern Rock, a major failed British bank. One would think that he would not be such a Pollyanna after that experience. Ridley seems to be indifferent to the risks of climate change, while not exactly becoming a climate skeptic. "We'll get used to it" seems to be his answer. I fear Mother Nature, and I don't suggest that we're wise to poke her unnecessarily. While I recommend Ridley's book because he does have an interesting and well-argued perspective, in the end, I come down much closer to Gray's analysis.

Garry Wills: Dinner with Obama & Afghanistan

Garry Wills ends his silence about the dinner that he and other well known American historians held with President Obama near the beginning of Obama's term. Wills reports that about one-half of the historians present expressed their concern about Afghanistan as a trap for the administration. Wills certainly shares this concern. This venture, which seemed so right to begin with, now presents us with a major problem. The crucial question: when will we know (if ever) that we have accomplished our mission?

Bamboo

Our back yard has abundant bamboo. Or, to state it more accurately, our backyard is nearly overrun with bamboo. However, this post from a great site, Presentation Zen, uses bamboo as a metaphor for seven important traits. So, maybe I'll now have more appreciation for all our bamboo.

Reading NYT Today: Sunday July 25, 2010

Several interesting pieces in the paper today, so for a bit of a pourpouri (and you thought only Jepordy! Used that word), here goes:

1. A fun but worthwhile piece by UC economist Richard Thaler comparing soccer officiating to financial regulation. A fine demonstration of the use of economic logic and thinking that applies well to two completely different fields.
   
2. Pankraj Mishra, whose book on the Buddha, Buddhism, and his own life provides an outstanding read, reviews two new books on the history of yoga. For yogi readers, the review is a must, and the books look promising as well.
   
3. Also for yogis, a very interesting article in the NYT Magazine profiling yoga practitioner John Friend, the developer of Anusara yoga. For our crew in Santa Fe, who attended two Anusara classes, it should prove especially interesting. I really enjoyed the yoga, so I looked forward to the article. I found the article well written and informative. The issue that always arises with yoga, and most any religion (not to say that yoga, as practiced by most, is a religion!), is whether the practice should remain pure and connected to its roots (the traditionalists) or whether it should adopt to new times and cultures (the adaptationists). In fact, I'd argue that the adaptationists always win. Christianity, whenever we say it began (with Jesus? with Paul?) has been repeatedly altered through the centuries, first and foremost by Greek philosophy, to mention only one example. Buddhism came to China and immediately changed, and then it moved to Japan, where one manifestation became Zen Buddhism. Going back to the question of yoga, it's hard to say in a prima facie way what is a bastardization and what is an adaptation. Certainly, yoga is intended, or we may say allows, more than just exercise. In the end, like most things, it's what we want and make of it. Friend's enterprise seems genuine and not too carried away with guru worship, which he apparently eschews. Anyway, worth a read. (I wish they'd said more about he altered his predecessors, such as Iyengar, but that's probably too technical.)
   
4. Psychologist Daniel Gilbert reviews Kathryn Schulz's Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error (2010). The book looks promising, and I include it because of professional interests (either my client or the other party was somehow "wrong"). The issue arises everywhere, so it certainly must address the issue of human foibles, which provides an endlessly fascinating subject.
   
5. Tom Friedman writes today that Senate Democrats are dropping any effort to pass a climate and energy bill this session. I agree with Friedman: foolish and disheartening, if not downright depressing. However, beyond that, he wrote about China, and I'll quote what he wrote:
   

   Just as the U.S. Senate was abandoning plans for a U.S. cap-and-trade system, this article ran in The China Daily: "BEIJING — The country is set to begin domestic carbon trading programs during its 12th Five-Year Plan period (2011-2015) to help it meet its 2020 carbon intensity target. The decision was made at a closed-door meeting chaired by Xie Zhenhua, deputy director of the National Development and Reform Commission ... Putting a price on carbon is a crucial step for the country to employ the market to reduce its carbon emissions and genuinely shift to a low-carbon economy, industry analysts said."
   

    Here we have China, hell bent on development and a "communist" country, out in front of us on using the market to control carbon emissions and showing some recognition of the need to limit carbon output. Now, I understand that there may be a yawning chasm between the word and the deed; but still, how can this be? It certainly makes the U.S. political system seem further out of sync with current realities.

1. I haven't read the front page yet, but the cover story appears to be that the Roberts court is very conservative. Duh. I thought that this was a newspaper!
   
2. On the online edition that I've just read headlines suggesting that the war in Afghanistan isn't going as well as officially portrayed. Perhaps a hint of the Pentagon Papers for the Afghanistan war? As one who has listened to original tapes of Lyndon Johnson speaking about the war to his advisors and friends, as well as having seen The Fog of War, none of this comes at a surprise. Perhaps paragraph 4 above could provide us some insights. Bummer.

Matt Ridley: Rational—or Irrational?--Optimist

I normally like to wait until I've completed a book before writing a review of it; however, in this case, I feel compelled to make an exception. The book, Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves (2010 448p.) is at once convincing and irritating. On the convincing side, Ridley provides a convincing summary of the gains of humankind over the centuries, a tale of economic progress when we view humanity as a whole. His premise is relatively simple: that exchange, of goods and ideas has benefited humans over the millennia. Indeed, ideas, intangible but crucial knowledge about how things work or can be done, are like the flame of a candle: they can be shared without diminishing the value held by the original holder. (Ridley, however, does talk about patents and licensing of ideas, so take that last statement with a great big asterisk.) Nonetheless, in his cute term, "ideas have sex"; that is, the interchange of ideas, mixing and matching, much like the pool of genes in sexual reproduction, generates new and novel outcomes. Ingenuity and innovation become the drivers of progress. In all of this, I find Ridley's examples persuasive and well taken. I agree with him, and he provides a sound summary. But then he goes too far.

The aspect of Ridley's book that I find disconcerting comes from those portions of the book where he thinks like a turkey. Not any turkey mind you, a Nassim Taleb turkey (and before him, Bertrand Russell's chicken). While Taleb is most readily identified with the Black Swan, the intriguing fowl and metaphor, he's also written extensively and with great persuasion about turkeys. Taleb writes about the turkey that grows up in the habit of receiving food each day from the kind man, believing that this routine will continue without end—until the day before Thanksgiving. The turkey surrendered to the fallacy of induction.

Ridley writes a great deal about pessimists who have doubted the human future—how wrong they've been. And within certain parameters, he's right; many a prediction of woe and disaster has come and gone, and nothing happened. Thus, Ridley ridicules (with only a minor nod to the contrary) those who predict problems in the human future. "We've been fed and watered by the nice man every day so far, so certainly it will continue tomorrow", he seems to be saying. Well, maybe. We haven't suffered a nuclear holocaust; we haven't seen starvation for lack of adequate food supplies (worldwide); we haven't seen the polar ice melt, and so on. But if you're like me, to take the last example as a point of consideration, how do we know that we won't soon see the melting of the polar ice caps? How do we know that we can feed another couple of billion people, the current population projection even considering the continuing drop in human fertility rates? How can we be sure, even given the end of the Cold War, that we won't see some type of nuclear exchange in the future? In fact, we don't know, and we'd be wise indeed to take affirmative steps to avoid such catastrophes.

What Ridley fails to distinguish is the difference between prophecy and prediction. Predictions are often wrong. As Yogi said, "the future just ain't what it used to be". The farther out we try to look in the crystal ball, the hazier it all becomes. This is true for predictions of utopia as well as predictions of doom. Ridley provides numerous examples of predictions of gloom and pessimism that have not born out; he curiously ignores the batting average of predictions of utopia. Contrary to some predictions, we are not living the lives of the Jetsons. (Sorry, younger readers, ask your parents or Google it.) As opposed to prediction, prophecy includes an implicit "if . . . then" clause. If we do not change our ways, then something bad will happen. Although I cannot speak with certainty, I think that this was the mode of the Old Testament prophets: "if you don't shape-up Israel, then you will suffer bad consequences". (Israel seemed to have regularly ignored these warnings.) Prophecies, in my definition, don't try to predict a deus ex machina (Black Swan) for good or ill, but they do follow the path straight into the future. Thus, when warnings of chlorofluorocarbons did not continue to burn a whole in the Earth's ozone layer, should we say that such predictions were mistaken, or should we say more accurately that we heeded the prophecy? I think the latter. The same goes for limiting the possibility of a nuclear exchange: were such predictions mere doom and gloom, or were we lucky in part and wise in part. As someone who witnessed the Cuban missile crisis (from my grandmother and her television) and has since read and seen a good deal about it, I think we were lucky and wise, and with a little less of either, we might not be here now. Prophecies of gloom have an important role to play if they move us toward repentance or a change of course. Ridley really undervalues this, almost ridicules it, and I think that he really misses some subtle but crucial distinctions.

