A Great Book: Robert Caro's The Passage of Power

I don't think that I call a book "great" too often, although I usually find those that I am quite enthusiastic about (if I finish it, it's held me). But for this book, the combination of the author and the subject (LBJ) is a perfect storm of a biography. In this volume, the fourth in the "Years of Lyndon Johnson", Caro follows his subject  from 1958 to about mid-1964. During this time, Johnson went from serving as the dominant figure in the Senate as the Senate majority leader, to a failed presidential candidate (and a reluctant and belated one at that, despite his longing to reach the presidency). Then, out of nowhere seemingly--and much to the chagrin of his brother Bobby--John Kennedy chose Johnson as his veep. While John Kennedy seemed to respect Johnson, Bobby Kennedy hated and despised him. Johnson knew this, and he reciprocated the feeling. As Garry Wills noted in his review of the book, this hatred brought out the worst in both men.

As vice-president, Johnson languished, excluded from the Kennedy inner-circle and ignored even in congressional matters, where his knowledge and experience could not be matched. LBJ could only watch as Kennedy's legislative program went nowhere. By 1963, the Bobby Baker scandal was brewing, while former Johnson protege John Connelly was governor of Texas and feeling his own oats. Things looked bleak for Johnson, he'd even lost his clout in Texas. Then, as he rode through the streets of Dallas behind John Kennedy, shots cracked and Johnson was shoved the floor of his car. Not long after, Kennedy aide Ken O'Donnell came into a room where Johnson has been secluded by the Secret Service, and told him, "he's gone". With this Johnson became president, and a changed man.

Caro, from this point forward, details the steps that Johnson took to make his succession work. From the swearing in with the blood-stained Jackie Kennedy at this side to his wooing of Kennedy aides, Johnson orchestrated the passage. Through talks with governors, congressman, and others in government, Johnson worked to keep the power of the presidency in tack and working. While the nation grieved and watched the spectacle of the Kennedy last rites, Johnson worked.

After this immediate time of abrupt change, Johnson realized that he could now accomplish things, that he was no longer a bystander, no longer another Southern senator. As Caro describes it, Johnson's passions now matched his ambitions, and one of his passions was justice for the poor and downtrodden, including those black and brown. Johnson immediately began to work to get the Kennedy tax cut through Congress (by making a deal with Harry Byrd, the budget watchdog from Virginia), and Johnson, despite warnings to the contrary, pushed the civil rights bill--and got it passed. It was an amazing and under-appreciated display of political mastery that left the nation better off.

Caro foreshadows the fall that Lyndon Johnson would suffer after his election later in 1964. Many of the traits that marred him, which he'd suppressed during this transition, came back to the forefront. Vietnam, of course, lurks as a monster that we know comes to devour Johnson and the peace of the nation. But for now, we have this amazing portrait of redemption and success, one brief shining moment, if you will, when in the dark time of mourning, Lyndon Johnson did the right things. Happily, this extraordinary biographer, who maps the arc of Johnson's life, has proven equal to the task. Pray that Caro enjoys long life so that we can read the next chapter, the tragedy, that we know befalls our protagonist.

Happy Belated Fourth with Garry Wills

Per my custom, I picked some reading especially for the Independence Day holiday. I re-read Garry Wills book, Confessions of a Conservative (1979), parts 2 & 3 about "The Liberal System" and "Elites". I found that I've posted about this book before, but I am still astounded at how well Wills came to understand our system. While completing a Ph.D. in the Classics at Yale, he worked as a magazine & newspaper writer, most importantly at National Review (he eventually got the boot there) and Harpers. He developed a keen eye and an engaging writing style as a result of these associations, and this gift is on display in this book. It still impresses me 33 years after publication (and poor as we were, I bought a copy as soon as I could--freshly minted out of law school).

I won't go on too much more, just  to say that you won't likely find a more succinct, insightful, and well-written understanding and appreciation of the American political system than what Wills provides here. A Happy Fourth & beyond to all.

Sunday NYT Round-up

Here's what I found interesting in the paper today:

1. Ground meat. Okay, Devotay restaurant in Iowa City gets a shout-out for its lamb albondigas in the article, so that makes it fun. (Haven't had them yet, but might have to.) But the article gives some sound advice. Don't waste, and use good, appropriately raised product. Yea, yum. I luv Iowa Guru's delicious lamb burgers from the grill, and brats--oh, yea.

