Barnett Takes Ferguson to Task

Tom Barnett's interesting perspective on the world and the U.S. role in it provides a very thoughtful perspective. In this piece he takes down Niall Ferguson's dissing of the Obama Administration's handling of the Egypt situation, which I've been posting about of late. I like Barnett's perspective, which balances economics, geopolitical strategy, and military concerns better than anyone else currently, although I think Fareed Zakaria usually has a worthwhile and justified perspective on events. Also, I note that Barnett makes a passing but disparaging remark about George Friedman's work. Interestingly, I had to stop listening to Friedman's The Next 100 Years because I thought it too limiting, too 19th century. It's all geopolitics with no nukes or globalization. I get the impression that Barnett doesn't think too highly of it either.

David Brooks on Egypt & the Quest for Dignity

I owe this one to Frank Robinson's excellent post on Egypt @ his blog The Rational Optimist. Robinson incorporates insights from Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man (a great source for understanding the Hegelian tradition, Plato, and Nietzsche and which I think has been unfairly maligned), as well as from Brooks. In any event, Robinson and Brooks have reasonable hopes for the Egyptian movement. Societies can improve, and while backsliding does occur, we have reason for hope. I hope that they're both right.

Tyler Cowan & David Brooks: The Great Stagnation

I'm getting two birds with one stone here. I read Tyler Cowan's e-book and being late to review it, I now have the benefit of David Brooks's review. Cowan's argument that we have picked a great deal of the "low-hanging fruit", makes a lot of sense to me. Certainly our economy has changed a great deal, but have I lived through the changes that my parents or grandparents lived through? Personal computers and the internet have changed a great deal, but I don't know if the changes are as profound as those of the period 1850 to 1950.

Brooks makes a good point: our quality of life may have improved, although not our wealth necessarily.

Both sources provide thoughtful commentary on our current position.

David Rock @ GoogleTechTalks on Your Brain at Work

I don't know how I came across this, but it proved very interesting, and it should prove very useful. In short, Mr. Rock talks about how our brain works and how we can use our knowledge about how it works to improve our lives. He talks about 4 primary topics:

1. The rational is overvalued. It's only a small part of our brain, it processes serially and rather slowly, and it uses a lot of energy. On the other hand, it's most important function may be to say "no" to motor or emotional impulses.

2. Emotions are misunderstood. We color everything in our world with either a positive or a negative valence. We can change our attitude toward the outside world to some extent.

3. The social world is our main concern. We are social animals through and through. We depend on each other for survival, not just our individual wits. We have the following concerns as social animals: SCARF
Status
Certainty
Autonomy
Relatedness
Fairness

4. Attention. As we learn to pay attention, as we learn mindfulness, we learn to change our brain. We can develop brain skills that enhance our lives.

This was quite an interesting talk. I've seen a couple of GoogleTechTalks, which are very much like TED Talks, in that they have excellent presenters. These talks are a bit longer and have less production glitz than many TED Talks, but the quality of the presentation and topics (well, the two that I've seen) have impressed me.

Rock also cited these two articles that further examine his thinking:
"Managing with the Brain in Mind" and "The Neuroscience of Mindfulness"

Good stuff!

Ferguson: Historian as Commentator

This long interview of Ferguson about his cover story in Newsweek about the Obama Administration's actions in Egypt raises a really interesting background question: does a deep knowledge of history give one a deeper insight into current events? Does Ferguson, who certainly is well versed in the history of the last couple of centuries, have greater insight into current events? Some random thoughts:
1. Ferguson loves controversy. I think this love of controversy may cloud his judgment.
2. As I mentioned in a comment to my last post (yes, I'm down to commenting on my own posts!), the author of Virtual History should know better than to criticize those who fail to forecast events.
3. I think that he is right in pushing the idea of scenarios. That is, consideration of multiple futures, not knowing which will prevail. Acknowledge the limitation of knowledge.
4. Is the Muslim Brotherhood so strong and so reactionary? I don't know. Does he, really?
5. He mocks Obama for calling Islam and religion of peace, and certainly a lot of evidence that it's not. But would he mock anyone if they said Christianity is a religion of peace? Certainly a lot of evidence that it's not. Religion, for a great many people, is considered no more seriously than their choice of language. They're born with it, enough said. This allows those who want to, to manipulate people rather easily toward violence. Violence and religion have an awfully long history. (See Rene Girard's works.)
6. I have some sympathy for Ferguson's argument that we need some greater sense of grand strategy.
7. One more interview on Parker-Spitzer: http://parkerspitzer.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/14/niall-ferguson-obamas-handling-of-the-egyptian-crisis-was-a-foreign-policy-debacle/.
8. Perhaps U.S. policy was wise to play it both ways? Ferguson is quite critical of this, but I'm not convinced that it will necessarily prove so bad. You play both sides of the street, hedge your bets. If you don't screw the winner, the winner can forget easily enough if you offer the right attitude following. On the other hand: Iran 1979.

Ferguson on Obama's Egypt Policy--or Lack Thereof

Niall Ferguson has apparently taken up a column at Newsweek, which is good news. He's a first-rate historian and a very much a controversialist. I don't always agree with him, but I think that one has to take his arguments seriously. In his first column, he skewers the Obama administration for remaining behind events in Egypt, thereby alienating both the powers that be (or were) and the protesters. It does give me a scary reminder of the U.S. and Iran in 1979, a very bad precedent indeed. Jimmy Carter's policies and actions addressing the fall of the Shah were not a success. I think that Ferguson, according to other sources that I've heard, may be overestimating the sway of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, I'm not certain that democracy will prevail, by any means. Also, while Kissinger isn't necessarily the best role model, he does think in terms of global strategy, and that's a must for foreign policy. I don't know that Obama has that instinct, and the voters were looking at someone to address the economy, not foreign policy in the grand scheme.

Ian Morris: Why the West Rules--For Now

I like big history and I cannot lie.

Almost famous rap

Okay, that’s a bit of a misquote, but for yours truly, it works. As someone who has declared his own year of big history, this book provided a great start. The full title of this book tells a lot: Why the West Rules—For Now: The Patterns of History and What They Reveal About the Future. Quite a mouthful, and quite a claim, but Professor Morris (Stanford Classics & Archeology) backs up his claims. Let me unpack it a bit.

Morris starts with a tale of counter-history: a tale of Prince Albert traveling to Beijing in the mid-nineteenth century, held virtually captive to the Chinese hegemon. Of course, almost the opposite was true, except the Chinese emperor sent a small dog, Looty, to Balmoral Castle, as a form of homage and tribute. How did this happen? How did the West come to dominate the globe in the nineteenth century? This is the guiding question of this book, and to answer it, Morris goes back, way back.

Morris goes back to the first journeys of humans out of Africa. There were multiple migrations and multiple forms of humanoids that evolved in Africa and that migrated out. Morris retraces all of this to arrive at solid beginning for his account: race (as biology) does not account for human differences. We’re all birds of a feather genetically (Although some hanky-panky in Europe mixed some Neanderthal genes in with the homo sapiens. Neanderthals eventually died out.) After the beginning of humans, and then with the development of agriculture (about 10,000 years ago), divergences began between East and West. Note: Morris notes that distinctions between East and West are in some sense artificial and to some extent limit the human populations that he considers. By “East” he means China and its civilization, of which Japan became the most prominent offshoot. By “West”, he means that world that started in the “Hilly Flanks” of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and then migrated west into the Mediterranean, then into Northern Europe, and then across the Atlantic. He does not consider other human civilizations, such as those of the Americas.

Morris tells how, using an index of social development that he created, East and West went back and forth over the millennia in the lead for development. The West began in the lead and continued up through the time of the Roman Empire, then the East lead (around 1100 during the Song dynasty), and the two were nearly even up into the late 1700’s, when the West shot into a lead and changed the game. Up until the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the empires and nation-states of both East and West would hit a ceiling of social development that neither the Romans nor the Song could break. Each time this ceiling was approached, at least one of the “five horsemen of the apocalypse” would ride: epidemic, famine, state failure, climate change, and migration. However, in the 1600’s China on the East and Russia in the West (and East geographically) closed the “steppe highway” that allowed the horsemen of Central Asia (think Ghengis Khan and Tamarlane) to move from East to West, wrecking havoc on civilizations in the West. These horsemen are the barbarians who helped bring down Rome, and in the East they were the reason for that lovely wall the Chinese have.

The weakness of the book lies in the fact that Morris doesn’t give as definitive and persuasive answer to the question of why the West shot out ahead via industrialization. Perhaps he knows of very important and provocative literature out there. For instance, he praises Pomeranz’s The Great Divergence on several occasions, but I think that he could have done more, as this change in humanity—the Industrial Revolution—is the most significant change in the human condition since the advent of agriculture and the resulting development of cities (and thus civilization). But perhaps I quibble. To get another take on this issue, see Timur Kuran’s review in Foreign Affairs.

After bringing the tale up to today, and after some discussion of China’s growing influence and how it might take the lead in social development back to the East, Morris ponders the future. In an essay that Niall Ferguson rightly praised in his brief note on the book in Foreign Affairs, Morris contemplates to divergent paths that humanity may take. First, the possibility of the rise of The Singularity, where humans and machines sync-up for a brave new world. The other path that he contemplates is the possibility of Nightfall, a phrase borrowed from Asimov’s Foundation series, where civilization collapses and the five horsemen ride again. Climate change, anyone?

The great reluctance that I have to write a review of this book comes from the inadequacy of my review to do this book justice. It’s a very learned undertaking, yet its written with a light and engaging hand. Morris blends analysis and narrative in a pleasing manner. He carefully lays out his premises and supports his conclusions. He finds patterns in history, but not laws. He does about everything right that one could hope for in such a book as this. If you want to know where humankind has been and where we might be going, you’d be hard pressed to find a better book than this one.