I also must comment that Babylonians, Jews, Athenians, Romans, Mayans, Incas, Aztecs, Chinese (in the past), and on and on and on, have experienced catastrophic decline. Humanity has progressed over the ages, but not all persons in all places and in all times. Ridley is correct in singing the praises of the improvements in the world since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. He is right in describing even the "dark Satanic mills" as a better life than rural poverty and destitution. I make no bones about the fact that I was born at a time and place and into a family that gave me a life that billions of humans before me would have envied beyond their wildest dreams, and I'm nothing special in my cohort. However, it can all go to hell in a hand basket, quickly. Caboose's article citing the perils of a solar electrical storm is a threat that I've never heard of before, while on the other hand, global climate change or economic disaster (too much debt or too much austerity) are well known threats. We cannot, as Ridley seems to suggest, simply innovate our way out of every problem. If we're so great at innovation, why did we allow millions of gallons of oil spew into the Gulf this summer, causing untold damage? No, we are in some ways smart creatures, but we're not living in an Indiana Jones universe where every peril is resolved by the hero's pluck and ingenuity. We'd do better to avoid as many perils as possible, and to this end, a prudent and considered caution—not fatalistic pessimism—should govern.

I'd like to suggest two works by Canadian political scientist Thomas Homer-Dixon to you and Matt Ridley: First, The Ingenuity Gap: Facing the Economic, Environmental, and Other Challenges of an Increasingly Complex and Unpredictably Future (2002). I think that the long title gives you a pretty good sense of the author's take. Complexity, especially, allows small changes of input into a system to create unpredictable and quite variable outcomes. We live in a world that is more complex, like the weather, and less predictable, as opposed the linear world of a car engine. The other Homer-Dixon book to consult is The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization (2008). Again, the title tells you a lot; Homer-Dixon isn't a wild-eyed Cassandra, but an MIT-trained political scientist who carefully considers the many possibilities and challenges. Finally, I recommend Taleb's The Black Swan, about how collapse can come suddenly and unexpectedly—the negative Black Swan.

I recommend this book because it contains a lot that is good and accurate, and even where I find it irritating, at least it's quite thought provoking.

Austerity vs. Stimulus: Another Round

Well, a great weekend for economic debate:

1. In an almost head-to-head matchup, both Paul Krugman and Niall Ferguson appeared on Fareed Zakaria's Global GPS (the best public affairs show on TV for my money). They appeared separately, but Zakaria is a capable questioner and understands the issues, so I think that the issues were well joined. I haven't seen it to the end, so I don't know where Zakaria comes down between the two (and perhaps it really is between them).
   
2. Dave Brooks weighed in today, and Paul Krugman promptly blogged a response (he's quick with that blog!). It seems to me that all of Brooks' doubts could be laid on the austerity folks, so his uncertainty about theories on one side (the demand side/Keynesians) applies equally, if not more so, to the austerity crowd. Brooks quotes Keynes, but I find that a bit ironic, for the Demand Side theorists (as he refers to the Krugman crowd) are really looking to Keynes and the problem of a liquidity trap that monetary policy can't address. By the end, Brooks does make some concessions, such as unemployment benefits and the need for the states to receive some help in providing basic services.
   
3. Robert Frank weighed in yesterday in the NYT with his usual good sense, recommending targeted fiscal policies to stimulate the economy. We don't want something like WWII, which helped pull us out of the Depression, and long-term debt is a bad thing, but Frank recognizes the need for further stimulus, which if wisely appropriated, will provide many benefits, including long-term debt reduction. Of course, the likelihood of Congress acting appropriately is slim. Here's what Frank writes:
   

   [A]s the nation struggles to emerge from the most severe downturn since the Great Depression, such cuts are the last thing we need. There is no conflict — absolutely none — between our twin goals of putting the economy back on its feet and reducing long-term deficits. On the contrary, government could take many steps that would serve both goals simultaneously.
   

4. Someone out to be shouting off the rooftops, screaming bloody murder, about cuts to education. My personal connections with many educators aside, isn't it as clear as the hand in front of your face we need to spend more money on education?. Why are we laying off teachers? Because we don't have enough money? No! We don't want to spend the money. It's a choice; it's not something forced upon us. It's shameful and stupid.

For the Fourth: Beinart’s The Icarus Syndrome

It's my custom to read a work of American history in celebration of Independence Day. Normally, I pick up a classic work or something relating directly to the founding of the Republic. However, this year I chose a recent publication, Peter Beinart's The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris (2010, 465p.). I normally wait to write about a book until after I've completed it, but I'm enthusiastic about this book, and I have a lot to share already, so I'll set aside precedent for this occasion. In this book Beinart, smarting from his early support of the Iraq War, meditates on three occasions on the 20^th century where he finds that American policy makers reached too far based upon hubris. The first occasion comes from Woodrow Wilson's actions in taking the U.S. into the First World War. Beinart doesn't argue that the U.S. shouldn't have joined the effort on the side of the Allies, only that Wilson provided the wrong motives for prosecuting the war and the wrong principles for establishing a post-war peace. Henry Cabot Lodge and Theodore Roosevelt (who died before the armistice) provided a realist, balance-of-power rationale for American involvement, and Lodge, in the Senate, offered terms of the League of Nations that would have represented a more realist basis for that institution, and thereby, American membership. Another interesting aspect of this conflict came from the effect that it had on the American intellectual elite. John Dewey, Charles Beard, and Walter Lippmann began as supporters of the war, but by the end, and even as WWII approached, they became pacifist, isolationist, and realist, respectively. Randolph Bourne saw the tragedies that the war would bring the American polity, but he died young and rejected by the end of the war.

Beinart continues his narrative through the interwar years, including discussions of diplomatic history (France, much more that Germany, was seen as a belligerent power in the 1920's). He also keeps abreast of foreign policy thinking, for instance, he notes the rise of Reinhold Niebuhr as a critic (not always fairly so) of Dewey's approach, which still posited some degree of human perfectibility. Of course, Wilson comes into contrast with FDR, who, while using some Wilsonian rhetoric, nevertheless maintained a quiet realpolitik perspective on the postwar world.

After the WWII, American policy makers faced new threats. In dealing with this era, Beinart discusses the work and perspective of George Kennan, among others. Beinart provides an informative and insightful introduction to Kennan the man, a mixed bag of knowledge, insight, hypochondria, and prickliness, as well as Kennan's influential work at the beginning of the Cold War. Beinart relates a history of Kennan's work and influence that I find similar to the perspective provided by Garry Wills in Bomb Power earlier this year. Kennan, perhaps wanting a bit too much to curry favor with his patron, James Forrestal, failed to adequately define and limit his idea of containment in his famous "X" article in Foreign Affairs, thereby creating a military monster when in fact Kennan intended a much more political, diplomatic, and economic perspective for the concept. Kennan, when he tried to get the genie back into the bottle, was marginalized and quickly shunted aside. After Wilson's the "hubris of reason", the U.S. moved into the "hubris of toughness". Ike kept a lid on this through his low key style (shall we say "no drama Ike"?), but with the election of JFK, the cult of toughness hit full stride—and marched us right into Viet Nam.