2. Gary Taubes on the "carbs make us fat" hypothesis. Taubes is a first-rate science writer, and this piece, in his modest way consistent with his respect for the discipline of science, furthers his argument that all calories are not created equal and that carbs (simple, mostly white), cause us to get fat.

3. The 'Busy Trap'. Point well-taken. I especially like the Arthur C. Clarke quote. However, to most Americans, this would seem immoral.

4. Tom Friedman on John Roberts's majority opinion. I remain agnostic about Roberts's motives. Perhaps civic virtue, perhaps a desire to preserve the standing of the Court, perhaps he responded to compelling legal arguments--or all (or none) of the above. It was good to see a decision that did not split along strictly ideological lines, that did not privilege the position of Justice Kennedy, and that did uphold Obama's health care plan. And while, I, too, oppose "hyper partisanship", compromise strictly for the sake of compromise or to "meet in the middle" isn't good enough. Sometimes you do have to stand your ground and fight (and risk losing). The Republican Party's main agenda seems to be to defeat Obama, not to move the country in a sensible direction. That's bad, very bad. Democrats, even with Bush, whom no real Democrat could have regarded well, didn't spend all of their time trying to undermine for electoral advantage, I don't think. I hope that voters this fall recognize that.

5. Jim Holt, "Is Philosophy Literature?" . Fun piece that attempts to show some literary merit by the analytic camp. A tough sell, I think, but he makes a case.

6. This review of America the Philosophical by Carlin Romano intrigues me, despite a luke warm review. America, this big, sprawling land of many cultures and traditions, does think, sometimes deeply, sometime quite shallowly, but if we spread our net widely, we find some thinkers worth considering. It seems that Mr. Romano tries to capture this great enterprise, and for this reason alone it seems a worthwhile endeavor.

7. One bummer: is Texas real?  Or to put it more accurately, and fairly to the (I hope) non-crazy majority there, are Texas Republicans crazy? Well, yes, but . . . My goodness, this is mind-bogglingly stupid and more than a bit alarming. Read this & think about it (I don't think that Texas Republicans did).

Garry Wills on Lawyers & Politicians

The previous post let me back into reading some of the "Elites" chapters that I mentioned in that post. I particularly enjoyed chapter "Politicians", which Wills spells out his understanding of their role (and which anticipates the recent NYRB post about the Unger position). Because this book appears to be out of print (not many of his are!), I thought I should share this quote about lawyers and politicians. I've not been a politician, but I've observed and read a great deal (now in the great Caro biography of LBJ), and I have been a lawyer for over 30 years now, so I think that I can affirm a good deal of what Wills writes.

It is not accidental that most of our politicians were educated as lawyers for do... . Many have criticized the tenets of legal training and its effect on the politicians who share this kind of training. Jimmy Breslin grumbled yesterday, and Macaulay, a hundred years ago. It is easy to understand their objections. The lawyer's skills are negotiatory, technical, mediating, neutral. He acts as an expert adviser for a client, not as a creative thinker or framer of his own views. It is his job to make the maximum claim on his client's behalf -- whether to a jury, an insurance company, the  IRS, a sued or suing  opponent, a partner in divorce proceedings. He speaks for one client today, another tomorrow; one side now, a different one later. The neutral agent is not a friend of one side, and therefore no enemy to the other side. Legal adversaries can exchange their lawyers, and the only difference (if any) will be in their technical skills. Having made the maximum claim for his own client, and expected a similar maximum claim from the other side, a lawyer must forge the terms of settlement and advises clients on them. If our own lawyer made less than the maximum legal claim for us--out of ignorance, or reticence, or rectitude -- we would feel cheated. His services were not fully at our disposal; part was kept to indulge himself.

    So the critics of the lawyer background shared by so many of our politicians are dead wrong. No better training can be found for them. They, too, a struggle with each other, yet be friends the next day; make maximum claims as bargaining points, but aim at a compromise settlement; satisfy most people somewhat rather than a few people fully; represent diversity by muting differences; always be more neutral than hostile; dealing  in increments and margins only, but you'll constantly; always adjusting, hedging, giving in a little, gaining a little; creeping towards one's goals, not heroically striving there; always leaving oneself an out, a loophole, a proviso -- what Willmoore Kendall used to call "a verbal parachute," so that no alliance is irrevocable, no opposition adamant.

