Brooks on Repubicans

Brooks writes interestingly on the rather pathetic (my term, not his) Republican race, how even brighter Republicans, like Lugar & Hatch (well, maybe) are adhering to tribal loyalty. In fact, as Brooks notes, adherence to the crazy of the day seems to trump anything, thus the parade of lame potential nominees, all, as Brooks notes, unelectable. And how about Romney! Wow, I thought Richard Nixon was awkward in public, but Mitt seems to take it to a whole new level. Nixon was plagued by demons of inadequacy and inferiority leading to a degree of paranoia (and thus Watergate). Romney has to try to hide that he's not a normal guy. Did Washington have this problem? No! Washington cultivated his alooffness. Different times, for sure.

Maybe to Help Other Bum Bums

My hip is tight as all get out and somewhat painful (although PT seems to be helping). Anyway, this brief YouTube clip may help explain why. Of course, I am now writing this from my standing desk. I'm hoping that this will help, and preliminary observations are encouraging.

Wierd Stuff from Paul Krugman

Ponder this from Krugman. The more educated you are, the more BS you buy. I mean, informed, skeptical doubt about climate change. It's possible in theory, but I don't see it, and I doubt these Republicans see it. What's going on here?

Niall Ferguson on State Captialism

Niall Ferguson sometimes gets it wrong in his commentary on current affairs, but I think that his wide-angle historical lens provides some very good insight into this issue of political economy. A lot of folks have suggested that China's current brand of "state capitalism" is ascendent and superior to the market capitalism championed by the U.S. and which served as the basis for the "Washington consensus". Ferguson provides a useful "hold on a minute perspective" on the contention that this "state capitalism" now holds the key to the future.

Ferguson notes the contention of Ian Bremmer that China is the premier example of state capitalism that could fundamentally change the way the world economy works. But as Ferguson notes, China's brand of capitalism is a varied amalgam of government intervention and very free markets. (Neither does he mention the role of corruption, but I understand from 1HP that this factor looms too big to ignore, especially in a system in which the state looms so large.) Ferguson, citing the likes of Adam Smith and Peter Thiel, acknowledges the importance of government institutions in any capitalist system. Issues of the environment in which the economic system operates are crucial. Ferguson argues that the key lies on how and in what ways the state deals with the economy, a point well-taken. In conclusion, he writes:

The real contest of our time is not between a state-capitalist China and a market-capitalist America, with Europe somewhere in the middle. It is a contest that goes on within all three regions as we all struggle to strike the right balance between the economic institutions that generate wealth and the political institutions that regulate and redistribute it.

The character of this century -- whether it is "post-American," Chinese, or something none of us yet expects -- will be determined by which political system gets that balance right.

John Horgan: Rational Mysticism

John Horgan's book is a tour through the intersection of science and mysticism. Of course, defining "mysticism" is not an easy task, and neither scholars nor the public have any sense of agreement of what this terms should mean. For Horgan, it means non-traditional, perhaps esoteric (an older term), views of reality. Horgan begins his tour with the doyen of religious studies, the venerable Huston Smith, and then moves on the the grand-synthesizer, Ken Wilber. Both of these men are big picture thinkers. From these high-altitude views (although both are practitioners as well), Horgan tours various thinkers like James Austin, Andrew Newberg, S. Grof, Susan Blackmore, and others. Each as a different take; none can provide a final, definitive answer. It's all too big, in one sense.

Horgan's tour is worthwhile, as he is at once inquisitive and skeptical; scientific (he's a science writer) and a seeker. In the end, he gives us no final answers, but more important and worthwhile questions. In a sense, we leave this book as much seekers as when we started, but with a few more insights.

Garry Wills on the Contraception Flap

Garry Wills holds at least two terrific characteristics: incredible erudition and a scathing pen. In this piece on the contraception flap and the Catholic Church, he puts both to use. Wills, whose many books include such titles as Why I Am a Catholic and The Rosary, does not go easy on the institutional Church when he finds it amiss, and he certainly says so in this brief article.

One other point. He notes how incredibly poor and unqualified this Republican field is. How true, and how sad. Wills: "By a revolting combination of con men and fanatics, the current primary race has become a demonstration that the Republican party does not deserve serious consideration for public office." This, from a political reporter from going back to the Sixties. Also, from someone who has expressed some some very marked criticisms of Obama.

As Wills says (as only he could), "Acton to the rescue!"

Good News! Chocolate!

Sock Doc is a recently discovered health and fitness site, and what better way to introduce it to you than to have him tell you about the goodness of chocolate. Around this house, chocolate is revered like the sacred substance it once was the Mayans of old. (No human sacrifice involved, however.) Forin addition to its positively alluring taste (must we say "addictive", making us chocoholics? Who cares!), it turns out that sufficiently high octane (>70%) chocolate really rates as downright healthy. Well, gotta go--have some chocolate!