This is as far as I've gotten in the book, but I think you get the gist of Beinart's thesis. To give a bit away, part three, which addresses the Iraq War, becomes the "hubris of dominance". Beinart is writing history in the manner of Garry Wills' Bomb Power and the works of John Patrick Diggins: as a reflection and assessment through which we can view the present. It's not original historiography, but a historical essay from which we can greatly benefit.

For those of you who might like a fuller review, George Packer has provided a very useful and well-considered review in the New Yorker. You can also get a sense of Beinart's work in a part of the book that I haven't gotten to yet: an essay on Ronald Reagan in Foreign Policy. In this essay (adopted from the book), Beinart takes a position on Reagan very similar the description that I received from reading Jack Matlock's Superpower Illusions, with its extensive discussion of the end of the Cold War under Reagan. Both authors provide an account of Reagan that differs from both conservative and liberal myths of the man. Finally, Leslie Gelb reviewed the book in the NYT. (Packer's review, however, is the more useful.)

Matlock on Superpower Illusions

I just finished Superpower Illusions: How Myths and False Ideologies Led America Astray—And How to Return to Reality by Jack Matlock (2010, 368 p.). Ambassador Matlock served a number of years in the U.S. Foreign Service, including a stint as ambassador the Soviet Union at the time of Gorbachev, Reagan, and the end of the Cold War. Matlock has written almost two books here: one on the history of the Cold War, or rather, the end of the Cold War, which he emphasizes occurred before the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The second part of the book addresses the foolish hubris reflected in U.S. policy that followed the end of the Cold War and Soviet Union. Matlock makes clear that we did not "win" the Cold War; it stopped by mutual agreement. Matlock has almost unstinting praise for Ronald Reagan and the attitude he took toward Gorbachev and change in Soviet leadership that Gorbachev represented. Unfortunately, so Matlock thinks, we took our supposed victory too far in extending NATO into former Warsaw Pact nations and thereby threatening Russia. We also have gotten ourselves into some very difficult situations since then. Matlock has plenty to say that is critical of Clinton administration attitudes and actions, although his harshest criticisms go toward the George W. Bush administration.

After Matlock retired from the Foreign Service he has taught, including a stint at Princeton in the George Kennan chair, and I certainly get the impression from this book that Matlock merited such a prestigious honor (or at least I think that it should a very prestigious honor!). I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the perspectives of a person who has represented the U.S. in the front lines of diplomatic engagement and who has learned a great deal from his experiences. An excellent book.

Feguson: An Evolutionary Approach to Financial History

I watched a very interesting presentation made this spring @ Grisham College in London by Niall Ferguson. Entitled "An Evolutionary Approach to Financial History", it proved quite interesting. Financial history is where Ferguson cut his teeth, including a study of the House of Rothschild (in two volumes) and most recently, a biography of German-born, London-based financier Siegmund Warburg. In this talk, Ferguson compares the financial world to the natural world, invoking impressive precedents from the likes of Thorstein Veblen and Joseph Schumpeter, among others. I think his argument and comparisons quite sound; in fact, I've seen more and more comparisons of economic life to the world of evolutionary nature. Ferguson notes that there certainly are differences, such as (the effort, at least) of intelligent design of financial systems and the existence of Lamarckian (inherited traits) evolution (thanks to culture), between the natural world and the man-made world of finances. However, the similarities are even greater. In all, an excellent and thoughtful consideration of a model for considering finance and financial history. I think that Ferguson is on the something here.

Stimulus v. Austerity & Debt Reduction

We have a really interesting public policy debate ongoing about stimulus vs. debt reduction. One part of me thinks debt reduction very good (score Taleb, Ferguson, Sachs, Merkel, and Cameron), but maybe not now (score Keynes, Krugman, DeLong, and the Obama Administration). Following are a number of sites that have discussed the issue and reported about the positions of the various parties. It's really an intelligent policy debate, and one that can have real consequences for our daily lives.

1. http://www.emerginvest.com/Source/EconomicForecastsOpinions/2010/6/30/ferguson-roubini-vs-krugman-slowdown-or-depression-for-the-u.s.html
   
2. http://www.businessinsider.com/niall-ferguson-europe-banks-2010-6?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+clusterstock+%28ClusterStock%29
   
3. http://www.businessinsider.com/niall-ferguson-sovereign-debt-2010-5#-1
   
4. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2010/06/nassim-taleb-answers-viewer-qu.html. Here I must say that Taleb, going with his enigmatic persona, is too brief and really dodges a good, direct question challenging his position vis a vis Krugman's arguments. It seems to me that a lack of growth can create instability: consider the the Depression era politics of Europe, and more specifically, Germany.
   
5. http://www.businessinsider.com/if-youre-not-bored-youre-not-paying-attention-to-the-stimulus-vs-austerity-debate-2010-6. I think that this writer has a valid point: it's probably not an all-or-nothing perspective that we should take on the austerity vs. stimulus argument, and many other factors should receive consideration as well.
   
6. http://www.businessinsider.com/my-question-for-paul-krugman-and-brad-delong-2010-6. Another good perspective considering both arguments. The real problem: we (the U.S. specifically) carried way too much debt coming into this crisis. Without this prior debt load, the Keynesian perspective makes sense without question (freshwater economists not withstanding). But that's not where we're at. Are we in damned if we do and damned if we don't?
   
7. http://www.onpointradio.org/2010/06/the-historian-vs-the-economist. From Tom Ashbrook's radio program "On Point".
   
8. http://www.onpointradio.org/2010/06/niall-ferguson-a-checkup-on-global-financial. Here you can listen to the program and see the great video of rapping Keynes vs. rapping Hayek. Great economics teaching tool!
   

   
    

   Okay, this has been quite a collection. It does show that economic policy decisions are not an easy matter, yet they can greatly affect our daily lives. Thanks for reading.

Nussbaum on Education in China & Singapore

UC philosopher Martha Nussbaum criticizes the Chinese and Singapore education systems that some—including President Obama—have praised. As she's on a most favored writer list, her article in TNR is worth sharing. Also, she thinks that pluralistic democracy is a good thing, and so do I.

Jeff Rosen On Kagan Hearing

Jeff Rosen, the very perceptive (means that I often agree with him) legal commentator for TNR offers this assessment of some of the perceptive questions asked by senators (a couple anyway) at the confirmation hearings. I haven't watched these hearings, but some I've watched have made me want to scream at the idiocy and preening that went on. Well, at least we know that some intelligent questions have been asked, which provides some mild reassurance.

Wills on McChrystal & Obama

Garry Wills enters the conversation to reiterate a point that he made very firmly last December: it's time to get out of Afghanistan. I gave the benefit of the doubt to Obama's decision, but it doesn't look very promising to me, regardless of the McChrystal issue. Can Petraeus do better? Lots of bodies and reputations have been buried in Afghanistan.

Move!

Everyone who works in an office ought to read this. Sometimes my staff must think that I have St. Vitus Dance because I move around a lot, taking out papers, getting drinks, etc. that I could leave until later. I use the downstairs rather than upstairs can. "Is All That Sitting Really Killing Us?" addresses these issues. Interesting.

Ross Douthat on Liberals & Obama

Courtesy of Tyler Cowen @ Marginal Revolution once again, this Ross Douthat column from NYT seems to track with one of my posts yesterday about Obama alternatives. Obama can't act by fiat. Perhaps, as Garry Wills has argued, he's been somewhat self-limiting out of excessive caution, but he can only do so much so fast. The other issue Douthat raises (citing Cowen) about what will and won't work deserves the healthy skepticism that Cowen & Douthat accord it. I've been intrigued by the stimulus vs. debt reduction debate going on between some very smart and capable people; however, in the end, we don't know which course of action will bring us the promised land. We should, I suggest, try to avoid obvious harm. Finally, liberals (a term I hate to have to use, so indefinite and at times pejorative) don't appreciate what Obama has done. If nothing else, some health care reform that brings us within reach of universal coverage is a tremendous accomplishment, as Douthat notes.