 Confessions, 175-176.

The rest of the chapter is well worth it, and, I must say, Wills has always made me want to read the likes of Macaulay, Bagehot,  Belloc, Johnson, Hume, and the like; literary writers who addressed politics.

Garry Wills on the Quest for Political Purity

Garry Wills in NYRB reacts to a post by Harvard law prof Robert Unger saying the Obama must be defeated in order to advance the "progressive agenda". I know that I tweeted this as a "must read", but I must needs say more.

First, this bone-headed idea that we must make things bad enough to bring about "real change" or whatever term of adulation you prefer, is a recipe for suffering and disaster. Radical political movements of both the Right and Left love such pure thinking. It's poison! We may not like our choices, but choosing the worse in order to (hope) get the better later is nuts. It just doesn't work that way, not at least often enough to place bets. A failed Mitt Romney presidency is as likely to take the country to the right as it is the left, and perhaps more so. And the left--well, it's track record, when it comes to radical reform, is poor. Incremental change is often frustrating and difficult to stomach, but radical change is most often for the worse.

Wills wrote an excellent piece in Harpers (alas, gated) about politics in 1976 entitled "Feminists & Other Useful Fanatics" that addresses these same issues. Wills has admiration of the purists,  the 'saints", like feminists, Martin Luther King, Jr.,  and others, but he also understand the role of politicians. The two roles are different, and we really shouldn't try to mix the two very closely or very often. The purity of the saint won't work for the politician, and the compromise inherent in politics sullies the saint (or prophet, as I believe Wills refers to them as well.)

I go with the realists, the incrementalists, the politicians.
(For another great statement of the perspective, go read Max Weber's "Politics as a Vocation", especially the part about the two ethics.)

Krugman & Wells on Obama's Economic Team & Plan

This NYRB article by Krugman & Wells provides some excellent insights (via the books reviewed) about the workings of the Obama administration viz. the economic crisis, and it provides some excellent points about the current status of American politics. Among the take-away points:
1. Obama went with "insiders", like Geittner & Summers, for his economic team. Understandable in the sense of wanting to have experienced hands at the wheel, but Geitner especially seems to have been way too concerned Wall Street. Thus, Wall Street got a pass on its reckless behavior and the American public resented the fact.
2. Obama was (I my! How I hope I've used the correct tense!) way too concerned with appearing "bipartisan" and not "parochial". Accordingly, he compromised way to much and way too quickly. (Drew Westonn, whom I've cited in earlier blog posts, has dissected this very well. Here again. )
3. Make no mistake about it: the current dysfunction in the American political system lies overwhelmingly with the contemporary Republican Party. Not the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, or even (oh, dear!) Nixon. So sad, as I've addressed in earlier posts as well.

The take away: our economic policy has been inadequate the the challenges that we face (not to mention that we're under a cloud because of European dysfunction), but our situation is even more dire because of an increasingly dysfunctional political system dominated by a wacky Republican Party.

Reading the Sunday Papers

Some thoughts from reading the local paper (IC Press-Citizen & the Des Moines Register) as well as the NYT:

1. DMR article about U.S. ambassador to India, Nancy Powell, native Iowan, UNI grad, and former teacher. This will give Iowa Guru something to chat with the boss about if she gets to meet her!

2. DMR notes that Idina Menzel of Wicked & Glee fame is coming to DM this Friday. Should I tell Iowa Guru? Only if I want to go! (Maybe she should follow this blog. Yeah, that's right.)

3. Maureen Dowd normally skewers with wit and satire, but her piece in the NYT today is deeply troubling. Not because of what she writes, but the fact of the real, troubling truth of what she writes about. One can't treat these issues with any lightness. I'm talking about predatory sexual abuse stories and the many persons who did not intervene or tried to cover-up these terribly evil acts. We've all talked about "good Nazis" or "good Germans" with some disdain, but at least some of those persons who remained silent could be excused for fear of their lives. And in the Kitty Genovese case of fame from the mid-60's, we can understand a perverse social circumstance that might help us understand the the lack of response (and the accounts vary so as to question the moral culpability of bystanders.)  Dowd suggests it's our institutions that are flawed, but these behaviors that she describes in contemporary America really do go to character and moral standards. It's really shocking and troubling. (BTW, she quotes from Robert Bolt's wonderful play/screenplay about Sir Thomas More, "A Man for All Seasons", which I believe that I read for a political philosophy course and a quote from which I consider a great one about the importance of the law & legal procedure, even for "the devil", so I knew MD was on to something right away.)