726 pages, published 2010.

Exuberant Animal Essentials

I mentioned this site a few blogs ago, and today I find a new post that lists "essentials". I wouldn't bother to post it as a health or fitness matter, but I have to list it because the "essentials" aren't about just health and fitness, but about life. I strikes me that if you apply these essentials to your whole life, in all of its various manifestations, you're going to be doing very well for yourself and those around you. Good thoughts to keep in mind.

Art De Vany on The Superbowel Diet

Art De Vany, one of my diet & health gurus, wrote this provocative piece on Super Bowel diet habits. In a word, most people eat terribly when consuming what most consider appropriate Super Bowel fare. Okay, okay, I have an occasional beer, and I'm not a purist. However, De Vany makes an important point: if the athletes we watch ate this way, they wouldn't be worth watching. Ironic, indeed. So, if you must watch the Super Bowel, keep this information in mind.

Garry Wills on Football & Violence

Only Garry Wills could find St. Augustine apropos in an article about football. The point Wills raises--about the violence of the game--is a disturbing one indeed. I loved playing high school football. While being tall and (then) somewhat lanky, basketball seemed a natural calling, but football really captured something primal. Perhaps so many guys on a field engaged in what was a form of a war game. I enjoyed it when I could hit and move somebody (overweight defensive linemen or over active linebackers), and as an offensive lineman I became pretty good at it. (I never found a consistent spot on defense. I never found the technique to make it work for me, or perhaps I didn't have enough of the animal spirit.) I enjoyed the contact, but I didn't want to hurt anyone. Rough-housing without hurting, I thought. But I must say, not having had a son, I was relieved of my growing concern that football involves too much violence and risk of injury to justify it. (Volleyball, I learned, has injuries enough of its own. Instrumental music--not so much, thankfully.)

I don't follow pro football, and for the umpteenth year in a row, I doubt I'll watch any of the Super Bowl (some snippets, maybe). I do love to watch the Hawks or high school ball if I know the players, but I do cringe at the injuries. Like Wills, who has written eloquently about Raymond Berry, the great Baltimore Colts receiver who played with Johnny Unitas, also appreciates the game. But perhaps we should start saying "no". Okay, this is probably the most heretical thing I've written on this blog, but I don't have a good answer. Too many fans seem to revel in the violence and not the beauty of athleticism.

Movie Tip: Trouble in Paradise

Iowa Guru & I saw this film tonight, and it proved a delight. We've always been quite fond of 1930's romantic and screw-ball comedies, but this one has escaped me before (she'd seen it before and just recently again on TCM). Directed by Ernst Lubitsch, it if full of innuendo, sly sophistication, and exquisite charm. (Fortunately, it was made before the Hollywood Code came into effect and limited adult takes on movies.) A film that most anyone would enjoy.

Frank Bruni on Jack LaLanne: A Dour Take

Both Iowa Guru & I thought that this was a dour take on Jack LaLanne's legacy. For me, living in the body brings great delight (for the most part). Exercise is second only to sex for physical delight (although a great meal or fine wine has many sensual delights). In any event, to think that exercise is something that we must do out of a sense of guilt or vanity is a truly sad and unnecessary take on the experience. While sometimes I moan and groan about going to yoga or going to lift, when I've done it, I inevitably feel better about everything. And I love games: basketball was a form of meditation and recreation for me for decades, and now I meet some of that need for the delight of competition by playing volleyball. I do agree that too many forms of exercise appear to be a matter of drudgery. How many runners have I seen that look genuinely pained? And treadmills--well, they do remind me a bit of hamsters. I now prefer a bit of stationary bike with faux countryside to give the ride some interest. Also, thanks to the likes of Art De Vany and Mark Sisson, I keep workouts relatively short & intense. For play on the other hand, I can take as much time as I want (although my body now limits me). Also, Frank Forencich of Exuberant Animal and Erwan Le Corre of MovNat show us how we can use and enjoy our bodies in the most primal and delightful ways. I wish I was young and agile enough to learn parkour or gymnastics like Damien Walters, but the yoga has been a true delight--and think what one might do there. So, Mr. Bruni, get out of your chair and smell the sweat. I like to read and watch more than the next person, but sometimes you got to go shake it, and you'll love it.

Mark Sisson on Jack LaLanne

This a wonderful celebration of Jack LaLanne, someone whom everyone in our generation remembers. Iowa Guru swears by him (I mean in praise of him). The fact that he was full of vim and vigor up to the time of his death at age 96 is quite a deal. Could he have done better? Perhaps. I think some of the folks that I read, like De Vany and Sisson certainly would recommend some different practices (on diet and variety of exercise), but it's hard to argue with his success. I'm going to follow-up with a different post, but let me be clear: here's to you Jack!

Meditation: Growing Understanding

This is just one of many studies that show the benefits of meditation. I think that the author doesn't probably know how much work has been done already on this topic by people like Richard Davidson at the University of Wisconsin, to name but one researcher that comes quickly to mind. (If you want more information, you should check out the Mind and Life Conferences sponsored by the Dalai Lama, where he brings together scientists with Buddhists to share perspectives and common concerns. They have some very interesting exchanges and the scientists have provided some very interesting information about meditation, the practice of compassion, emotions, and so on.) Anyway, this article might whet your appetite to meditate. My willpower waxes and wanes on this. I do find that a great night of sleep is the very best thing for the brain.

Stephn Walt on Eygpt: A Realist Perspective

Walt gives a realist argument about why the U.S. should allow Mubarak to go and why to the U.S. should hope to see democracy gain a foothold. By doing so, Walt shows that "realist" thinkers do not concern themselves only with matters of military and economic power, but that the legitimacy and popularity of a regime count for a great deal also. Thus, this gives some insight into not only a crucial foreign policy decision, but also it displays a more sophisticated realism.

Ross Douthat on Egypt

Douthat raises all of the right questions and lists all of the possible trade-offs if the U.S. backs Mubarak or if it sees him go. He notes in the end--and this is the real significance--what happens in the streets of Egypt will control the outcome. The U.S. is more of a bystander than a participant. There are limits to power.

On Egypt

I'm now watching Fareed Zakaria's Global GPS about Egypt. In general, this is the best public affairs program on TV, and today is no exception. The discussion about developments from participants in Egypt and by U.S. diplomats and academics. The discussion is intelligent and articulate. Speakers are sharp enough to note that we should worry more about the Russian revolution precedent than the Iranian revolution precedent. A really insightful take. And no one else gets current power holders on to speak like Zakaria--David Cameron interview coming up!

BTW, the site changes from time-to-time. A great place to see the show without commercials. The site usually changes on Monday to reflect the show from the day before.

More on the Financial Crisis

This article by NYT financial columnist Gretchen Morgenson reinforces what I saw last night & reinforces my belief that we haven't done nearly enough to address these problems. However, this article by Frank Partnoy (whom I think was interviewed in the film) suggests that we might find some accounting yet for the numerous misdeeds that occurred.

Movie Review: Inside Job

Iowa Guru & I went to see this Oscar-nominated documentary film tonight. It tells the story of the 2008 financial crash from its from its roots in the 1980's to its current repercussions (or lack thereof). The film takes a complex subject and makes it comprehensible to a wide audience. I didn't learn anything especially new, as I've read a fair amount on the topic already. However, it's well done, and it carefully documents its conclusions. Some sub-themes, for instance, like the academic conflicts-of-interest, were especially well explored.

Don't go for any reassurance that the world has been set aright. Essentially, we established a perverse incentive system, moral hazard, totally insufficient regulations, and a culture of greed, and then we expected smoke and mirrors to make us rich. In the past I've commented on how traditional, "free market" economics has demonstrated its shortcomings during this crisis. Here, we hear and see the actual economists, like Alan Greenspan, who sold this bill of goods. It wasn't just an error in knowledge and modeling, we have some serious ethical corruption as well.

I will not sleep better tonight for having seen this movie. One of the really puzzling aspects of Obama's response to this was his appointment to so many insiders to positions in the Administration who had some hand in setting up and maintaining this corrupt system. C & I believe that he felt he could not afford to appoint rookies or outsiders when the system was on the brink of collapse. Perhaps this is a wise decision, but it comes at the cost of maintaining the status quo, for the most part. The filmmakers don't see much fundamentally changed by the financial reform bill. Better than nothing, but not enough. I suspect very much that the filmmaker is right. BTW, the film was written and directed by Charles Ferguson. I hope that they win the Academy Award for Best Documentary! See this film!

What To Do in Egypt?

Yesterday, in response to 1HP's questioning of Obama Administration policy about Egypt (to have been delivered by her White House contact), I raised these questions:
1. If the U.S. believes that Islamic radicals—anti-democratic & theocratic—would replace Mubarak, should we then determine that it would be better to wait for other reform?
2. If the U.S. believes that Mubarak is a better strategic partner than any likely replacement (and who knows who might emerge in power if wide spread disruption occurs), should we practice realism over an ideology of democracy?
3. Given Egypt’s current state of development, can we expect some worthwhile (i.e., more than plebiscite) democracy take root in Egypt? To what extent is the U.S. foolish to encourage democracy in places where the social & economic conditions make its success unlikely? See, for instance. F. Zakaria, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home & Abroad.
4. To what extent should we see Mubarak as like the Shah of Iran? Will continued U.S. support only flame resentment against the U.S. for propping up an unpopular dictator? Or is Mubarak different, less odious?

Then I read this article by Leslie Gelb, foreign policy big wig. Well, at least by him I was asking the right questions. But I'm not sure either of us have "the right" answers. Politics always seems a matter of trade-offs.

Nick Morgan on Public Speaking Tips

This is a fine piece, a sound-bite size tip on giving great presentations. Just enough to whet the appetite. If you have to present (and who doesn't?), then its worth < 3 minutes to consider these simple points.