Steven Johnson on the Effects of Media

This post from Steven Johnson, a fine author, includes a link to his article in the NYT today. It's a point I wonder about: what effect does the bombardment of media, now especially web-based media have upon us? I think it's good, but I've spent a good deal of today writing blogs and catching up on blogs, as well as having read the NYT last night. I haven't yet turned to a couple of fine books that I'm reading. Good or bad? I think good, overall. I think that the faster movement of ideas, especially in bite-sized chunks on the web, is constructive with positive intellectual benefits. I do think that longer, considered works are important, perhaps more important than these smaller pieces, but we just have to balance our diet. I worry that there's a lot of books that I'm not reading because I'm spending more time with on-line reading, which I consider more current, more cutting-edge, so I do try to balance the current with the proven. Johnson & Nicholas Carr, whose work he reviews, discuss some important issues very thoughtfully.

David Brooks on Stimulus vs. Debt Reduction

I found this at Tyler Cowen's Marginal Revolution: David Brooks in the 6.10.10 NYT on "Prune & Grow". I think that Krugman addressed these arguments somewhere in one of his blog posts. So where does that leave laypersons? I think that in this book review by Herbert Gintis, also courtesy of Marginal Revolution, lays the best answer: faulty economic modeling, models based on equilibrium that don't tell us about dynamic states in disequilibrium.

The Judts on Political Optimism & Pessimism

Tony Judt, NYU professor of history and his son, 14 year-old Daniel, published this written exchange today in NYT. It hits upon a number of issues, it's well written, and it provides some topics for further consideration.

1. Political Cynicism. Many folks are down on Obama these days. He isn't providing the leadership we need; he's too conciliatory and not confrontational enough; he's not changed the world sufficiently, etc. Certainly some criticisms are justified, and concerned citizens (well, some anyway) should express their concerns. We need to act and think cautiously in this regard, however, as political cynicism comes easily and cheaply. No, Obama has not brought peace the Middle East, has not gotten us out of Iraq or Afghanistan, and has not stopped the oil from spewing into the Gulf. Has he neither parted the Red Sea nor walked upon water. We must judge him, like all actors on the political (or perhaps any stage) by the choices available to him, and the choices available to him are in large measure a matter of constraints laid upon him. To what extent has he held the political, not the mention the technological, power to control and shape events? I suggest that this is the test for all actors in any arena. Before coming down too hard on Obama, we should think about what options that American people and their Congress have provided him. Did the electorate get behind a better health care reform bill? Is Congress saying they want to address global warming? Are the American people now going to say, "we've got to use less oil. Please tax and price oil so that it reflects the real costs that it imposes on us by supporting corrupt regimes, despoiling our home (the Earth), and skewing our choices about energy"?
   
2. Political Choices. We as voters elected Obama. Some now seem unhappy with him. So what choice do you wish you'd made differently? Do you now wish that you'd voted for John McCain? Not me, not by a long shot. I admire Herbert Hoover in some ways, ditto Jimmy Carter, but as political leaders, they weren't the right person for the job when they served. BTW, the implicit comparison for McCain with Hoover and Carter should be taken cautiously, very cautiously. I don't want to besmirch Hoover or Carter unfairly. Do you wish that Hillary Clinton would have received the nomination and been elected? To my mind, that would have been fine, but I don't believe that we'd see a significantly different political environment. On the down side, we'd have a different but probably still virulent cultural and political divide. BTW, Secretary Clinton seems to being doing a fine job as SOS. However, I don't know that her preferred policies would differ significantly from those chosen by Obama. Would you have preferred some other Democrat? They all seem rather small—if not downright toxic—now, and none of them were the best choice at the time, either.
   
3. Corporations. I think that we have a big problem with corporations. Simply put, most multinational corporations, or publically traded corporations, have a huge gap between shareholders, management, and stakeholders. Shareholders are out there, distant from the actual corporation. Does a mutual fund that I own hold shares in BP? I could find out, but I don't—what good would it do? Shareholders want return on their investment measured in terms of money, not measured in terms of green fields and blue oceans. I know, we all want a clean environment in the abstract, but how many honestly invest on that basis? Managers have to please shareholders, which are increasingly large entities, by the only reliable measure available to them: money. Other stakeholders, such as workers, neighbors, and the larger world, have precious little say in all of this. This leads me to think that maybe we need to re-think the business corporation. How do we prevent externalization of costs and misevaluation of resources across such a wide variety of interests? James Gustave Speeth, a Yale law professor, raises this concern in one of his books (excellent) on the environment. (I read a library copy; sorry I can't provide the cite.)
   
4. Regulation. It does seem that regulation will make a comeback, but we should be careful. The market, imperfect as it is, should be the bedrock of regulation. I know, I know: the misplaced faith of Greenspan, et al. was in the market's ability to regulate. But the market needs help, not junking. Here's where one hopes first-rate legal scholar and social scientist Cass Sunstein will do good work in his job as head of the regulation overview agency in the White House. Some regulation by regulation is in order, but let's do it effectively, and not just by bureaucratic (no malice intended) fiat. See James Surowiecki on financial reform, for instance. I think that this is a great challenge for all governments (I'm talking to you, too, China): how to keep the golden goose of markets and capitalism producing without letting the sorcerer's apprentice get out of control.

Warner in NYT re “Dysregulation”

Judith Warner has a short article in the NYT Mag today on "Dysregulation Nation". The idea of our failing to regulate ourselves as a nation isn't new, as Warner knows by citing Christopher Lasch's classic from the late 70's, The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Era of Diminishing Expectations (1979). Let me offer some quick thoughts on her article:

1. The issue of self-regulation and of social & political regulation is one of the oldest problems to vex humankind. The Greeks thought a great deal about it, the Old Testament is full of the issue, starting with the story of Adam and Eve, and I think (here I'm getting a bit out of my league), this is what Confucius was largely about.
   
2. A great analytical consideration of the problem comes from Thomas Schelling in an article entitled "The Intimate Contest for Self-Command", which I read many years ago, but which has stuck with me because of it's a compelling metaphor and applicability to my life. Schelling, a Nobel prize winning economist and author of a great book, Arms and Influence, used the story of Odysseus binding himself to the mast so that he could hear the Sirens' song and yet not be drawn irresistibly to them (and thereby death). Jon Elster gives an extended treatment of these issues in his book, Ulysses and the Sirens: Studies in Rationality and Irrationality (1985), which (like all of Elster), is brilliant and insightful.
   
3. Modern brain research is giving us better insight into the physiological basis of how different brain structures and systems allow for this shortcoming. However, I think that psychiatrist and Christian spiritual writer Gerald May got it right even before the current bounty of brain research allowed us greater insight into brain functioning and structure. May posits that our reasoning brain, our most unique and human (and weak) characteristic, works by saying "no" to impulses from the other parts of the brain, such as the emotional brain or the hunger signal, to give but two examples. Let me quote from May:
   

   The vast majority of feedback that naturally occurs in the brain is inhibitory. The cell systems that initiate activity are, for the most part, in a constant state of readiness and potential activity, so the higher systems of the brain must maintain balance and function primarily by inhibiting them. The cerebral cortex inhibits deeper centers; the right and left sides of the brain mutually inhibit each other; ceils in the brainstem inhibit cells in the spinal cord. Effective action primarily takes place thought selective inhibition.
   

   I have often marveled at this arrangement of things. It seems to indicate that human beings . . . are inherently active, dynamic, vibrant. Maybe it is in the nature of sentient life not to have to be stimulated in order to act, but to be always ready to go. It means we are not simply passive responders to external stimuli. In the very essence of our being, we are initiators. Perhaps, in the image of our Creator, we ourselves are endless creators.
   

       Addiction & Grace: Love & Spirituality in the Healing of Addictions (1988), pp.74-75.
   