4. On a more pleasant note, and going to the quotidian (but vital) search for serenity and balance, this NYT article by James Atlas about Buddhism in America (which he cutely dubs "Newddism") is a consideration of a growing appreciation, if not outright adoption, of Buddhism in the U.S. I certainly count myself among those greatly influenced by and receptive to Buddhist perspectives. (Thanks to Iowa Guru's graduate student friend Hedecki, who stayed with us before he returned to Japan and got me interested in Buddhism. He also provided wonderful entertainment for the infant 1HP with his "Indian elephant, African elephant" routine.)

5. An interesting companion piece to the Atlas article is this NYT article by Robert Zaretsky & John T. Scott, which is a consideration of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the great French Enlightenment (or Counter-Englightenment or Romantic) thinker (whose 300th birthday approaches). Now, compare the take of this article with that Atlas's on Buddhism. Am I alone in seeing some very interesting parallels? A comparison of Rousseau and contemporaries of his like Hume & Smith (don't forget The Theory of the Moral Sentiments!) might really provide some food for thought. I haven't found much exploration of these two traditions (Western Enlightenment, non-French variety, and Buddhism), but I think that it could prove fruitful. Pankaj Mishra touched on the topic in interesting way in his fine book, An End to Suffering: The Buddha in the World, but he didn't go deeply into the subject (not his intention in that book, which is a fine read.). A book by David T. McMahan might provide some answers, and an interesting book-length comparison of Gandhi and the Stoics will be coming out later this year from Richard Sorabji, and it could prove very insightful (although we're not talking Buddhism with Gandhi, but still I think, somewhat birds of a feather.). Well, read it and weep--or laugh--or smile--or try to enjoy happiness in the moment!

P.S. I enjoy theater & J-J, whom I've read mostly as a political philosopher, could be a bit of a drudge. He reacted too strongly, in my opinion, the the excesses of Ancien Regime culture. No Shakespeare, no O'Neil--no thank you. Jettison Moliere if you must.

Joshua Foer on Memory

For those of you who may have ignored my good advice to read Moonwalking with Einstein by Josh Foer, here's you chance to make up for it in about 20' by watching this TED Talk by Foer on the same topic. It's a fascinating & delightful story, and it really does encapsulate the book.


Enjoy!

Daniel Kahneman: Thinking, Fast & Slow

Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast & Slow was a delight to listen to. Kahneman, the psychologist who won a Nobel in economics, shares his insights from years of research and study about why we do what we do. He describes our brains as having 2 separate systems, one fast and one slow (among other characteristics). These different systems lead to quite different outcomes, depending on which one we use in any given situation (and "fast" of course, always arrives first!). Read (or listen) to this book and you'll have a better understanding of yourself and those around you. Really delightful, and told in some measure through autobiography. 

William J. Broad: The Science of Yoga

The Science of Yoga provides a thoughtful and measured consideration of hatha yoga. Broad, a science writer for the NYT & yoga practitioner since the 1970's works to separate the factual from the fanciful. Among his points:

• yoga isn't that effective as an aerobic workout (yoga should, for the most part, slow metabolism over all)
• we don't get "more oxygen" from pranayama or by doing more vinyasas. We're pretty much saturated with oxygen all of the time anyway. No, it's the level of carbon dioxide in our system that can effect our physiology
• yoga can help the old (or young) sex life (enough said!)
•  yoga does help with mood & overall well-being
• you can suffer serious injury doing yoga

This is just a brief overview, but if you do yoga or are thinking about it, it's a worthwhile read to let you know what may or may not happen to your body as you engage this practice. 