Robert Wright on the U.S. as Global Cop

Robert Wright makes a good point here, one that others have made before him and that we continue to ignore at our peril. We pay a huge cost for being (we think) the "sole superpower" and de facto global cop. We pay for it financially and in our standing in the world. We do need more collective efforts, which we used in the Cold War (think NATO). We were always the biggest contributor, but never the only one. Maybe, to some extent, we've always been suckers. However, it's time to stop. We have to get beyond the paranoia of shared sovereignty. We need to work our real collective action strategies.

Well, one can hope.

David Brooks on the Asian Tiger Mom

Brooks makes a great point here in the bruha about Amy Chua and her hardcore Chinese mother portrait. Simply put, learning to deal with other people effectively is the most challenging and rewarding skill of all. Indeed, many think that the human brain expanded markedly in order to deal with group dynamics, coupled with speech that allowed for social coordination. I've argued that those with the best communication skills and the attendant ability to "read" other people will take a person to the top of about any group. Group dynamics are a real challenge in any group: at work, in the family, on a team. You name it, and group dynamics are the challenge. Why do young people benefit from athletics, plays, music, and the like? Of course exercise, or musical performance and so on are good in themselves, but learning to work together as a group is the key point. As someone who's a member of and observed athletic teams, I can tell you group cohesion is the sine quo non of success. Ask Coach K or John Wooden if you have doubts. I'm sure other performance coaches will tell you the same thing. So, I think Brooks is right--don't be so easy on your kids, Chua! Make them mix it up!

P.S. I did see one of her daughters defended her in print. I also see that dad, too, is a Yale law professor. I think we have some Pygmalion effect here, too.

Positive Communication: The King's Speech

Since I've been writing a lot about speech lately, and unfortunately, much of it concerning the surfeit of hate speech, it was nice to see The King's Speech last night with C. Simply put, one man's speech, crucial to a nation, becomes unleashed through dedication, experimentation, and the teacher's open heart that is willing, indeed almost demands, an open heart from his famous pupil. Colin Firth gives another excellent performance in what must be a very challenging role. Playing a stutter for someone like him who normally delivers lines as smooth and silky as his good looks must have been quite difficult. His performance, and that of the remainder of the cast, were quite fine. While George VI's speech at the outbreak of the war must have been quite moving, we also know that Churchill's speech (and he too had a speech impediment--listen to him lisp his "s's") helped win the war. Yes, speech can serve a powerful good. Speech, for good or ill, is quite powerful. In this film we celebrate how it comes to empower a man and a nation.

Twofer: Presentation Zen on Dr. Brene Brown

Garr Reynolds @ Presentation Zen and in his books has some very important things to say about communication. In this particular entry, you get a double treat because he embeds a TED Talk by Dr. Brene Brown, professor of social work. I'd not heard of her before, but she made an excellent presentation. Interestingly, she reminds me of themes that famous trial lawyer Gerry Spence preaches in his teaching: vulnerability and communicating from the heart. Not very lawyerly by most peoples beliefs, but in fact, as Spence's success demonstrates, it's how one connects with others. Anyway, both Reynolds and Dr. Brown are well worth the time and effort.

Wills on Lincoln's Great Speeches & Obama's Arizona Speech

I'm having a hard time getting away from this topic, but some commentators have given us some profound insights. Now Garry Wills weighs in. Wills, who has leveled some harsh criticism of Obama, here compares him to Lincoln and Shakespeare in using words as healing balm for others and for the nation. High praise indeed! Like Lincoln, Obama chose to use the occasion to provide words of healing and not condemnation. Like Shakespeare's Henry V, Obama uses words to praise heroism and shared endeavor's from which future generations can draw succor.

Nick Morgan on Obama's Speech

Morgan makes a point that everyone should grasp: there is a huge difference between free speech and license. In other words, government regulation of speech should occur only under very limited circumstances, but within society, we should eschew speech that is hateful, false, and malicious. Morgan writes:

We can all do our bit. Don’t read, promulgate, or write pieces that promote unmitigated hate. Avoid the obscene rants and the lunatic fringe. Have a working assumption that just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they’re immoral or insane. And take the time to listen -- as honestly and respectfully as you want to be listened to in turn -- to all the other voices that make up our unruly, difficult democracy.

To which I say "amen!". Also, he includes a very poignant portion of Obama's Tuscan speech.

Reinhold Niebuhr on Hope, Love, and Forgiveness

Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore, we must be saved by hope. ... Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore, we are saved by love. No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as it is from our standpoint. Therefore, we must be saved by the final form of love, which is forgiveness.

Quoted by David Brooks in the previous post.

David Brooks on Civility & the Paradox of Sinfulness & Ignorance

It seems that every time Paul Krugman offers a trenchent opinion on a political or cultural topic, along comes David Brooks to challenge or amend it. So it is on the issue of civility.

The important point Brooks makes in this column arises from the paradox of sinfulness and ignorance. Simply put, Brooks argues that if we acknowledge our sinfulness and our limitations--our often tragic shortcomings and limitations--we will, collectively, move life forward little by little. But only by recognizing our limitations can we hope to act with the necessary humility, caution, and deference that will allow us to live with our respective limits and not destroy ourselves. Brooks argues, however, that contemporary culture too readily celebrates our "achievements" and narcissism. Using sports as an example, he compares the public humility of Joe DiMaggio with contemporary athletes who seem to miss no opportunist to exalt their achievements. Of course, if this were limited to athletics, we'd have an annoyance rather than something to fear, but he argues that this attitude pervades our larger culture.

What Brooks argues, I believe, draws on some of the best wisdom of both Classical and Christian culture. For instance, the professed ignorance of Socrates and the sense of moral failure explicit in St. Augustine. Brooks cites one of his favorite Christians, Reinhold Neibuhr for his concluding thought on the topic.

(See the next post. I want those who may not wade through my patter of have the best shot @ appreciating the quote.)

Krugman on Obama's Speech & Prospects for a Rhetorical Truce

I mostly agree with Krugman on this one. Yes, we do have some divides. We always have had such divides as a nation (think Jefferson & Hamilton), but they should be mostly political, on the margins. As someone brought up Republican, and having come to know it well before leaving the fold, I can say that limited government and lower taxes can be good things. It depends on what government functions you're limiting, what alternatives exist to fulfill public goods, and what you loose by lowering taxes, or conversely, what you get for your money. Active, engaged political discourse on these issues should be the lifeblood of a democracy. However, when paranoia creeps in, as it does on both left and right--although I think much more often and virulently on the right--then we have a poisoned public sphere. Thus, I think Krugman a little too pessimistic about possible reconciliation. Even on a heated topic like abortion, thoughtful discourse should agree that abortion isn't the best form of birth control, that women wanting to keep their children should have good options available to them, and if you think abortion absolutely wrong, you should act to help those in need as well as work to share your moral vision in a moral (i.e., non-violent) way. I think many do that. It's clear, however, that some few who opposed abortion as killing seem willing to kill to stop it. John Brown syndrome we might call it. But this is not true for most, and it should be so for all forms of dissent.

Robert Wright on Political Discourse

Robert Wright is a person whose opinion I find trustworthy and thoughtful, and he doesn't disappoint in this instance. Was the shooter crazy? Of course. Was he likely influenced by political rhetoric that depicts differing political views as alien? Yes, probably. We simply cannot swim in a sea of political vituperative and not become infected.

Mark Sisson with an inspirational photo

I had to post this link just for the photo. I can't do that (planche in gymnastics parlance, I believe). I can do some arm balances in yoga class, but not this. Well, something to aspire to besides all white hair. I hope I'm closer to the planche than the all white mane.

David Brooks on the Arizona Shootings

When something as horrible as the rampage in Arizona occurs it does force us to consider some issues very carefully, and David Brooks, as usual, takes a careful look at the events in Arizona. Most importantly, he suggests based on reasonable evidence that the shooter suffers from schizophrenia. Of those who do suffer from this disease, a small sub-group are violent. We, as a society, have to learn how to deal with such individuals. Brooks goes on to contest the narrative that this individual acted because of inflamed political rhetoric. Yes and no. No, in the sense that he may not have been even capable of rational (in any sense of the word) political thinking, but yes in the sense that I wrote about yesterday. I just don't believe words of hatred and invective don't have an effect, especially on the weak-minded (for lack of a better term).

We saw this problem raised in Michael Mooore's "Bowling for Columbine". Moore ranged over a wide territory in attempting the assess what occurred in those horrible shootings. Is it the gun culture? Is it the perpetual war machine that we support? Is it some ideology? In the end, Moore convinced me of nothing. He raised a lot of interesting questions and displayed a lot of interesting associations, but his work can only raise questions, it doesn't provide answers (his intention notwithstanding). We need deep, serious thought and study about how to address individuals like those at Columbine and this shooter. Strongly alienated, disaffected males (yes, males, let's not go PC on any of this). I, for one, think that access to firearms is way too easy.But restrictions on access to firearm isn't a complete answer. We've had two rampage murder-suicides here in Johnson County since I've practiced here, so these challenges are not limited to Arizona or to gun-happy cultures. No, we need to think deeply and hard about all of this. There are no easy answers.

More Thoughts on the Arizona Shootings

These thoughts by Timothy Egan and these from Jonathan Chait @ TNR add to the current discussion about the effect of incendiary or outright hate speech. The piece from TNR raises a good point: to say that discourse should become more civil and less incendiary is different from trying to "limit free speech". There's a difference, a crucial difference, between norms (voluntary, governed by social convention) and laws (enforced by the coercive power of the state). I don't want to limit free speech, which is to say I don't think that the government should normally control what people can say. However, by the use of social norms, I suggest that we can and should limit such speech. How? Don't listen to it (e.g., Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck, who get paid according to their ratings). I wouldn't let someone use my blog space to spew hatred or invective. Remember, "free speech" is a matter of legal rights that limit government action and not a compulsory requirement for individuals or private entities.