4. Just as individuals seem to ebb and flow on issues of self-control (well, I do anyhow), so, I think, do societies. In fact, this may be the greatest challenge for any democracy. The problem that I perceive with democracies comes from the fact that they seem to gravitate toward a lowest common denominator. Low taxes, high spending, disregard for long-term consequences: these problems may be worse for democracies, although all forms of political organization suffer from these problems. (Exhibits: Greece, California.) It's just that other systems, more tightly controlled by elites, can inflict pain (present loss of some sort) for some anticipated future (and current) gain. Of course, non-democratic political systems inflict pain primarily for the benefit of the rulers, but something like defense (e.g., the Soviet Union) can be argued to be necessary for the long-term survival of the regime. Perhaps I'm too hard on democracies, but we need some forms of self-binding. Jon Elster, at least at one time (Ulysses Unbound: Studies in Rationality, Precommitment, and Constraint (2000)), suggested that constitutions in a democracy were a form of self-binding. I think that he later recanted that argument, but I'm not sure why. For instance, the Iowa constitution, like many constitutions, requires a balances budget. (N.B.: This would probably not prove a good addition to the federal constitution.)
   
5. Many religious directives come in the form of "thou shalt not", or prayers like "lead us not into temptation". NNT, coming out of a Greek Orthodox and ancient Mediterranean tradition, endorses such thinking as a way of maintaining our robustness and of dealing with our blindness to Black Swans. NNT argues that the cultures of the Mediterranean, including Islamic culture, wisely put limits on debts. This is also a form of self-binding. Some debt, however, is certainly good; however, if it's for current consumption, probably not so good.
   
6. Warner suggests that contemporary culture may be worse that other times in dealing with the challenge of delayed gratification. Comparisons of this sort are, I think, very tricky, yet I think that they provide us with a worthwhile ideas. We are, I'd wager, significantly different from the New England Puritans of the 18^th century. Warner does a good job of identifying possible mechanisms (hope I'm using Elster's term correctly here) for our seeming lack of self-control. It's an interesting—and as you can discern from this post—thought-provoking article for me.

Shenk’s The Genius in All of Us & Straud’s Secret Life of the Grown-up Brain

I just finished listening to David Shenk's recent The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You've Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ Is Wrong
(2010 320p.). Shenk's book joins The Talent Code: Greatness Isn't Born. It's Grown. Here's How (2009) and Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World Class Performers from Everyone Else (2^nd entry) in emphasizing what we do by way of learning over what we endowed with by nature. Shenk goes after the idea that genius, however we define it, resides in our genetic inheritance. He argues that we no longer can accept a G (genetics) + E (environment) paradigm. Instead, we have to think of G x E; that is, how genes interact with the environment to create outcomes. Genetic expression, not genetic inheritance, becomes a foundation for understanding how we come to perform and act. He follows many of the common examples, such as Mozart, Beethoven, Yo-yo Ma, Michael Jordan, and others. What sets them and others at that level apart? It isn't their genetic inheritance; it's their intense practice and drive.

 

These three books, all quite interesting, all point to one answer: if you want to be really good at something, do the hard work of practice. "How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, man, practice."

I usually wouldn't note a book that I haven't read, but since it's in a similar vein, and I have it on good authority, I'll make an exception. C read and enjoyed The Secret Life of the Grown-up Brain: The Surprising Talents of the Middle-Aged Mind
by Barbara Strauch (2010 256p.). This book helps us older folks understand that our aging brains have a lot left in them. Among the most interesting things, some studies have shown persons who functioned at very high levels up the time of their death had definite signs on autopsy of Alzheimer's. Their brains perceived that some portions weren't functioning and apparently moved the functions to a different area of the brain. And, of course, the nuns study gets plenty of mention. It also seems that a high level of education is as good a protection of brain health as one can hope for. It's going on my "to read" list.

NNT & Roubini on Newshour

NNT appeared with Nouriel Roubini in a recent segment of Newshour. Both of them predicted the crash, and did so on Newshour in 2006, so they invited them back for a joint appearance. Interestingly, Roubini joins in the call of deficit reduction although he recognizes that it could trigger an economic slowdown. I trust his opinion in this regard more than NNT's. Both fear the potential for a longer, bigger downturn if we don't act to reduce the deficit.

NNT Interview & Krugman to the Contrary

A pithy interview with NNT here. He really likes the UK's new PM, David Cameroon, whom impressed me on a TED talk that he gave. This interview gives a sense of NNT's irreverence and insight. And in case anyone is interested, more drum beating on deficit reduction. I think that we may want to think about debt reduction as St. Augustine prayed about chastity: "Oh, Lord, make me chaste, but not yet." (This may be a loose translation, but we'll go with the popular version.)

But Paul Krugman to the rescue from Germany in today's NYT. Krugman uses the 1937 analogy, and he notes that stimulus seems the way to go because the economy far under capacity, with no sign of inflation. So why the belt-tightening now? NNT & NF & others like them have to answer the question. Of course overeating is bad, but if you've been undernourished for a while, you should eat more than you normally would. Contrary to NNT, is all debt bad? For those out of a job—as I was in 1974 under Gerald Ford's "Whip Inflation Now (WIN)" recession, you'd really like to have paycheck and you don't worry so much about the long-term balance of the federal budget. And, by the way, where were these deficit hawks from 2000-2010. Do they all think that Obama and the G-20 stimulus was unjustified? What's different now?

Cohen on Soccer & Brooks on Two Capitalisms

Roger Cohen writes in the NYT about Kissinger, soccer (football), and how it all relates to international politics. Fun.

David Brooks addresses the topic of free market capitalism vs. state capitalism, taking off from Ian Bremmer's new book, The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations?. As usual, Brooks gives a complex topic a careful consideration within the very limited confines of a newspaper column.

Ferguson, NNT & Krugman Miscellany

Niall Ferguson on Australian television from 5/31/10: He's worried, and he thinks Keynes can be right, but not when you start from a position of fiscal weakness. The debate continues. BTW, some economies, like China and India, as well as Australia and Canada, seem to be in pretty good shape.

NNT speaks with James Surowiecki of the New Yorker about the new edition of The Black Swan and current economics. Like Ferguson, NNT remains worried about the banks. Yikes! NNT, like Ferguson, is campaigning to bring down the level of debt, both public and private. Will it crash and burn a fragile economy, or is it the start of fiscal sobriety? The debate continues. NNT wants a more "robust" society, one that doesn't fail as easily as what we just experienced. Robustness means the ability to take shocks and survive. Robustness comes from redundancy, and redundancy is the opposite of debt. However, in the name of efficiency, we eliminate a great deal of robustness in society. NNT suggests:

1. Low debt. It's like stopping smoking: the best way to reduce your risk exposure.
   
2. End complex derivatives.
   
3. Eliminate moral hazard (i.e., no bailouts).Don't give a drug addict more junk.
   
4. Don't try to predict Black Swans, just make yourself immune to them (or reduce their impact).
   

Another NNT interview, this time on CNBC: Shorter than the above interview, but long enough to cover some important points. NNT gets his points across quickly:

1. Fragility from too much debt.
   
2. Untrustworthiness of forecasts, so create robustness.
   
3. The 2008 crash was not a black swan; it was not as a surprise to all. It's a frame of reference situation. The turkey is surprised at Thanksgiving, but not the butcher.
   
4. NNT fears inflation, even hyper-inflation. He fears a failed Treasury auction.
   
5. NNT fears all currencies currently. He likes only short-term treasury bonds because of the fear of inflation.
   

Here is NNT @ NYU-POLY, where he teaches and does research. In this talk, he talks about iatrogenic injuries, "healer" caused injuries, in this situation it's applied to market advisers as opposed to just physicians.

"You are what you overcome."

"You may know all the answers, but the important thing to know is, what are the questions?" Reality demands the right questions.

Finally, a dose of Paul Krugman to keep the deficit hawks honest.

Tony Judt on Israel and the U.S.

Tony Judt in today's NYT, "Israel Without Clichés" presents the most insightful and succinct appraisal of Israel and of its relation to the U.S. that I have seen. A huge amount of sloganeering and worthless posturing goes on when someone tries to address issues in the Middle East that involve Israel, so to read someone with a open-minded perspective that will discuss the problems and strengths of Israel should cause everyone to rejoice. Highly recommended.