Jack Goldstone on the Present Crisis in Political Economy

This post by Jack Goldstone strikes me as a very well-considered appraisal of our current political-economic situation. (I'm thinking more and more that one simply cannot discuss macroeconomics without including politics, thus taking us back to an appreciation of the older term "political economy".) As a regular reader of his blog, his insights seem pithy & well-taken. He understands that we have a struggle--dare one utter the term?--class struggle, over the direction of the economy. (N. B. I don't think the rather crude idea of class struggle that Marx & Engels suggested proves very helpful, but on the other hand, as my medieval history professor used to say, you do need to figure out "whose ox gets gored" in an political-economic situation.) Goldstone appreciates that we have both a "typical" recession and structural problems, thus, a double-whammy. Along with Krugman, I find Goldstone one of the most enlightening commentators on our current situation.

Adam Gopnick's Telling Point about the power of stories

This quote is worth noting:

And if these claims seem almost too large to argue, the more central claim—that stories increase our empathy, and “make societies work better by encouraging us to behave ethically”—seems too absurd even to argue with. Surely if there were any truth in the notion that reading fiction greatly increased our capacity for empathy then college English departments, which have by far the densest concentration of fiction readers in human history, would be legendary for their absence of back-stabbing, competitive ill-will, factional rage, and egocentric self-promoters; they’d be the one place where disputes are most often quickly and amiably resolved by mutual empathetic engagement. It is rare to see a thesis actually falsified as it is being articulated.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/05/can-science-explain-why-we-tell-stories.html#ixzz1wAu41PP6

Yes, the whole post is worthwhile, but the quote is too good!

In Praise of Audio Books

This article about audio with kids & this one on more generally on audio books highlights a favorite pass  time of mine: being read  to. I almost always have a book or lecture going in my car. From Moby Dick to The Illiad to The Great Gatsby, I've enjoyed them as much or more by having them read to me. And as to kids books, The Giver and The Witches pop to mind immediately as a part of our trips to Michigan!  I received a great deal of pleasure reading the our daughters--1HP even suffered me to read to her in high school (she's old enough to admit it now) from the instructional & enigmatic Sophie's World.


Great readers & performers? Of course, the great Shakespearean actors reading Shakespeare: Geilgud, Olivier, Burton, Guiness, etc. (I often go back to Burton reading John Donne, too--what a treat!). George Guidall will always be the voice of the great phyisician-essayist Lewis Thomas to me, and Frank Muller brought Moby Dick to life in a way that a couple of futile attempts at reading it could not.

Perhaps I should join the author of the second article in listening to Caro's lastest installment his incredible LBJ biography. Hmmm, maybe. But in the not too distant future, I won't have a car. Listening as I drive makes me a much happier driver. (Currently listening  to Thinking, Fast & Slow: highly recommended.)

Why Is This Man Laughing? by Garry Wills | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books

Why Is This Man Laughing? by Garry Wills | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books

I've held a conversation as recently as today about Romney's awkwardness. Just an awkward smart/rich guy who can't fit in? Is he just plain weird? As I generally avoid watching him since I rarely agree with him, he panders far beyond even the average politician (a high bar to exceed), I won't vote for him, and he IS AWKWARD. Thus, I don't see his laugh that often, but Wills gives us some insight from his position as a veteran political reporter, as well as Kundera & Dostoevsky reader. Very interesting.

Thomas Friedman, Michael Sandel & Sky Boxes

Thomas Friedman considers Michael Sandel's arguments fron Sandel's new book, What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. I write about it for three points:

 1. Friedman points out this observation by Sandel that bears repeating & consideration:

Sandel sees them [intrusion of commercial advertising into almost all areas of life] as signs of a bad trend: “Over the last three decades,” he states, “we have drifted from having a market economy to becoming a market society. A market economy is a tool — a valuable and effective tool — for organizing productive activity. But a ‘market society’ is a place where everything is up for sale. It is a way of life where market values govern every sphere of life.”

This is an important distinction. Markets allow information to travel across diverse & unconnected users and distribute assets with an efficiency that eludes any central planner. (Hayek here.) But this cultural trend goes way beyond that, making us consumers and not citizens. A very big and important difference to my mind.

 2. Sky boxes. When in college, I gave a ride the hometown radio folks from the airport to Kinnick Stadium to broadcast the Hawkeye-Cyclone game, the first such game in about three decades. Anyway, I went to the press box, up high, very nice, but I couldn't stay. The electricity and fun of the game was in the stands with my fellow students. I couldn't scream, curse, chant, or do victory dances in the the press box! Now, they have sky boxes, antiseptic glass booths for the well-heeled to make appearances and schmooze. I don't envy those folks, I kind of feel badly for them. If you come to a public event such as a Hawkeye football game, come for the communal experience, not to be isolated. I think that the commercialization of big-time (read football & men's basketball) college athletics appears to me more and more a mistake. Anyway, my rant seems apropos of Sandel's more sophisticated thoughts. Another book for my reading list.