I truly believe that spirited public discourse can be fruitful in a democracy. However, invective, calling into question the legitimacy of an adversary, grade-school level name-calling--all of that is unnecessary and stupid. (How's that for invective!)

Finally, we are influenced by words. Some--especially the mentally limited or deranged--more than others. We like to think that "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me". But you know that's not true. Please write in if you've never been cut by words. Please write if you have reacted viscerally to some report that has later proven false or incomplete. Let's face it, humans, we're all suckers for words. We need to have our crap-detectors on 24/7, but it's not easy. Think of the incredible karma for words, how they are all mustard seeds. Some blow away in the wind, some grow a bit and die, but some, in the right conditions, come to fruition, for good or ill. Please! Sow carefully.

Douthat's Counter-Point to Krugman

Because I want to be fair, and because Douthat makes some interesting points, I want to link to his article in counter-point to Krugman's. I still think that that deranged minds aren't so deranged that they act randomly. Irrationally? Yes, but not randomly. The Oswald and Bremer cases are thoughtful counter-points, but I still think that the political atmosphere affects such occurences, more than just a little. Thoughts?

Krugman on the Arizona Shootings

I wish that I didn't think Krugman right about this. I wish we could say that we're experienced an isolated, deranged soul committing a random act of violence. Yes, a deranged soul, but no, it was not a random act of violence. The shooting was aimed at a political figure. Although it came from a deranged individual, the targets were not entirely random--he choose a political target. Someone like this individual, and others before him, act out in a way that they think will resonate in the wider culture.

I also have to say that Krugman is correct when he eschews any pretense that both Left and Right stand equal in invective. The "left", which means, I think, those who adhere to the values of the Enlightenment (and which can certainly include Republicans and conservatives) value reason, democracy, and resist the use of violence. A few--but a very vocal few--on the Right promote fear and violence. Even during the Bush Administration, when from the point of view of many on the Left, our nation's institutions were deeply harmed and our values degraded, we saw no widespread turn to talk of violence and resistance. No, generally in America, violence and fear come from the Right. We see it again. Leaders in the Republican Party need to speak out loudly and clearly against it. Failing to do so may constitute good politics (I hope not), but it clearly constitutes a moral failure.

John LeCarre: Our Kind of Traitor

Yours truly has been a John LeCarre fan for a long time. I have encountered his work both in his novels and in film and television productions of them. He started writing about espionage (and more importantly, those involved in it) during the Cold War. Since the end of the Cold War, he's dealt with corruption of a more private nature for the most part, or one could say in the spirit of current parlance, within the context of a public-private partnership. In some ways, his more recent work makes one almost pine for the good ol' Commies. Now, the nemesis is often found in the nefarious world of corporate crime or "the Americans" running rough-shod into some scheme justified by the "War on Terror" (a term that should be burned at the stake). LeCarre isn't the type of writer you want to read if you want to always look on the bright side of life (to borrow a turn of phrase from his fellow Brits @ Monty Python's Flying Circus).

As to this particular book, I found it one of the most engaging by LeCarre that I've read. I enjoyed its immediate predecessor--A Most Wanted Man--as well, but in this novel, the array of characters really drew me in. The central characters are a young British couple who encounter a family led by a Russian mobster. However, the mobster quickly displays many endearing qualities, plus he has a desire to avenge a death by fellow mobsters. He goes looking for "fair play English". The story unfolds from this chance vacation encounter in Antiqua, then to London, and then on to Switzerland. During the novel, we come to know a number of different characters, and LeCarre paints each one with details that give us a sense of the individuality of each of them. Indeed, as the novel progresses, I come to hope for a happy ending for all of them. But, of course, this is LeCarre, and one just doesn't think that things will work out that way. Of course, to learn how it turns out you need to read the book!

P.S. I didn't link to Amazon's site for the book as I normally do. I listened to this book, I did not read it. The audio presentation was quite good, with the narrator providing excellent characterization to the dialogues. Highly recommended.

Enjoy.

Stephen Walt: Diplomacy at Work & the Value of Deterrence

I found this piece worthwhile, having some interest in diplomacy and international relations, among other things. I hold a particular interest in the workings of deterrence, which, by the way, is not of little consequence in law and life. In this particular speech, the conversation between Saddam Hussein and the U.S. ambassador before the outbreak of the Gulf War suggests that Saddam wasn't fully apprised of the U.S. opposition to an Iraqi invasion and the consequences it would bring to him. One hopes that the decision to go to war wouldn't rest on a single conversation, but sometimes great endeavors, including great mistakes, can flow from tiny causes. Perhaps tiny triggers might provide a better description. The assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand didn't "cause" the Great War, but it was a trigger, certainly. A match doesn't do much without a powder keg, but in the presence of such a keg, a big match isn't necessary.

Also of note in the piece comes Walt's distinction between the "spiral model" of conflict and that of deterrence theory. An interesting distinction to consider. I'm not sure which one is right (or either), or which of them in might prove most useful in different situations. However, given that life is a lot like IR, it's something worth thinking about.

Gary Taubes: Why We Get Fat & What We Can Do About It

This may be the most important book you will read in 2011.
Repeat: this may be the most important book that you read in 2011.

This book is a science book, it is not a diet book.
Repeat: this is a science book, not a diet book. (Well, except in the sense that it's a slimmed down version of his superb book, Good Calories, Bad Calories. (I couldn't resist the play on words.)

Taubes takes his groundbreaking work from Good Calories, Bad Calories and reduces it to a more manageable length with the intention of reaching a wider audience. As he notes, and as we all should know, we are currently in the midst of a runaway epidemic of diseases all associated with metabolic syndrome: type 2 diabetes, heart disease & hypertension, and cancer, to name a few of the major diseases that plague us.

So what does Taubes say? I'll attempt to summarize it here:

1. Saying that we get fat because we take in more calories than we expend is like saying that an alcoholic is an alcoholic because he (or she) drinks too much. Dah! The real question: why do we eat (drink) too much?

2. Counting and cutting calories doesn't work. It's too hard, too imprecise (for the purpose it's intended), and it's too irrelevant.

3. More exercise "works up an appetite", and as one of the national news weeklies said in a cover article in the last year or two, it doesn't really seem to help with weight-loss. (It's good for other reasons, but long-term, boring cardio workouts aren't worth much at all and may even prove harmful.)

4. A sedentary life does not (in itself) make a person fat.

5. Some people hold more fat than others do, which is simply to say we have different body types. Some people suffer from rare disorders that cause unusual fat formations on the body. (See photos on the book.)

6. Some people eat enormous amounts of food and don't get fat. It's as if they are robots or are hypnotized to eat lots. E.g., teen-age boys. Can anyone think of any examples?

7. Teenagers, infants, expectant moms: all eat more because their hormones "order" them to.

8. Only two hormones "order" us to fatten up: one doesn't really matter much, and the other is insulin.

9. Insulin orders the body to store fat. The more insulin we produce, the fatter we become.

10. The body produces insulin to process carbohydrates.

11. The more carbohydrates we eat, the more insulin we produce.

12. The more insulin, the more fat, the more fat, the more messed-up our hormone balance becomes and the more insulin resistance we develop (which means the more insulin the body must produce to process any given amount of carbohydrates). You can discern the negative feedback loop that the body enters into here.

13. We can safely replace carbohydrates (not all, mind you) with protein and fat.

14. Fat phobia, at least for some fats, is misguided and bad science. Ditto fear of protein (although, with about anything in Mother Nature, everything has its limits).

Okay, there is my 14-point summary of Taubes's book. I assure you, this summary does not do it justice. Taubes builds his case very meticulously. In addition, his work really brings out the human (and therefore, history) of science. Alas, for all our hopes and dreams, science is a human enterprise, full of all kinds of biases, errors, and contingencies. The loss of German-language medical knowledge and research because of the Second World War comes through clearly in Taubes's books. GC, BC, the longer and more complete book, of course, covers all of this extremely well, the newer book, of necessity, less so, but it still notes some of these twists of fate.

Make no mistake: what Taubes argues is not widely accepted, as he well documents. But ask yourself, how well are we doing in addressing this epidemic of fat and attendant metabolic disease? You and I know the answer: very poorly. Based on the work of Taubes, along with that of De Vany, I really have altered my thinking and, yes, my diet (in some measure, not perfectly) because of this new knowledge. Therefore, if you want a very well written, well argued book to consider, you couldn't find a better book to consider than this one.

More on this topic to come!

Art De Vany on Evolutionary Principles of Health and Fitness

If you haven't read The New Evolution Diet, you should. Note, however, that the word "diet" is in the title in order to categorize the book, and it really doesn't give the work Dr. De Vany has done proper credit. In fact, on his website and in this talk (about 30' long) I've linked, you learn the fascinating science and mathematical modeling behind his work. If you want to listen to a brief, albeit slightly technical consideration of this work, this link will serve as a good starter. His conclusions seem somewhat radical: limited exercise time (no jogging or marathons) , no grains, lots of rest time, and intermittent fasting,which avoids both regular meals (3-6 a day) and the opposite extreme of caloric restriction (CR) over a lifetime. I noted in browsing through a magazine that C bought, it rated New Evolution Diet a "D" book among diet books rated. This shows you how long it takes for popular conceptions, even among journalists who should be on the cutting edge, to catch up with innovative thinking. Anyway, ignore the magazine, and consider this an "A" book for how to live a healthy life.

Ariana Huffington on Sleep From the TED Talks for Women in DC

I agree with her. I, for one, find nothing makes my day better (including, but not limited to, more "productive"), than a good night of sleep (about 8 hours). Take heed and govern yourselves accordingly! (Too bad Berna couldn't score a ticket for this!)

P.S. "Conditioning Research" is a very good health and fitness website from Scotland.