Krugman on Sachs Joining Fiscal Conservatives

This post notes that Jeffrey Sachs, best known currently for his work to alleviate extreme poverty in the developing world, weighs in via Financial Times as a deficit hawk. Sachs thinks that the stimulus is too slow, and the need really goes to investment, not immediate spending. Continuing his ongoing argument, Krugman, via Brad DeLong, argues that Sachs has no firm ground for this conclusion. This may all seem quite ethereal, but whatever path we follow will create very real results—the only question is whether those results will be for good or ill.

Barnett on Globalization & Identity

Thomas Barnett's interesting article in World Politics Review about globalization and identity addresses issues that Barnett comments upon frequently. I find his perspective instructive and worth serious consideration. In short, the issues resolve around how we may define ourselves as distinct while we become more closely connected. Interesting stuff.

Krugman, et al. v. Ferguson, et al.: What’s the Problem?

This article directly addresses an implicit debate that I've been following. On one side, Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong, on the other, Niall Ferguson and others, including Nassim Taleb. The issue: cut back federal spending in fear of long-term debt (think Greece), or stimulate the economy to continue raising the us out of the economic doldrums and avoid a lost decade (think Japan). At this point, I side with Krugman, who is thinking (rightly, I believe) short-term. Long term, Ferguson and Taleb and the deficit hawks are right: too much debt is a bad thing. The bad guys: W. Bush and his cronies. He and his Congress ballooned the federal deficit, leaving the Obama administration much less room to do what is necessary in the way of deficit spending.

For history buffs, remember that FDR became deficit hawkish at the beginning of his second term and took the nation into a second down turn. It took WWII, with its unprecedented deficit spending, to lift us out of the Great Depression. Keynes tried to warn FDR, but to no avail. Are we in danger of repeating the same mistake?

Stanley Fish & Company: Whither Education?

Stanley Fish writes on the benefits of a "classical" education. By "classical", he does not mean exclusively concerned with a Latin & Greek language and civilization curriculum, but more an emphasis on basic subjects taught in a rigorous manner. He enlists recent writing by Martha Nussbaum (for whom I have very high regard), Diane Ravitch, and Leigh Bortins on the subject. I have a lot of sympathy for this perspective, but does it apply appropriately to all kids? On one hand, one would think not; however, it seems like this is more the curriculum of American schools in the first half of the 20^th century, which I believe proved immensely successful. Also, too much seat time, especially in the early years, probably isn't such a good idea. I'm not sure, but the debate is an important one, as it seems that many find our education system still faltering in many places.

Incredibly Strong, Balanced & Flexible

As a three or so times a week yoga practitioner for about the last three or so years, I now have an even greater appreciation of challenges of strength, balance, and coordination demonstrated in these videos. We see it in gymnasts and acrobats as well as yogis. This Youtube video, like those of Damian Walters (2009) and (2010), makes me green with envy. I feel like I ought to get down and give 10 every time I see something like this. Amazing stuff.

William Li: Can we eat to starve cancer? A TED Talk

An interesting presentation by William Li @ TED. A theory of why diet can and does make a difference in helping prevent the diseases of civilization.

John Wooden: 1910-2010

I can't let my blog go without acknowledging the passing of John Wooden. In late grade school I started following college basketball, as I become interested in playing basketball about that time. I quickly learned about UCLA. Their press became famous, and then they recruited Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar), who was an incredible player. This only made them better.

College games on television were relatively rare in those days, but if they played, I wanted to see it. When Iowa had its great team in 1970, the Hawks stumbled in the first round, but UCLA, without Alcindor and before Walton, still won the NCAA. (I'd liked to have seen the Hawks take a turn at the Bruins; UCLA defeated Jacksonville in the Finals, the team that eliminated the Hawks in the first round.) At that time I had no appreciation of the man on the bench, but since then I've learned a lot more about him, and like very many of his players, have come to a much deeper appreciation of his talents, values, and skills. He was a high school English teacher turned college coach, and he always continued to think of himself as a teacher. You can read articles from the NYT here and here and here.

BTW, the game that Drake played against UCLA in 1969 in the semi-finals was a great game. The Bulldogs had their finest hour then.

One final note: In The Talent Code, the authors describe a couple of UCLA profs who decided to observe Wooden to learn about his methods. They had been jocks, so they came to practice expecting lots of whistles, exhortations, and scrimmages. Instead, they found a quiet man who would explain exactly what he wanted to his players exactly what he wanted them to do, then he'd watch them, and then he'd correct the flaws to get the result he wanted. Each drill was carefully prepared and executed. No yelling, no ranting, just teaching.

Taleb Interview by Lydon

Click here to listen to a good interview of Taleb. Taleb, who makes for delightful reading, can be difficult to listen to when interviewed because he can become a bit agitated and tongue-tied (English is not his native tongue). However, in listening to the first part of this interview, he gives a rather calm yet always interesting exposition of his ideas. The site (courtesy of Huffington Post) also provides a written summary of the interview by Christopher Lydon, which I paste below for your reading enjoyment & consideration:

Nassim Nicholas Taleb is one of the great wiseguys or wisemen of the moment. Quite possibly both.

For a world that wants better than the fatuous "perfect storm" account of the economic meltdown -- or of BP's gusher in the Gulf, or of 9.11 for that matter -- Taleb has revised and extended his cult classic, The Black Swan. His anomalous "black swan" (since swans are by definition white) has three properties: it's (1) any one of those unforeseen developments that comes (2) with big consequences and (3) a concocted cause-and-effect after-story. In conversation, Taleb is trying to get us to let go of "causes" and fix on the word "fragility." He is explaining -- sometimes elliptically, aphoristically, through metaphors, jokes and old folk wisdom -- why "the economic crisis has barely begun," why indeed we seem to have entered the Age of the Black Swan.

In a Letterman List, our conversation might be reduced to this:

10. Mother Nature is robust. Large modern corporations are fragile.

9. When the big bridge collapses, the "news" interest will be in the last truck that made it over, when the real story should be about the fragility of the bridge.

8. Somewhere in every Black Swan story there's a turkey. The turkey has a clear understanding of history, and of growth. The nice farmer feeds him every day, and the turkey keeps getting fatter. Then comes Thanksgiving. It's a Black Swan for the turkey. But not for the butcher.

7. We can say safely that the Black Swan started entering society with agriculture, with the fact that we started settling. Complexification started then... In my tableau of what's fragile and what's robust, the nation-state is a fragile entity, whereas city-states are more robust. So the creation of the nation-state created this big unpredictable event, that First War. Even those who saw it coming didn't see the damage it was about to cause. So the First War probably is the most consequential one, and it came in two volumes...

6. I think that today we are entering a different world of Black Swans because of the Internet.

5. Newspapers make us stupid. They overexplain with "causes" of things that can't be checked. And because they are driven by the sensational, they misrepresent risk. I prefer the social filter of news, over dinner or lunch. Anything that draws me away from face-to-face contact is harmful to my health.

4. Grandmothers had a rule of thumb after the Great Depression: work and save for a few years before you get into risk... Unpredictability and debt are not friends.

3. On bailouts: My analogy is to the gambler who is now gambling with the trust fund of his unborn great-great-granchildren... Prudence should be the first thing on the agenda of governments, not speculation. Stimulus packages are speculation... We are gambling on a massive recovery. It's too big a gamble, and besides it's immoral.

2. In the economic crisis, and in the Gulf of Mexico, what we should be discovering is not who made what mistake, but the fact of fragility. Alas, what we don't learn is... that we don't learn.

1. No government can fortify something that's inherently fragile

Sinek on Why

Simon Sinek presented a very good TED talk that I that I learned about from a useful site, Presentation Zen. Sinek's premise, which he's published as Start with Why, seems incredibly simple, yet it quite ignored by many speakers. Sinek argues that to persuade people you have to let them know "why" before going on to "what" or "how". Sinek calls upon contemporary brain research to argue that we begin with motives arising out of the emotional part of the brain. When we reflect upon this, it's really old hat dressed up anew: Aristotle emphasized the trio of logos (reasoning, logic), ethos (the trustworthiness of the speaker), and pathos (emotions). Those who persuade effectively have always known this insight, at least intuitively. Sinek, however, does us a favor by reminding us mortals that we cannot take the importance of placing the emotional grounds up front as given. Sinek agrees with the premise of the book Switch, which I'm now reading, that uses the metaphor of the elephant and the rider; the elephant is the emotional drive, the rider the rational decision-maker. Both have to work in tandem to complete a change or switch. Sinek's take away line: MLK didn't give the "I have a plan" speech; he gave the "I have a dream speech." So true! This book will go onto my list to read.