 3. One more thing: would the United State of America have survived and flourished without civic virtue practices by the Founders? These men were not angels or demi-gods; they had their material sides, but they were motivated by ideals as well, ideals in part from the tradition of civic republicanism. (The book to read to get a sense of this: Garry Wills' Cincinnatus: George Washington & the Enlightenment.)

Garry Wills on Christianity & Marriage

In the NYRB blog, Wills gives a brief but eye-opening history of marriage in the Christian tradition. He wrote this in light of Obama's recent endorsement of gay marriage and the continuing debate in this country about that. (Obama, of course, following Joe Biden on this!) The blog speaks for itself, but beyond the issue of gay marriage, it's a reminder that all human institutions have a history and are marked by change. We only know of the passage of time because of change. We have to understand that all human institutions, including religious institutions and beliefs, change with time. Fortunately, most now agree that the slavery, polygamy, and genocide favorably referenced in the Bible are wrong. This is, of course, a historical development. We need to consider how core messages worth keeping can be separated from the baggage of past human cultures that we can no longer endorse. Gay marriage is such an example.

Gary Taubes Continues the Good Fight

I tweeted a reference to this article, but you should read it. It summarizes his arguments and insights about obesity. As the referenced documentary apparently makes clear, the CW (conventional wisdom) still attacks the same old shibboleths, but to no avail. Time to take Taubes seriously.

Garry Wills on Caro on LBJ & Bobby

Garry Wills is a master writer and biographer of--among others-- Nixon & the Kennedy clan. Robert Caro, is perhaps the great biographer of our times, and his recently published The Passage of Power: The Years of Lyndon Johnson takes on a time that seems far away, but is well within the memory of many of us. In this piece, Wills does a riff on Caro's work. Wills notes that one of the great themes arising from Caro's most recent volume is the hatred between LBJ & Bobby Kennedy. Hatred, as an important component of this book, overrides, at least in part, Caro's grand theme of the exercise and struggle for political power in mid-20th century America. This piece is a delight, but as Wills notes, the hatred between Kennedy and Johnson brought out the worst in both of them. As Wills describes it, it's like watching two trains colliding head-on.

Big History--I Mean BIG History

I finished listening to Professor David Christian's Big History course from the Teaching Company (courtesy of ICPL). When he says "big" he means from the Big Bang (now pegged about 13.7 billion years ago) to peering deep into the future (where does this story stop?). This project, and he's now one of many that are pursuing this new line of thinking, is really quite entertaining and fascinating. You may recall that I posted on his TED Talk on the subject, but in this course he gives 48 one-half hour lectures. They are organized around theme of complexity, how from the Big Bang, the simple in the universe has become more complex, entropy notwithstanding. The early science is interesting, but I'm most into the human history, and Christian does a fine job here. Of course, as human society has become more complex, so the story tends to back load. That is, since about 1700, and the oncoming of modernity, change to humanity has come fast and furious (literally furious in some arenas). In fact, one measure of how complex we have become is the density of energy use. Of course, this may prove our downfall, as well. We shall see: the story isn't over yet! If like me, you're in the car and have more than enough news, why not take a trip down memory lane! This was enjoyable and informative. Recommended. (And thank you, ICPL!)

You Go Girls!

The recent chastisement (could there be a better word for it) of American nuns by the Vatican has brought out some very interesting commentary. From my read on it, almost anyone who has any first hand experience with nuns has, on the whole, a great deal of admiration for them and the work that they perform on behalf of the Church and the Gospel. I think that nuns, rather than priests and the Vatican, are held in much greater admiration today by most folks. The opinions have certainly been strongly put. Garry Wills, in addition to advising that nuns are interested in "the powerless" and priests in "power", also writes warmly of his experience as a student for some of his years in a Catholic grade school. Nicholas Kristof and Maureen Dowd both chime in on the topic in the NYT today, both very much on the side of the nuns (both are from Catholic backgrounds, although I don't know their status as practitioners; Wills is very much a practitioner of the faith). (One reservation that Iowa Guru pointed out viz. Dowd: she couldn't resist the stereotypical comment at the end about a wrap on the knuckles, going for cute when she could have done without.) Of course, the best source on the subject are the nuns themselves and the nun (Sister Simone Campbell) who spoke on NPR. No, don't mess with those nuns! (Thanks for Africa Girl for the initial point to the NPR interview and the whole fracus.)