Stephen Walt on the Top Ten Events of the Past Decade (Political Affairs Edition)

Stephen Walt dodges on predictions (wise him) and reflects on events of the past decade. Worth considering. Ponder this? What if Al Gore, who won the popular vote, had been inaugurated president? Where would the U.S. be now? In Iraq? Doubtful. In Afghanistan? Maybe. I doubt we would have avoided 9/11 or at least some similar calamity. And we do our very best to ignore global weirding. What if Gore had been president, would we awaken sooner from our lethargy?

David Brooks on All Things Shining

Because of Brooks's discussion, I'm going to have to read this book. Brooks, who has a very perceptive eye for current culture (his politics are a bit to the right for my tastes, but nonetheless thoughtful). While Maureen Dowd usually has the snarky (and therefore humorous) take on the zeitgeist, Brooks ponders without proving ponderous. In this brief book review (which is what this column is), he raises some really good points. What is the role of the ecstatic in our culture? What role do sports, religion, or culture (music, theater) play in this? How do we distinguish collective feelings of "whooshing" (see his article for a definition) from the bad?For instance,how is a Nazi rally from the 1963 civil rights rally on the Washington mall? The easy answer is content, obviously, but how do we parse more subtle differences? Anyway, a thought-provoking column about what sounds like a thought-provoking book.

The book, by the way, is All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age, by Herbert Dreyfus and Sean Kelly.

A Better Way to Teach History? Niall Fergusson & Tariq Ali

As someone who loved reading and learning history for as long as I can remember (and I don't know what planted this seed), I'm always distressed and puzzled when people say that they don't enjoy learning history. On the other hand, memorizing dates is nonsense. I'm about as good at dates as anyone (save perhaps some professional historians), and I never studied dates.I've learned narratives, and dates were simply place markers. Anyway, this site is about a five-minute long discussion about teaching history in British schools. Fergusson, and his "left" counterpart, Tariq Ali, agree that history teaching is suffering in GB. Their main point: history needs some overarching narrative (or narratives). Not triumphalism or some such nonsense, but at least a set of questions to guide a narrative of inquiry. History isn't just discreet events, its always part of a past and what was a future, it's a flow. Anyway, anyone who's interested in history and how it's taught, this provides a good brief frame.

And is the interviewer THE Colin Firth?

Must You Be of a Certain Age to Enjoy Paul Krugman?

I enjoy reading Krugman for his wit and insight, but now, in addition to earlier Monty Python posts, he's added another blast from my past.

Best Books 2010

Here are my favorite reads and listens for 2010. I will save the favorite in both fiction and non-fiction to the end. Some of these I’ve not posted before (been a bit inattentive of late), but many I’ve posted on before, so I’ll link those to my earlier notes. Besides the last two, I’ll go from the beginning of the year forward. I will include only published books or recorded books . I know the list is long, but I don’t read dogs (or I don’t finish them, although I don’t finish a lot of books that are quite good, but I get distracted to a different topic.) Anyway, enjoy:

If I can get this figured out, I'll re-post with the links that I have with the original reviews. Sorry, but having technical difficulties.

Peter Brown, The World of Late Antiquity: AD 150-750. (See the second entry on the blog this date.)

Atul Gawande: The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right. (See the second entry on the blog this date.)

Pierre Hadot, The Present Alone is Our Happiness: Conversations with Jean Carlier and Arnold Davidson.

John Cassidy, How Markets Fail: The Logic of Economic Catastrophes.

Geoff Colvin, Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else. (Second entry.)

Garry Wills, Bomb Power: The Modern Presidency and the National Security State.

Thomas Cahill, The Mysterious Middle Ages and the Beginning of the Modern World. (2nd entry.)

Peter Clarke, Keynes: the rise, fall, and return of the 20th century's most influential economist

Robert Skidelksy, Keynes: The return of the master

Mark Johnston, Saving God: Religion After Idolatry (2nd entry).

Daniel Pink, Drive.

David Shenk, The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything that You’ve Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ is Wrong.

Jack Matlock, Superpower Illusions: How Myths and False Ideologies Led America Astray—And How to Return to Reality.

Peter Beinart, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris

Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves

Dave R. Loy, A Buddhist History of the West: Studies in Lack

Dashiell Hammett, The Maltese Falcon

Johan Lukacs, George Kennan: A Study in Character (2nd & 4th entries)

David R. Loy, Money, Sex, War, Karma: Notes for a Buddhist Revolution (2nd entry)

John Lewis Gaddis, The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past

Ian Rankin, The Naming of the Dead

Clotaire Rapaille, The Culture Code

John Lukas & George Kennan, Through the History of the Cold War: The Correspondence of George F. Kennan & John Lukacs

Richard Evans In Defense of History

Garry Wills, Outside Looking In: Adventures of an Outsider

David Loy, The World is Made of Stories

Ganga White, Yoga Beyond Belief

John LeCarre, A Most Wanted Man (2nd entry)

Tim Ferriss, The Four-Hour Body

Art DeVany, The New Evolution Diet

Fiction work of the year: Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game.

Non-fiction work of the year: Max Hastings, Winston’s War: Churchill 1940 to 1945 (2nd entry)

And here is hoping for lots of good books for all in 2011!

Art De Vany: The New Evolution Diet

Reading Nassim Taleb's Fooled by Randomness in the spring of 2007, I came across the name of Art De Vany, the author of Hollywood Economics. Taleb mentioned it in his book because it addressed the issue of the difficulty of predicting winning movies. De Vany, an academic economist, talks about power laws, stochastic events, complexity, etc. in that academic work. Taleb noted in passing that De Vany also applied these principles to fitness. I checked it out on the web and discovered De Vany's web site, which I've read off and on since that time. Now, he has out his book. It was worth the wait.

De Vany argues that we will benefit greatly from aspects of the environment that human beings evolved in during the paleolithic age. Put most simply, a diet of meat, nuts, vegetables, and not much else. No grain or dairy, not to mention sugar. And as for exercise: brief bursts of intense exercise with lots of rest in between. Now mind you, De Vany isn't a cave man--he writes a blog and is a retired academic! Indeed, his back story provides an interesting lead up to his recommendations. He was a minor league baseball player before becoming an academic economist. His son and then his wife developed type 1 diabetes (so-called juvenile diabetes), which led him to learn all that he could about the physiology of insulin and how it affects the body. He applied his know-how as an economist to consider the body, and he drew on evolutionary studies to get a sense of how the body evolved. This places him in the lead of the growing area of Paleolithic fitness,diet, and health thinking (with others such as Mark Sisson, Rob Wolff, Erwan Le Corre, etc.)

This is an excellent and thought-provoking book. The guy knows whereof he speaks (as an academic he can read the professional literature, but since it's not his professional field, he doesn't have to kow-tow to anyone.)

BTW, Nassim Taleb, who has since adopted a De Vany-like fitness regimen, authored an Afterward for the book.

To your health!

Orson Scott Card: Ender's Game

Since I'm catching up and doing my end of the year reading pick, I'll say it here: this was my favorite fiction work this year. I thought I learned somewhere that a movie production was coming out, and something prodded me to want to read it. It turns out, no movie. However, I certainly have no regrets in listening to this great SF work (winner of both the Hugo & Nebula awards). Comparisons? It reminded me in some ways of The Lord of the Flies, although the setting is much different. However, it is about children (although some females have roles in this book), and how difficult and sometimes mean-spirirted the world of children can be.

This rightly should be considered an SF classic, and if you're at all of an SF reader, I can recommend it highly. BTW, the audio edition that I listened to was excellent, and an talk by the author amended to the end. The author stated that he preferred the audio production as a way to experience the book. Amen.

Tim Ferris: The 4 Hour Body

This book, one of three in a series that I'll review, comes from writer Tim Ferris, who, in his early 30's, has set himself up as a bit of a publishing phenomena. This title riffs off of his earlier success with The Four Hour Week, and beyond that connection, the title means little. The book, however, is interesting because Ferris has used himself as a human guinea pig. That is, he has tested what he recommends when it comes to hacking the human body for various types of performance or appearance advantages. He does it, so he claims and recommends, all legally. He does mention a lot of supplements, and I don't want to mess with supplements and expensive drugs, even if legal; however, for some it may prove worthwhile. I do like his n=1 experimental style that he pulls from the Seth Roberts, among others (and from whom he includes a brief essay). Ferris invites his readers to pick and choose among his recommendations and experiments, he recommends that you test his recommendations, an attitude of good old-fashioned American pragmatism that I admire. He also give nods to the likes of Pavel Tsatsouline, Art De Vany, Nassim Taleb, and Dr. Doug McGuff, among others, all persons that I think have some very important ideas about health and fitness.

In all, a fun read that you can dip into and find useful and provocative information that might prove useful on the health and fitness path.

Print or Electronic? The New Debate

I liked this post, as it reflects my own ambiguity about the brave new world of reading options. I don't like the computer screen much, but the Kindle is very easy on the eyes, and therefore I do like mine. On the other hand, for me some books must be read and keptin print form. I think size & subject matter will have the most effect on the choice of medium. One thing that I do now is take any longer reading from the internet (say a longer blog post or book review), save it to Word, at the end of the week save it as a PDF, and then send to Kindle for conversion. I can then read at my leisure and with much less strain on my eyes.

Krugman: My Laugh of the Day on Puerile Wall Street & Atlas Shrugged

I love the quote with which Krugman concludes his blog entry today. He calls out Republican hypocrisy like no one else that I read (at least on a regular basis). He has his crap detector on 24-7. High praise, indeed, in my book.