David Christian & Really Big History

This is my year (or two, or three) of reading big history. Iam Morris's Why the West Rules--For Now is probably my biggest, widest angle look so far (and I should mention 1493 and The Better Angels of Our Nature as recent additions), but David Christian dwarfs Morris's tour, which runs from the beginning of humankind to our possible futures. In this TED talk, Christian begins at the Big Bang! Now that's big history! And quite a fascinating tour it is: from the first nanosecond of creation to the present is a story of increasing complexity and "Goldilocks" (just right) circumstances that bring us to our present. Just right--and quite fragile. Anyway, the tour is fascinating. He and some of his colleagues have put together "The Big History Project" at this webpage for use as a high school curriculum. What a great idea and organizing theme to look at our past through both the physical and social sciences, and a great way to learn and teach complexity. Consider the desirability of learning history through this kind of lens, and not as just "one damn thing after another", as it is too often taught. No one remembers disjointed events well, but add a story (narrative) and they'll remember; make it a detective story (as history really is), and you've got them hooked.

P.S. How wonderfully nerdy is this? After initially posting, I found a short talk by Bill Gates on the Big History Project website home page. The ultimate nerd endorsement!

Rick Santorum, Natural Law, & Evangelicals

This thoughtful article caught my eye, and I should give it some brief consideration. Santorum bases much of his thought on concepts of natural law. The natural law tradition is a great and important tradition. Indeed, even the great positivist legal hphilosopher H.L.A. Hart brings it in the back door in his work The Concept of Law. In the Catholic Church, the article notes, naturual law came in recent times (by Church standards!) to serve as a preferred philosophical model. When you think of it, it allows us to consider what is "natural" as the guide to what is moral. Fine, so far. Unfortunately, what is "natural" becomes preferred over what is human (varied cultural practices). Thus, somehow, homosexuality, which seems nearly universal and in many cases perhaps genetic (which is a tricky question in itself, but certainly beyond individual choice), gets defined out of "natural", while celibacy--quite unnatural to my mind--gets defined in. (If God hadn't wanted us to engage in sex, God wouldn't have given us so much ganas (as we high school Spanish students dubbed it). (I will spare you the other colorful terms that we can dub this phenomena--you choose.)

So while natural law gave some good directions, and it proved of use in the Middle Ages (it allowed Aristotle in the back door), it was left behind for a reason, reasons that seem lost on Rick Santorum, among others.

Robert Lustig on Sugar: Sweet Tooths Gone Wild

Thanks to Iowa Guru, I learned the Dr. Robert Lustig appeared on Science Friday with Ira Flatow on our local NPR station, WSUI (a great Iowa resource). Lustig is on the war path against added sugar in our diet. His perspective tracks closely with that of Gary Taubes, and to a lesser extent, Michael Pollan. Put simply, too much fructose in our diet drives metabolic syndrome. We reduced fat in our diet about 30 years ago thinking that fat was clogging our arteries, and to replace the fat, we added more carbs in the form of sugar. In fact, also about this time, high-fructose corn syrup came into existence. So what happened? Obesity (which Lustig says is not the primary problem) and metabolic syndrome (from an over-worked liver) have sky-rocketed. His message--even simpler than Pollen's "eat real food, mostly plants, not too much"--is "eat real food". Whether it's meat or plant, if it's unprocessed, it's okay. (Real fruit has fructose, but it also has fiber, which slows the metabolism enough to give the liver a chance.

The link to NPR, by the way, allows you to listen or to read a transcript of the interview. Do it!

By the way, this is not my first post mentioning Lustig: see here.

Steven Pinker, Adam Gopnick & WWI

I found this article by Adam Gopnick in the New Yorker from several years ago while reading Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. About Pinker's book: more to come, but let me say now that it is terrific. I was enamoured (and still am) with Mann's 1493, but this book is right up there with it. (What a great time for non-fiction readers!). Anyway, Pinker has some interesting discussion of war & IR, and this is where I found the Gopnick article.

Gopnick's article reviews several new books at that time about WWI (aka "The Great War"). I've read the Fromkin and have the Stevenson. Anyway, the essay is quite thoughtful and through. The topic continues to fascinate me. How did Europe descend from the belle epoch to hell in such a short time? Why, why, why? For those of you who watch "Downton Abbey", you may get a sense of it, or if, like Iowa Guru & me, you're "Upstairs, Downstairs" groupies, you get a sense. Through films, poems, novels: the horror and senselessness (seemingly, anyway), and destruction of it all always come through. WWII racked up worse numbers, but WWI, I think, damaged the collective psyche--and individual psyches--more.

This review article (rather lengthy) is a fine gateway into the issues of WWI and cites some fine scholarship on a maddeningly elusive and immense topic. With the 100th anniversary looming and some fine publications recently released, I think we'll learn more and more about this cataclysmic event--and perhaps understand it with less certainty.