Fine Flick Alert: Chimpanzee

Think of some of the most enthralling, poignant, and memorable movies you've began seeing as a child, you'll probably think of a nature movie, and one probably released by Disney. Well, good news, they've done it again. Chimpanzee is a study of a young chimp in the wild of Africa (they do not specify where). The shots of life among these chimps is amazing, and these simian cousins of ours provided fascinating viewing. So close and yet so far from us. However, even as we realize the differences, we see so much of ourselves in their social interactions, bonds, cooperation, rivalries, and warfare. Understand: life is not cuddly and fun, and war (let's call it that, although one might argue that it's a bit too anthropomorphic) occurs. We see Mom and Machiavelli. Anyway, fascinating and worthwhile for almost all age groups.

Asking Questions: Effectiveness & Good Manners

Our good friends at the very useful site Farnum Street provided this post about interviewing. It's what I do for a living in large measure, so needless to say I read it. I find some interesting recommendations & more to explore. I'll bet any reader of this blog has a similar use for questions and interviews, so I think that it's potentially useful to anyone.

After reading the how/what to ask article, read this article about the etiquette of asking questions in a public forum, a sorely under appreciated skill. IMHO, some very good advice is found here. I almost always cringe @ open mike questions because of the either awful or awkward (or both) questions that get asked. This writer has obviously experienced the same things, and his reflections provide very sound observations about how to avoid the idiocy.

Nasim Taleb on Antifragility

This interview of Taleb previews his book and thoughts on Antifragility that will be coming out this fall. Taleb is both entertaining (and sometimes exasperating) and awfully enlightening, combining some very ancient ideas with some very sophisticated contemporary insights. This presentation, like my recent post of the Gergerenzer talk, comes from the Zurich Minds conference, which appears to be Swiss TED talks.



Wait! Actyally a better, more coherent & easy to follow presentation given @ Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School:

Fine Flick Alert! "Margin Call"

Iowa Guru & I watched this earlier tonight & discovered an outstanding flick. (Thank you, Netflicks.) This fine, ensemble cast film led by Kevin Spacey & Jeremy Irons depicts about 36 hours in a the day of a major investment house that has found its risk management formula mismatched with reality. Read: 2008.

The writer/director is the son of a Wall Street trader, and he provides a sympathetic view of the characters involved. In other words, it's not a demonization of those involved (although we're not talking saints and angels here), but they are portrayed as vulnerable, scared, greedy, and befuddled human beings (to name but a few qualities revealed in the course of events). While Spacey & Irons are the big names and provide excellent performances, the entire case works very well. (Stanley Tucci also has a small but crucial role.)

To get a sense of the human side of the Crash of 2008 from the inside, I couldn't imagine of a better film consideration. Documentaries can capture events and history, but this film, I thought, captured what I could imagine to the essence of the players involved. The documentary to watch is the one narrated by Matt Damon entitled Inside Job.

Gerd Gegerenzer on Decision-Making

A fascinating (albeit a bit wonky) talk on decision-making. But do you have any decisions with a degree (if not total) uncertainty? If you're like me, you have them in spades. If so, you may find the good herr doktor's talk worthwhile:

Better Than TED Talks? RSAnimate & The Divided Brain

Two topics here:

1. Is RSAnimate better than TED talks? Of course, it's not a contest, but this type of presentation I find very lively & engaging. The visual (a skill that I deeply admire, probably because of my lack of talent) really adds to the presentation without dumbing down the presentation.

2. Brain & neuroscience research is a fascinating topic & one that continues to grow and give us insight. The idea--a flawed one I believe--that divides Reason & Passion goes back at least to Plato in the West, with a big boost from Descartes along the way. But while it has some metaphorical value, taken too literally it's false. This view, better than the old Left Brain-Right Brain exact division of function, gives us a new view of ourselves that should prove very useful and practical. Dr. Iain McGilchrist does an excellent job here of providing a succinct talk that outlines his thought while accompanied by a delightfully entertaining and enlightening whiteboard drawing done while he's speaking (or so it appears). 