Mark Lilla on Obama's Sales Problem; or The Passions

I found this a very interesting article. It follows my interest in persuasion, both as a professional concern (ever try to convince 8 or 12 strangers to come to a unanimous conclusion about some disputed point?) and personal (to paraphrase Sartre: hell is having no persuasive influence over people). I think Lilla is right about Obama; indeed, Obama has been poisoned, as are most persons who go through law school. We try to think all about rational argument. Nonsense! Oh, it's the icing on the cake, the flower of the plant, but only that. Persuasion is truly effective at much deeper levels. Obama should remember that he was elected by passion, misdirected or misunderstood as it may have been. For instance, Obama did not run as any kind of radical, at least in policy, although in person, as an African-American, he personally embodied huge change. But in policy? No, he has always been relatively centrist and conciliatory.

Anyway, the article, and the brief intellectual history are all worthwhile. How do you deal with Plato's triumvirate vying for power in each of us? Still, more than a couple of millenia on, a really key question.

Mark's Daily Apple: Great Source on Health & Nutrition

For no particular reason other than it popped up in my Google Reader, I want to give a shout-out to Sisson's site, which is an excellent source for health and nutrition information. Sisson is "primal", with loads of well considered and accessible information and advice. I'm gotten part way through his book The Primal Blueprint, which is a fun and interesting read. I'd be finished, but new books by Art De Vany & Tim Ferriss have created a reading backlog in the health and fitness category (all quite exciting). Anyway, this site is a good place to get a wide-ranging sample of Sisson's work. Enjoy. Health and fitness to you!

New START Treaty Passes; Grassley Disappoints

In a bit of uplifting political news, the New START treaty was ratified by the Senate today. Republicans--well, some of them--can act in the national interest and are not overtaken by thoughts of partisan political advantage and knee-jerk distrust of negotiated agreements (well, unless you want the Republican nomination for president). Sadly, one of my senators (Grassley) joined only 25 others in voting "no". I sent an email in reproach. I know that this is spitting in the wind, but I had to. My message below:

Dear Senator Grassley,

I was deeply disappointed to see that you voted against the New Start Treaty, while 1/3 of your fellow Republicans did support the treaty. I appreciate that the national interest can still come before partisan electoral posturing. Your position disturbs meet greatly because you ignored the recommendation of every living Secretary of State, Republican and Democrat, by voting against ratification. You also turned a deaf ear toward the recommendations of our military leaders. Your statement in opposition, while effectively echoing the talking points of the moment, fails to address the real underlying issues.

I hope that in the mean time, as a senator that voted in favor of the original START treaty, you will come back to the mainstream of arms control and not continue to support those who seem to oppose such efforts as a matter of habitually limited thinking.

Thank you for your attention to this.
Merry Christmas to you and your staff.
Steve Greenleaf

Tim Ferris on Practical Pessimism

This talk of < 6' by Tim Ferris highlights some salient points of Stoicism. It's worth watching, as Ferris has latched on to at least one important aspect of the Stoic ethic. More on Ferris to come, as I just finished his new book, which, like this short piece, is chuck-full of interesting ideas.

Incredible! Chinese Acrobats Do Swan Lake

Having had the privilege to see Chinese acrobats perform in Beijing, I know well the Chinese prowess in gymnastic feats. However, this clip may take the cake. Incredible! As someone who looks like he's just consumed a six-pack before attempting a simple tree pose in yoga class, I have nothing but shear awe for these performances. If the Chinese can do this, what else can they do when they set their minds to it? Food for thought!

Alfred McCoy on Dim American Futures

Somehow (one has a hard time retracing steps through the web) I came across this very interesting article. University of Wisconsin historian Alfred McCoy has given this subject some thought. Of course, like any prediction, it is uncertain. However, I do think that historians have a better perspective than most about how history may flow. I doubt that history has "laws", but it does follow patterns. We're all animals, and we love patterns. Culture, after all, is a pattern very widely accepted in a group. The culture of nations and how they interact also follows patterns. The pattern, can change, or there may be a choice of patterns. So, this is a "for what it's worth" piece, and I think it's worth something. It should lead us to think about our alternative futures. We, like Scrooge, have many ghosts of Christmas future in front of us. The way the U.S. electorate and political leadership are acting now, I'm not so optimistic. I hope I'm overly pessimistic. Anyway, McCoy provides some sobering thought.

Bill Gates vs. Matt Ridley

This is an interesting "debate" between Bill Gates of the Gates Foundation (and if you're from another planet, Microsoft) and Matt Ridley, the Rational Optimist, of whom I've posted before. The debate is a well-argued one, with each participant respecting the virtues of the other. Gates, like me, admires Ridley's work on history and his guiding metaphor of exchange--exchange of stuff and ideas--as a prime mover in human improvement. I agree with Gates, however, that Ridley sometimes seems to take an Alfred E. Newman (my choice, not Gates's) attitude ("What? Me worry?"). Gates rates risks with available knowledge, understanding that innovation could change the scene, but we can't count on it. I agree. In all, this is an intelligent exchange between two very capable and, I might add, well-mannered gentlemen.

Krugman on Bush Tax Cuts: Don't Cut a Deal!

I have given and want to continue to give the Obama Administration every benefit of the doubt on most issues. I appreciate that to get things done with Congress or foreign nations (not to mention family!), you sometimes have to make deals that are less than ideal. However, sometimes you have to just say NO! So I see the need to stand firm on several upcoming issues: the Bush tax cuts for the uber-wealthy, DADT repeal, and ratification of the new START treaty. On the tax cuts, the subject of the post today, Democrats, led by the President himself, should make it clear: Republicans would rather raise taxes on everyone than let the very richest suffer a modest tax increase. Republicans would let unemployment benefits expire for those hardest hit by their recession. I agree with Krugman, and I learned from Bill Clinton. On this, it's time to draw the line in the sand. BTW, I sent the following message this morning to Senator Harkin (Grassley, of course, is hopeless).

Dear Senator Harkin,
I strongly urge you to work to repeal the Bush tax cuts for highest tax brackets. I understand that the Administration and the Republicans are looking at a deal, but the deal is a bum one for U.S. fiscal policy, for deficit reduction, for the health of programs supporting those most in need, and for the soul and spine of the Democratic Party. I urge you to resist such a deal. Of course, Congress should extend unemployment benefits, but not at the price of Republican blackmail.

Thanks for your attention to this and for your work on our behalf.

Steve Greenleaf

10 Questions with NNT

Nassim Taleb answers 10 questions from readers of Time magazine in this brief video. It's a good, brief introduction to his "Black Swan" idea and to his current consideration of "anti-fragility". Also, it lacks the bombast that sometimes marks his talks.

Deirdre McCloskey: Explaining the Birth of the Modern Economy

This is an interesting interview because, I think, McCloskey has an interesting project: understanding the incredible change since about 1600 that allowed the modern world to emerge. McCloskey, at one time a faculty member at Iowa, really seems to have a very wide-angle perspective and a humanist sense of economics; i.e., of economics that really looks at it's roots in Hume, Smith, Mill, and others. For a sense of her take on this immense change, which is the subject of the Ian Morris book that I'm reading, as well as a forthcoming book by Niall Ferguson, I recommend this relatively brief interview. I've got her first book in this projected series on my reading list, and I'm look forward to following her investigation into this topic.

Work Productivity

Jason Fried tells some plain truths about the workplace. On the whole, I agree with his take on things. When I really have to get something thoughtful done, I will work at home. At the office, my "Do no disturb" light on the my phone is often on, although my staff usually knows when I want to talk to certain persons. In larger workplaces, I can imagine that problems only multiple.

Hans Rosling with Good News

Hans Rosling has given seven TED talks. His talks concern development issues, and he uses superb graphics. He's from Sweden, so his Swedish-tinged English also marks his talks. This talks celebrates the Millennium Development Goals and shows progress on child mortality in Africa and other developing areas. Some good news, indeed!

Carol Dweck on Two Different Mindsets

Just an interesting piece via Daniel Pink. I've heard of her work, and when you think about it at all, you say, "Of course!". However, a good graphic reminder never hurts.

Presentation Zen on Teaching

Presentation Zen is a great site for anyone who has to present on anything. For instance, I have trials, hearing, and appeals, and so I try to keep abreast of the best ideas in this field. But then, what field doesn't require some communicating & teaching? Anyway, this one is worth repeating. Garr (Mr. Presentation Zen) notes the excellent work of Sir Ken Robinson, and Dr. Tae. I watched the whole of Dr. Tae's presentation. He's a physics professor @ Northwestern. What he says about school really applies in a lot of areas of education, although in a humanities and social sciences curriculum you have a different way to engage in the classroom. Engagement and personal effort at understanding and learning are keys to any field. His demonstration of learning a new skate board move is fun to watch, including his responses to failures. Not your staid academic!

Wise or Crazy? Interesting Thoughts from Nassim Taleb

If nothing else--and I think he provides a lot of insight--NT gives us something to think about. In the brief written piece, he prognosticates, always a dangerous undertaking. Is he a hedgehog or fox (a la Phillip Tetlock)? In this taped interview also the The Economist, he talks about his new main idea: "anti-fragility". An interesting concept indeed.

Freeman Dyson & the Hubris of Humankind

I read this article with great interest, as I'd known of Dyson's skeptical attitude towards global climate change (or more accurately called, I think, "global weirding"), and I know of his genius. This article tries to make sense of his position. The header sets the tone of the article:

In the range of his genius, Freeman Dyson is heir to Einstein--a visionary who has reshaped thinking in fields from math to astrophysics o medicine, and who has conceived nuclear-propelled spaceships designed to transport human colonists to distant planets. And yet on the matter of global warming he is, as an outspoken skeptic dead wrong: wrong on the facts, wrong on the science. How could someone as smart as Dyson be so dumb about the environment? The answer lies in his almost religious faith in the power of man and science to bring nature to heel.

The author, Kenneth Brower, I might add, knows Dyson and has obvious admiration and appreciation of Dysons's skills and merits. This is not a hatchet job, but a carefully considered assessment of Dyson's peculiar attitude. In the end, Brower believes that Dyson is (almost literally) a man of the cosmos, and not a mere terrestrial being.