Orlando Patterson on Democracy & Violence

Orlando Patterson, sociology prof at Harvard, wrote an interesting article in the Sunday NYT about democracy and violence. The argument, I think now well refuted, was that democracies wouldn't go to war with each other. Patterson, however, looks at domestic violence and suggests that some democracies have greater violence than their authoritarian peers. Patterson points to street crime in India compared to street crime in China as one example (although the horrific attacks on school children in China demonstrate that no society can claim immunity from random violence). Patterson cites factors that seem to allow greater violence in developing democracies. I cite the article because Americans seem to place so much faith in democracy, although we don't stop to think what democracy means and entails any more than we carefully consider the meaning and implications of love. Both are god terms that users intend to conjure up images of goodness without considering the depth and implications of the terms involved. The Greeks, who left us the records of the first experiments with democracy, executed Socrates. Plato spent much of his adult life trying to figure out a better way. I don't think that he succeeded, but he and other critics surely have raised some legitimate concerns. In the end, I come down with Churchill on democracy: it's the worst form of government, except when compared to all of the rest.

Robert Frank on Economics & Framing

In my continuing crusade to identify sounder economic thinking, I want to share an article by Robert Frank in the NYT. In short, humans are not Spock-like reasoning machines, but we're imperfect decision makers who are often swayed by the deceptive and clearly irrelevant. Frank cites the gold standard studies of Kahneman and Tversky to show how random numbers can influence a totally unrelated estimate of the number of African nations in the U.N. But here's Frank's interesting take on their well-known research: "In such cases, Professors Tversky and Kahneman wrote in 1981, 'the adoption of a decision frame is an ethically significant act.'" Frank goes on to discuss how framing affects political decisions, how lies and deceptions can influence a debate. Frank notes—and I agree here—that the legal system provides a relatively poor vehicle for rectifying such deceptions and outright lies. Rather, Frank cites none other than Adam Smith (a great moral philosopher) in support of the use of social sanctions "as an effective alternative to legal and regulatory remedies". He cites Jon Stewart for his use of humor as a sanction, although Frank doubts that many of the targets of his barbs know or care about Stewart's skewers. Frank concludes by writing: "That's why it's important for the circle of critics to widen — and why we need to remember that framing a discussion appropriately is "an ethically significant act". I concur.

Krugman: Follow the Money

Citing Paul Krugman may seem like a broken record, but I find that he hits the nail on the head most often. In his column today, he notes how right-wing populism, which I believe represents a lot of wind generated by a relative few, gets used again by corporate interests. This is What's the Matter With Kansas? all over again. Regulation of markets and taxes sufficient to pay our bills are necessary for a strong, healthy economy and democracy. The Bush Administration lived on the free lunch doctrine too often by cutting taxes and throwing regulation out the window. It left us with markets wrecked, and a fiscal crisis that threatens our future because of a huge deficit that we accumulated before we came to the point that we needed to run a deficit to prime the pump.

Pink on Effective Signs

Dan Pink posts a couple of examples of very effective signs. Nothing like a good graphic to get a message across!

Words from Marcus Aurelius

"Were you to live three thousand years, or even thirty thousand, remember that the sole life which a man can lose is that which he is living at the moment; and furthermore, that he can have no other life except the one he loses…This means that the longest life and the shortest amount to the same thing. For the passing minute is every man's equal possession, but what has once gone by is not ours."

"Your time has a limit set to it. Use it, then, to advance your enlightenment; or it will be gone, and never in your power again."

"Take it that you have died today, and your life's story is ended; and henceforward regard what future time may be given you as an uncovenanted surplus, and live it out in harmony with nature."

Wills on the Church Scandal & Ferguson on History

In an article in TNR, Garry Wills publishes an important assessment of the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church.

Niall Ferguson speaks about history. A print version of the interview can also be found at that site. In these brief monologues, Ferguson discusses the value of history as a topic of study; his "hero", Dr. Who, and the allure of time travel to Ferguson as a youth; and a discussion of the "six killer apps" that gave the West the predominant place in world history for the last 500 years or so, but which have now been "downloaded" by other parts of the world that now allow them to challenge Western predominance.

Imaginative Literature

I posted my Classics Edition of favorite reading back on April 16 (3^rd post down). Now I post imaginative literature, which I will define as any work of literature, poetry, drama, or novel written after Shakespeare. I will list them in the order that they came to me when I jotted them down. No particular pattern here, I don't think.

1. John Donne, "Love Poems of John Donne". I don't know how, but I came upon a recording of Richard Burton reading these, and it is magnificent. I believe that Donne was a minister, but he certainly could write a poem to the glories of love.
   
2. George Herbert, Poems. Some of these were set to music by Ralph Vaughn Williams, and I love them; but spoken or sung, they are beautiful. They sing of grace and redemption with a singular beauty.
   
3. William Blake, shorter poems, such as "Songs of Innocence", "Songs of Experience", and "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell". The longer poems get a bit too complex, but some of these shorter poems are pure beauty within simplicity.
   
4. Jane Austen, Persuasion. Perhaps the novel that I didn't see on the big screen first (although I think that there is a fine film production). It captures the intricate Austen world that I don't think that I'd enjoy reading her more famous works now.
   
5. Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Billy Budd, and Benito Cereno. I'm a late comer to Melville (as the nation under-appreciated him until the 1920s). But, oh my, the wait proved worthwhile. John Patrick Diggins sings praises to Melville in his work, and this prompted me to try Moby
   Dick by audio book. Wow, a great performance of a great work. In addition, Hannah Arendt in On Revolution provides an intriguing discussion of Billy Budd that led me into that haunting work.
   
6. Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. I read this in high school. Twain's sharp tongue and ironic humor tickles the fancy of a high school kid, and I found it delightful.
   
7. Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness and The Secret Agent. I went through a Conrad phase. He captures characters in extreme and difficult situations.
   
8. Willa Cather, My Antonia & Death Comes for the Archbishop. C & I read My Antonia together on her recommendation, and it proved a treat, a story that we could identify with, set as it is on the Nebraska prairie. I read Death for our trip to Santa Fe, and it, too, provided a glimpse of an American life, albeit a very different life than the young woman of the prairie.
   
9. George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman. I've enjoyed a number of Shaw's plays, but this is a favorite, perhaps because I saw a portion of it performed in Cedar Falls the first your we were married, with Myrna Loy and Ricardo Montalban. (I did not know that I would later fall for the young Myrna Loy in the The Thin Man films.) Also, my parents had a copy of this play that I took a bit early. It's Nietzsche rendered with the Anglo-Irish wit of Shaw, delightful and thoughtful at the same time.
   
10. T. S. Elliot, The Four Quartets and "The Journey of the Magi." I don't know that I knew of Elliot's Four Quartets until I heard a portion of it read in a film version of John Fowles's "The Magus" (with Michael Caine). It struck me then, and it's never let go. Other than portions of Shakespeare, it's a work of literature that I've found worth memorizing (in part). As for the "Journey of the Magi", I first heard it performed by Alec Guinness on a recording when we lived in Champaign. Guinness's voice with Elliot's unique vision of a traditional Christmas tableau made for a lasting impression on me that makes it my Advent poem of choice.
    
11. Graham Greene, The Heart of the Matter, The Power and the Glory, and The End of the Affair. It's hard to pick a favorite Greene work; indeed, for literary travel, I have wandered in Greeneland quite a bit (his work also translates very well to film). Like Conrad before him, Greene places his characters in extremis, dealing with the very difficult in a way that captures emotional poignancy with almost clinical precision.
    