Republicans, Who Are You?

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

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

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

Sad, really.

I Like Ike, and So Does Stephen Walt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those words themselves are worth a monument.

Thomas Homer-Dixon Update

Thomas Homer-Dixon sent out a recent email on updated activities, and a visit to his site led me to read this article about complexity. Complexity is one of the most compelling and productive theories that has recently arisen on my intellectual horizon. It applies to natural sciences and social sciences, which, I contend, shade into one another. Homer-Dixon also provides a succinct description of complexity theory and of "panarchy," taken from the work of his fellow Canadian, C.S. "Buzz" Holling.

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

Edited & updated 12.03.20. sng

Shoes

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

The Weight Thing

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

Diet & History

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

Exercise Anyone?

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

Dialogue is an Ancient Form of Communication

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

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

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

The End.

Dan Buettner on the "Blues"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy: The Movie (2012)

Gary Oldman as Smiley

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

I can say this not just because I've read the book, and I find LeCarre a rich writer who can use detail to set contemporary scenes in a world of bureaucrats and spies as well as anyone could imagine. In fact, even modest literary efforts can get become lost in translation to the screen. (An exception, I expect, is The Godfather, but I speculate because I've not read Puzo's book.). No, the reason that I hold this criticism against this film is that I've viewed--on multiple occasions--the BBC production of it from 1979. It's not that Alec Guinness's performance is better than Gary Oldman's--it is, but Oldman provides an admirable performance. No, rather, it's the time that the BBC took--about seven 45-minute episodes--that allows the richness of the plot and relationships to develop and reveal the characters and the intrigue. This pace allows the viewer to absorb the intrigues and relationships, much as one would when reading the novel. And in the case of this novel, it will not be completed in a single sitting. The Odman film starts and moves slowly in the beginning, I think trying to capture the rich texture of the novel and its television predecessors, but in the end, to get in all of the main plot elements, it has to speed up. There has to be a sacrifice, and in this film, the screenplay sacrifices much of the backstory of the other (non-Smiley) characters.

Thus, it's a good, solid movie, worth seeing. However, to give yourself the best experience, watch the BBC production (free on Youtube). It's a terrific show. You'll appreciate the difference, and for this one occasion, television beats the movies hands-down for the quality of the experience.

Moyers & Colbert

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

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

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

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

Stephen Colbert Explained (Sort of)

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

It Yoga Dangerous?

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

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

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

Gary Taubes on Best Diet Books

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

Best Books of 2011

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

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

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

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

On Sleep

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

Drew Weston Cheers Obama & the Dems

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

Krugman: Keynes Was Correct!

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

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

Antidote to Stephen Bloom's Bleak Vision

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

On Cloning

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Stars" in Politics

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


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

Interval Training from Conditioning Research

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

Habermas on Religion in the Public Square

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

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

Time Warrior by Steve Chandler

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

2011 Best History Books from BrainPickings

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

Jonah Lehrer on the Perils of Causation

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

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

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

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

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

Longevity

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

The Ultimate Stephen Bloom Disses Iowa Rebuttal?

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

More on Hungary: Fascinating & Frightening

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

Inequality

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

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

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

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

Creepy Stuff from Hungary

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

More on Stephen Bloom's Atlantic Article About Iowa

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

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

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

Great Reading Recommendations

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

Dr. Terry Wahls on Diet @ Iowa City TEDx

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

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

Some Good Guys & Some Real Disappointments on Protecting Our Security

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

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

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

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

Shame on Obama

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

Stephen Bloom's Iowa Firestorm

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

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

Maureen Dowd on Newt

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

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

John Lukacs on Knowledge & History: "Putting Man Before Descartes"

Besides the catchy title, and with the knowledge that one cannot read too much John Lukacs, I'm posting excerpts from this article from The American Scholar published in 2008 that I found a while ago. His view of knowledge is to some extent unusual and certainly worth considering. In fact, I think that he has a superb perspective on the matter. How we "know" (epistemology) is a crucial issue in everyday life, not to mention any discipline of study. Very worthwhile and thought provoking--but then what else would you expect from Lukacs? And for your delectation, a few choice quotes from the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Niall Ferguson on Charlie Rose

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

David Brooks on Cass Sunstein

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

Krugman on Creepy Europe

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

Beinart on Obama's Narrative

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

Ferguson on Britain's Dissent Fiscal Union

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

Frum & Brooks on Newt

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

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

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

A Draft Letter to the President & My Congressional Respresentatives

Readers,

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

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

December 8, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely yours,


Stephen N. Greenleaf

Ken Rogoff on Capitalism

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

Holy Shades of Paul Krugman, Batman!

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

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

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

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

Skeptical Anticipation: Tinker Tailor Movie Coming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Id. 324.

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

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

David Brooks: The Social Animal

David Brooks is a socialist.

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

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

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

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

In the end, a highly enjoyable and recommend a book