However, the article really caught my attention because, like my comments on Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist, I'm skeptical of humankind's ability to tame Nature. In this perspective, I am a skeptic and conservative. I'm conservative in the Burkean sense, except that I'm less skeptical about social change than I am about environmental change (or better yet, I see social change as a species of environmental change). Burke didn't have to address the huge environmental changes that industrialization has wrought since his lifetime. To compare to a more contemporary figure, as far as the environment is concerned, I side more with the perspective of Nassim Taleb, who, I believe, shares a very cautious attitude toward the environment, as well as toward financial and economic systems. Also, Thomas Homer-Dixon has also written about what could be our Ingenuity Gap. As Brower writes, we have lots of technological schemes to address global climate change, and they're very pie-in-the-sky (or something in the sky or the ocean, etc.). We don't even have a public that thinks we have a problem, whether caused by humans or not.

This leads to my last thought: reading Morris's Why the West Rules--For Now, which goes back to the earliest humans, we have survived, but it often seems we did so despite ourselves. Since I'm listening to a Jack Kornfield recording currently, speaking of the Buddhist perspective of innate goodness, I want to believe that, and I do believe we have some grounds for this perspective. However, I also have my inner Calvinist (hey, my dad was a Presbyterian!). Frankly, the weight of the evidence is against us. Take Exhibit A, Dyson, a genius of incredible stature, seems really out to lunch on this crucial issue. If he's out to lunch, where are we mortals? Well, perhaps something less than genius intelligence--or a different array of multiple intelligences--is rather a good thing. Anyway, we fiddle while Earth burns. Are we the Nero species? How on earth (pun intended) can we change this? Advice welcome.

Ian Ayres: Short Attention Spans?

I found this an interesting blog post. I'd listened to his book Super Crunchers!, and he teaches what is probably the best law school currently in the U.S. Anyway, I do wonder about the electronic phenomena and how it may affect our ability to concentrate and focus. I know, I know, here I am making a short blog post, and I certainly read them. But still, we do have to be careful. Remember: you crap-detector must be on 24-7. Anyway, this post and the couple of others that he cites to are very thought provoking.

Check out this related post, and this one.

More Stephen Walt on American Foreign Policy: Too Much Security or Too Much Insecurity

Stephen Walt furthers an argument that I posted about the other day. He responds to a very thoughtful comment in The Economist that addresses neocon ideas (or as the article puts it, "magical thinking")about national security. The Economist article is very thoughtful as well. Walt says that they both have a point: we are too secure, but not nearly as secure as we think we are. I'd say our weaknesses aren't military, they're perceptual and long-term. If you follow foreign policy, these posts are very pertinent to things like the START treaty and Afghanistan.

Robert Wright on Afghanistan: Worse than Viet Nam

Robert Wright's article in the NYT today sets forth a distinct case against continued military operations in Afghanistan. I note that he cites the Afghan Study Group report in the postscript of his article, and I heard member Michael Hoh speak last week at the Iowa City Foreign Relations Council. I am becoming more and more pessimistic about this whole enterprise: a drain on lives, morale, and treasure--for what? I want to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt on all of this, but how long can we sit quietly? The big difference from Viet Nam, of course, is the lack of widespread resistance to the war at home. Since the sons and daughters of the middle class aren't going to war, we see no widespread protests. And, not wanting to repeat the shameful treatment given to many Viet Nam vets by the nation, we want to be very careful not to harm the brave men and women who serve. Be certain: the domestic resistance the Viet Nam war caused a great deal of havoc and really hurt the nation, as did the war itself. Cool heads don't prevail in times of war, which is one reason that war is poison for democracy. It may be a necessary poison, but it should be suffered only when absolutely necessary and in the very smallest possible dose.

We need to make some hard strategic decisions here. I think that it's time for me to write my congressional representatives. What do you think?

Niall Ferguson on the West & China: Past, Present, and Future

This article really deals with two topics. First, how "the West" came to such a great lead in development over Asia, and second, how that's now changing very quickly. The first question about the history of development is one that I'm reading about currently in Ian Morris's Why the West Rules--for Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future , a very extensive history of human development from paleolithic times to the present and into the future. Very good, but more about it later. ( Ferguson gave it a shout out in this review in Foreign Affairs.) The second part of Ferguson's article deals with current developments. This, too, is fascinating, as we're seeing a new challenge to U.S. and Western leadership. How we address these issues will prove a real challenge to our leadership.

Thomas Barnett on the U.S. and China--Again

This was too good to pass up. Let me provide my executive summary of his key points (i.e., points that I find persuasive):

1. We act in a passive-aggressive manner toward China and many nations. Get over it.
2. We have overlapping interests with the Chinese, and, Oh, yeah!, the rest of the world. We have to work on these relationships. As someone who deals with negotiations and conflicting interests regularly, the need to negotiate relationships is fundamental. The sticking point is the audience (client, voters) whom you have to please, your clients, so to speak. But you have to cut a deal (if you can) even if its with potential (or actual) rivals. It's called leadership.
3. We must accept some "satisficing" (Herbert Simon). This is, we have to expect less-than-perfect outcomes. That's life as we know it. The enemy of the good is the best (or something like that).
4. The idea of a nuke-free world, as attractive as it is, overreaches, at least at present. We need to move to a nuclear-limited world. (See my prior entry for some sanity on that topic.)
5. Real politics involves "consensus building", but also deal-making. Sometimes you have to make deals with the devil (e.g., FDR & Churchill dealt with Stalin to defeat Hitler; Clinton cut deals with Newt Gingrich).
6. Strategic thinking involves a lot more than thinking about war. I suggest that it's all about energy. Not just oil, but money (fungible energy) and attention (human energy), but that's a whole different post.

 Barnett makes some important points here.

Walt: Too Secure? A Message to the Senate

I may just send this link to my U.S. senators, especially Senator Grassley, whom I fear may be playing the anything-to-defeat-Obama tune that many, if not most, Senate Republicans seem willing to play. How sad!

The Republican attitude here gives us an understanding of what "playing politics" means. First, it means trying to gain electoral advantage and ignoring the real work of political decision-making. Because most voters can be fooled by posturing, or really believe in the posture taken, Republicans can claim the need for a "strong defense", when in fact, as Walt argues, it goes the other way. Second, the "playing" in "playing politics" demonstrates a childishness in the actions taken. Of course, both sides do it on occasion, but we expect--or should expect--most to rise above it.* I don't have a problem with genuine differences of opinion and perception, but many instances we're seeing either intentional cynincism or group delusion at work.

*Play can be a good thing for adults, I should add. I play--volleyball, basketball, etc.--all the time. I go to "plays", but this is different.)

Nic Marks on The Happiness Index

C & I watched several TED Talks tonight, and I thought I'd share on this one. If you can't watch it, I'll give you the executive summary. Mr. Marks says that five factors govern happiness:
1. Connect with others
2. Keep active
3. Take notice of the world around you
4. Keep learning
5. Give

You can go to this website to learn more.

If you stop and think about these factors, they reflect a great deal of wisdom and they are factors well-represented in religious and wisdom traditions. Too often we forget them, especially in our race for wealth and consumer goods. A very worthwhile talk.

Walt & Colleagues: Cut Defense Budget

Stephen Walt and other foreign policy realists, among others, are saying the plainly obvious: we have to cut the defense budget in order to get our national fiscal house in order. When it seems the nation is completely daft on this issues, it's reassuring to see those who think most deeply on this topic speak some sense. One only hopes that the newly minted deficit hawk Republicans pay attention to this.

Krugman Trumps Brooks

I go with Krugman on this, and I think Brooks does have it backwards, although the tendency in general for economists to go overboard in their faith in models may cross the fresh water--salt water divide. I think that the economists who speak and write in languages primarily other than math will have the best perspectives. I take this position not because I'm anti-math (I'm not) nor because I'm not fluent in math (which is true: I'm not). No, I think that the danger arises from an inflated sense of certainty that the use of mathematical models may create. Keynes was a brilliant mathematician, but check out The General Theory: it's written in English. Ditto The Wealth of Nations. Also, the market (fresh water) economists seem most enamored by market models and models of rational man [sic]. No, I think that Brooks could write the same column even more accurately aimed at so-called conservative economists. For instance, those who predict the end of the world with QE2. No, I have to side with Krugman on this one, plus he has a well-honed argument that the stimulus simply wasn't large enough because Obama bowed too easily to Congressional skittishness.

Tyler Cowen's Best Books of the Year

Marginal Revolution has some interesting stuff, and Cowen is an eclectic and discerning reader. I can only claim to have read Winston's War by Max Hastings, which I found excellent. Some of the others I've read reviews of, and they sound very good. I love a good book list!

Spoiler Alert: Don' Spoil Your Two Hours on Morning Glory

To be blunt, Morning Glory was a waste of time. I can't say much good about it. If you've seen the trailer, you've seen anything that might constitute a high point.

However, let's give some thought to this film nevertheless. My thought arose from the premise of the film that the character played (really, over-played) by Harrison Ford should lighten up and get into the froth of morning TV. He is portrayed as a pompous former anchorman who wants to do "real" news. During the course of the film, our heroine, young, perky, and determined Rachel McAdams transforms by show by various antics: an anchor kissing a frog, the weatherman televised on a roller-coaster, and other inanities. And the only "real" news that occurs in this endless film comes when the sitting governor is confronted with criminal charges right before the cops show up to arrest him. This isn't news, it's a spectacle of humiliation (even if he is guilty, which no one is assumed to care about after viewing the bust). Television news becomes more and more of a wasteland all the time from what I can see (which is as little as possible beyond the Daily Show and the Colbert Report). But as much as one naturally pulls for Rachel McAdams to succeed, I kept thinking that success isn't worth it. What have you done? She gets the guy in the end, but by the end, your really don't care.