12. G. K. Chesterton, The Man Who Was Thursday. Of course, Father Brown is great fun, as are Chesterton's essays and biographies, but The Man Who Was Friday is such great fun, like a great metaphysical riddle built on the Book of Job.
    
13. Albert Camus, The Plague. While I read The Stranger in both high school and college as assigned, only just a few years ago did I take up the recommendation of both daughters to read The Plague. I should have done so sooner, as I enjoyed this book in a way that one simply cannot enjoy The Stranger (too much metaphysical anxiety). The Plague, no walk in the park, mind you, provides a variety of characters and considerations that give it more depth and roundness, and a compelling story.
    
14. F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby, This, too, came relatively late to me via the joy of recorded books. Fitzgerald lives up to his hype in this novel. He captures time, place, and person in a perfect and unique manner. Thanks to C for this one.
    
15. Robert Penn Warren, All the King's Men. To my mind: the best "political" novel. Warren captures a slice of American life and politics—a la Huey Long—in a magnificent work.
    
16. George Orwell, 1984 and Animal Farm. 1984 is simply the hallmark of dystopian novels, while Animal Farm instructs in a way that only imaginative parody can do.
    
17. Walter Miller, Jr., A Canticle for Leibowitz (1960). This may be the least well-known book on my eclectic list, but this SF work mixed my apocalyptic side (and my Boomer fear and fascination with the Bomb) and my latent medievalist side. A fun read, yet thought provoking.
    
18. Ursula LeGuin. The Dispossessed and The Left Hand of Darkness. These are two outstanding works by the queen of SF/Fantasy. LeGuin doesn't just make some fun assumptions and then play with them, she creates whole worlds, whole universes, and then she watches them unfold. Both of these books have a political side to them, but both also have deeply personal characterizations inside of these complex worlds. A great writer created great reading with these books.
    
19. William Golding, The Lord of the Flies. A high school read, but one that sticks with you (actually, a number of books from that era stuck with me). However, this book, which combines an apocalyptic setting with a world of boys—just boys—perhaps resonates most deeply with a teenage boy who will have had glances of how a world of just boys could go so astray.
    
20. John LeCarre. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Smiley's People. I read somewhere that LeCarre couldn't write about Smiley for some time after Alec Guinness brought him to life on the screen in the brilliant BBC productions of these two works. If you've seen these productions, you understand why. I read these two novels only after seeing the television productions. However, LeCarre brings you so completely into this world that your knowledge of plot doesn't distract you because you're so thoroughly engrossed in the world that he creates. If I had to choose, I'd go with the television productions (each several hours long) over the novels, but if you don't read these two novels because you've seen the television productions, then some LeCarre should go on your list. LeCarre is not a "spy novelist", not an Ian Fleming; Smiley is not James Bond. Oh, my, no.
    
21. Ward Just, The Ambassador's Son. Perhaps one should be older the read this book about a man whose son turns violently against him. A frightening book about a man, his wife, and their son caught in world that seems wrong, yet for no strong reason. This, and other Just books that I've read, catch contemporary dramas of American lives, which, however, may be played out anywhere around the globe.
    
22. Marguerite Yourcenar, Memoirs of Hadrian (Grace Flick, translator). My oldest daughter recommended this to me when we were perusing Kramer's Book Store near DuPont Circle in Washington, and I'm very glad I took her recommendation. I'm generally skeptical of historical novels, as a well-written history or biography sticks to the facts (sort of) and avoids wild conjecture. Yet, when I read this book, I felt as if she'd taken me inside this man via true memoires to register his feelings, his world, so perfectly, one cannot imagine that it is not the most accurate, as well as beautiful, portrait we could ever find.
    

I end my list here. No doubt, I'll think of something that I should have mentioned. I welcome suggestions for further readings; perhaps someone can find a pattern here. I don't know that I can.

Chalk One Up for the Rule of Law

This post that I found from the Progressive Realist provides the strong, brief case in favor the rule of law as illustrated by the case of the wanna-bomber of Times Square. As this article (or perhaps another one that I read) points out, giving a person in custody a statement of his rights doesn't mean that he'll stop talking or that he ever would have talked. Failure to provide those rights could, however, make a confession inadmissible. Three cheers for the rule of law! Sound police work, too.

Tyler Cowen and Kindle Highlights

Economist Tyler Cowen, economist @ George Mason U, blogs frequently at Marginal Revolution with often interesting, off-beat topics, including books. In this post, he takes note of the most frequently marked passages in non-fiction Kindle books. Very interesting. Read some of the passages that others are highlighting. I think the first cite, to Gladwell's Outliers, rings very true. The book that follows—completely new to me—also has some thought-provoking passages. Read the link there as well.

Lewis Mumford

In speaking a couple of weeks ago with 1HP, she related her terrific buys from the Seattle Public Library sale. Besides a haul of cookbooks (books the mom likes to hear about), she related her extensive buys in history, politics, and philosophy. One of the books that she mentioned was Lewis Mumford's Technics and Civilization (1934). When she mentioned Mumford's name, I realized that my earlier list of important books contained a serious omission—Lewis Mumford. The baker's dozen is now . . . fourteen (I can't think of a fancier term).

As I intended to write some about each author, I'll start with Mumford. Mumford (1895-1979) was an American humanist. I can't easily classify Mumford because of the breath of his work: literary critic, historian of civilization, historian of technology, urbanist, and philosopher (in the broadest sense of the term). Mumford surveyed human history and summarized what he learned about how our material conditions and ideas have changed. Mumford, more than any other 20^th century thinker that I can call to mind, provides a sense the possibilities of the human project.

Bibliographies from a couple of political theory classes first brought Mumford to my attention. His later work, especially The Myth of the Machine: The Pentagon of Power (1970), details a critique of contemporary life. However, Mumford would quickly note that his aim was not that of a Luddite, but machines, cities, laws— the whole human enterprise—should serve persons. Earlier Mumford addressed the American Renaissance of Emerson and Melville (he helped resurrect Melville from obscurity), the growth and development of cities, and the need for America to lead the fight—yes, fight when it came to that—for a better world. (Mumford lost his son Gettys in combat during WWII).

Works I'd recommend:

The Myth of the Machine: The Pentagon of Power for Mumford the prophet.

The City in History
(1961) for Mumford as a guide to civilization. (I read it during our family trip to Europe many years ago, and it provided a guide to some of the interesting sites we enjoyed.)

                

Stephen Walt on Political Institutions

Stephen Walt on the importance of political institutions for addressing pressing problems, and some suggestions on changes needed. California provides a compelling example of how poorly designed or antiquated political institutions can really cripple a state. I'm thinking of their super-majority required for budgeting and their damned referendum system that compels the government to spend like socialists and tax like libertarians.

Brooks on Government

I often agree with Dave Brooks when it comes to his observations about social science and society. In this column, I'm immediately sympathetic with his position as a "Burkean conservative". I, too, question radical social change. I usually agree that incremental changes are most likely to prove successful. For instance, the health care reform bill passed by Congress is incremental change (although some think it portends the end of the world). However, Brooks makes a couple of mistakes in this column: First, Obama didn't opt of "big government". The train-wreck of an economy that Bush left him gave him only one real option: massive stimulus spending. Second, special interests, inimical to the broader public interest (the rest of us), should suffer attack. If anything, Obama has been too tepid in dealing with the forces of the status quo. The opening skit on SNL tonight, with Obama asking Wall Street to please allow reform, hits a widely held perception (one that Garry Wills has expressed a number of times on his recent book tour) that Obama places too much hope on successfully placating opposing interests. Sometimes you need to knock heads. Brooks decries the knee-jerk polarization that the current debates on government have taken, and I join him in this, but he fails to acknowledge that the right has really gone much further right (hysterically anti-government in some cases) than that left has gone left with any pro-big government attitude. Brooks, like Obama, seems to believe that even-handedness must provide an answer. Sometimes it does, sometimes it's just; but sometimes it's merely unjust and ineffective.