My review mixes two types of criticism, bad movie-making and bad journalism, but if you choose to go, you're forewarned.

David Frum: Good Conservative?

As a former Bush speechwriter, I never expected to like David Frum. I guess we all have our prejudices, and one of mine is George W. Bush. However, this article by Frum in the the NYT Magazine yesterday really struck me as some very good advice. He caught me with the opening truth of his first paragraph: the Democrats won in 2008 because of the economy, and the Republicans won in 2010 because of the economy. It's really that simple. Beyond that, he recognizes the value of the welfare state (picking a fine G.K. Chesterton saying along the way to makes his point); he talks about the need for Republicans (and Democrats) to take off their ideological blinders, and most importantly, he shared this insight about populism that I think really captures a great deal about our current (and much of our past) politics. About the populist divide, he writes:

American populism has almost always concentrated its anger against the educated rather than the wealthy. So much so that you might describe contemporary American politics as a class struggle between those with more education than money against those with more money than education: Jon Stewart’s America versus Bill O’Reilly’s, Barack Obama versus Sarah Palin.

Digging back in memory, this fits with theories of Richard Hofstadter and perhaps Robert Wiebe, whose works I read as an undergraduate, or shortly after. The Tea Party phenomena has been the most interesting and scary item to watch of late. Intellectually, it's incoherent, as Frum recognizes, but it captures feelings, and feelings are much, much stronger than ideas. In thinking about our recent Iowa Supreme Court election vote, I was struck by the attitude of resentment expressed more than the anti-gay aspect. VanderPlats didn't do any overt gay-bashing, he couched his argument in terms of "elites" and "activist judges" "re-writing the Constitution". This is the real problem. The problem of crowds, the uneducated, the demos, the mob, and so on. When do we move from a democracy to a tyranny of the many? The Greeks, like Aristotle and Plato, understood the downside of democracy, and as I learn more, I gain a greater appreciation of their concerns (although I still don't buy any alternative).

Getting back to Frum, it's a really thoughtful piece. Here! Here! to more conservatives like him.

Thomas Barnett on the U.S. and China

As I often find, Dr. Thomas Barnett has something interesting to say about the contemporary world. In this case, the growing rift between the U.S. and China. Each nation has its own particular needs, strengths, and weaknesses, and both need each other for continued peace and prosperity. I fear growing Chinese nationalism, but I also fear an increasingly confrontational attitude by the U.S. As Barnett notes, China has a rather unique demographic challenge, one that makes ours seem small. We have to work with their needs if they're going to work with ours. I hope that this and following administrations act out of our long-term interest toward China not out of domestic political expediency.

Ganga White: Yoga Beyond Belief

This is another book that I finished recently, and very different from the LeCarre. White is a long-time yoga practitioner (check out some of the 60's and 70's hair he used to have!). This book was really quite an excellent general introduction to the practice of the Hatha Yoga tradition. White addresses all manner of issues in a very accessible prose. It covers a wide variety of topics that any practitioner, new or experienced, will likely face. He also goes into some of he history of the discipline. If you're interested in learning more about yoga, this is a good place to begin.

John LeCarre's A Most Wanted Man

I finished this novel recently. I am very much a LeCarre fan, so the anticipation is always great. I'd rate this novel as good, but not great. It's an enjoyable read. The young lawyer dealing with the demands and aspirations of her profession, the aging banker, and the various Muslims living in Germany, all are characters that intrigue. Add in LeCarre's understanding of the world of espionage and police work--and all of the conflict and rivalry that you have in that milieu--and you get a very compelling tale. Not as complex or deep as some of his past efforts, but nonetheless compelling. If you enjoy a good, contemporary realistic novel that focuses on current events, then you can't do much better than this.

Dave Brooks on the Deficit Reduction Commission

Dave Brooks takes a look at this issue from the big picture, and he makes important points. While Krugman goes for the details, Brooks does a good job of trying to see the big picture. I wold hasten to note, however, the Krugman has expressed a very real appreciation of the danger of the deficit, and he's not moved by the fear of bond markets that Brooks, like Niall Ferguson,share. Both express a fear of market collapse. Nonetheless, I think Brooks joins the debate. In the end, to reduce this deficit, we're going to have to do some things differently. Cut defense spending significantly would be a great start. Maintaining slightly higher taxes on the wealthiest would also be fine by me. Ending breaks for economic interests that don't serve the general welfare would work for me. A higher retirement age for Social Security? Perhaps for some. Anyway, we should engage in a vigorous public debate on these issues and take steps to reduce the deficit, but not by hurting those at the lowest end of the economic spectrum.

Krugman on the Deficit Reduction Commission

This link is to Krugman's take on the deficit reduction commission. Krugman, as usual, cuts to the chase and criticizes aggressively where he thinks it's warranted. I really applaud this. We all have to serve as advocates for what we believe is right. N.B., this doesn't mean that we act like jerks toward one another, but neither must we cower at the prospect of conflict.

My next post is of Dave Brooks today: read and compare.

Robert Kaplan on Obama's Asian Tour & Strategic Balancing

This article by Kaplan in the NYT today is an interesting one. We are living through a period of rising new global powers, especially China, but also India, Turkey, and Brazil, among others. How the reigning hegemon, the U.S., reacts to these changes is a major challenge to U.S. leaders. Can we accommodate and reach a working understanding with the new players, or will we panic and try to spend all of them under the table? The latter was the Bush administration plan until 9/11 sent us scurrying off to Afghanistan and Iraq. It does seem that the rise of China poses many of the same challenges for the U.S. that the rise of Germany did for Great Britain at the beginning of this century. Let hope it all works out better than that relationship did.

Of course, one may ask if there is an alternative to all of this balancing of forces and such, and the answer is probably "no". However, as we pour lives and resources into Iraq and Afghanistan, can we afford an active role in all of this?

Be Afraid? Glen Beck on George Soros: Echos of the Past?

I don't know what to make of Glen Beck. I want to think of him as an ignorant, albeit malevolent, clown. However, this piece from The Daily Dish takes my wishful thinking to task. How do we, how should we, respond to what seems to be a real anti-Semitic tirade? Is he really so ignorant that he doesn't know that he's echoing the archetypes of anti-Semitic slander? Do we ignore him? And if not, how does one respond? One has to doubt the efficacy of rational argument in the face of such nonsense? Like the crazies from Kansas, I want to ignore them, I don't want to feed their hatred mixed with a need for attention; however, neither should such statements or prejudices go unchallenged. This is a real dilemma, certainly for anyone who considers oneself any kind of a liberal (at least as it relates to free speech).

Guess What? The Wealtier Live Longer

Well, if money can't buy you love, it certainly improves your chances for a longer life. Like a good deal of social science, this only makes sense when you stop and think about it. It's hardly counter-intuitive. The point Krugman wants to make is that making all workers wait longer for retirement penalizes those in the lower half of the income bracket. For lawyers, for instance, we should be able to work longer than coal miners or steel workers, and farmers for that matter (although I know farmers who pretty much died on the tractor).

Nick Morgan & Herbert Watzke on the Brain in Our Gut

Nick Morgan writes on public speaking and presentation, and I regularly read his blog. Besides his sound advice, he sometimes puts on examples, and TED Talks provide a fertile source. This talk is about research on the "gut" and how it works as a part of our nervous system. As C and I have both been reading on brain research for our respective professional reasons, I found it interesting. It's quite an enjoyable and informative presentation.

Some Good News (Maybe) About the American People

Stephen Walt points out that the American public aren't buying Bush. Walt points out that few watched Bush's big interview with Matt Lauer. I hope Walt's right. However, I did see that someone claimed to have a poll that showed Bush beating Obama in a mock presidential contest. Since this is not a real contest, maybe the respondents were just mocking the poll-takers and poll-readers. I hope so. Right now, I'm a bit down on the electorate (i.e., those who voted Republican). The other explanation is that instead of watching Bush most folks watched some other junk on TV. There's lots of competition for brain drain on the tube.

More Quotes from Loy's The World of Stories

The following are more quotes taken from the Loy book. I have yet to right a proper review of it, and I plan to do so. But I find the quotes intriguing as stand alone thought starters. Anyway, for your casual consideration:

Without a foundation in conventional truth,
The significance of the ultimate truth cannot be taught.
Without understanding the significance of the ultimate truth,
Liberation is not achieved.
--Nagarjuna

The literary language of the New Testament is not intended, like literature itself, simply to suspend judgment, but to convey a vision of spiritual life that continues to transform and expand our own. That is myths become, as purely literary myths cannot, myths to live by; its metaphors become, as purely literary metaphors cannot, metaphors to live in.
--Northrup Frye

Absolutely unmixed attention is prayer.
--Simone Weil

Attentiveness is the natural prayer of the soul.
--Nicholas Malebranche

Let your mind come forth without fixing it anywhere.
--Diamond Sutra

There is no specifiable difference whatever
between nirvana and samsara.
The limit of nirvana is the limit of samsara.
There is not even the subtlest difference between the two.
--Nagarjuna

We make stories because we are story.
--Russell Hoban

The reality of cosmos becomes a story to be told by the man who participates responsively in the story told by the god.
--Eric Voegelin

The eye I see God with is the eye God sees me with; my and God’s eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing and one love.
--Meister Eckhart

The soul’s vision of its divine Lord is the vision which He has of the soul.
--Ibn ‘Arabi

Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the superman—a rope over an abyss. A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting.
--Nietzsche

Literature is the Imaginal in script.
--Northrup Frye

“I feel as if I was inside a song, if you get my meaning.”
--Sam Gamgee, in The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkein

The East emphasizes liberation from the human condition, while the Western spiritual traditions place special value on the human incarnation in its own right, and are more interesting in fulfilling the meaning of this incarnation than in going beyond it or in finding release from it . . . to bring these two together is an important evolutionary step.
--John Welwood