Found courtesy of a Jonathan Haidt Tweet.

Fascinating Interview with Robert Caro by Charlie Rose

This interview is about 3 years old, but on the eve of publication of Caro's latest installment, it's worth watching. In anticipation I took up Master of the Senate, volume 3 of the Years of Lyndon Johnson (winner of the Pulitzer Prize). Great pros and great scene setting mark this effort. Caro mentions some of his method in the interview. He is a masterful biographer, and whether you love Lyndon (does anyone?) or hate him (too easy a judgment), this ongoing biography is a fascinating account of his life and times.

Jonathan Haidt, Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics & Religion

This is a very fine book. It combines social science research, personal anecdote, and thoughtful observation & concern about the world in which he lives. Haidt's story, which he weaves into the book & which gives it some narrative drive to add to the insightful analytics. Jumping forward a bit, Haidt, a someone typical liberal, Democrat, non-religious academic, wonders why Bush ruled (so to speak). His research leads him into investigating the moral universes of liberals and conservatives (as understood in American politics). His conclusion: liberals have 3 areas of primary concern, but conservatives have five--authority and loyalty have an importance for conservatives that they don't have for liberals. Thus, liberals (think John Kerry), ignore the moral universe of a number of voters.

In addition to the moral universes, Haidt talks about how argumentation, not logic or computing drives our thinking. In other words, we decide what we think & then argue to justify it. Yes, I think so.

His other main insight is that human are not so much selfish as "groupish". In other words, we are very social animals.

Okay, I have to go, so I'll stop here. But this is a very insightful book. It rewards while also giving a great deal of reading pleasure. Enjoy!

Garry Wills, The Font of Life: Ambrose, Augustine & the Mystery of Baptism

In this small book, Garry Wills comes back around to the most recurring subject of his varied writings, St. Augustine. Sharing stage with Augustine is Ambrose, the man who baptized him, and who, along with Jerome and Augustine, serves as one of the Fathers of the Western Church. Wills does an excellent job of bringing to life not only the ecclesiastical and religious issues of the day, but he also gives some sense of the political, especially as Ambrose dueled with the emperors who then resided in Milan. Wills also focuses on the meaning and significance of baptism as practiced by Ambrose, which consisted in an elaborate ritual during Holy Week, and he compares it with Augustine's later, more spare style of sacramental ritual.

One comes away from the book with a greater appreciation of what the world looked like at that time as far as religion and politics stood, and, of course, some of the interaction between them. Great intellectual debates were waged and the course of history took a different (how different?) turn because of them. Wills also does an excellent job of bringing to light the sacramental meaning and symbolism of baptism. And he highlight's Augustine's adoption of Ambrose's typology for use of the Old Testament in a New Testament context, a form of Biblical scholarship that has survived for centuries.

An outstanding book.

Body by Science by Doug McGuff, M.D. & John LIttle

An excellent work on fitness through strength training. McGuff is an ER doc & runs a gym. His message (with co-author little): five basic exercises done very intensely (5-10" for each concentric & eccentric rep (at one set), heavy weight, to failure for a total of about 12' duration of actual exercise time, can give you high-level fitness. Does it work? I'm giving it a try. So what to do with the rest of your time? Have fun! A very well-written, argued, and laid-out book. I think that they're on to something, and well worth a trial. My preliminary work that way (finding the right weight to keep the adequate time under tension (key concept) takes a bit of experiment, but it seems to work.

Gary Taubes on Food Studies: Digest Carefully!

A bit technical, but as usual with Taubes, this article from the NY Times is carefully researched and argued. In short, most nutritional studies are full or correlations and can generate interesting possibilities, but they don't prove causation. Another case of lies, damned lies, and statistics. Statistics gone wild, you might say. As causation is the crucial knowledge we need for understanding our environment, we can't give it too much careful consideration.

Public Enemy No. 1? Sugar, Baby

I've referred to Dr. Robert Lustig before a couple of times courtesy of Gary Taubes. Put simply, sugar is as addictive as cocaine & as evil (in more than minimal quantities) as tobacco & alcohol. Wow. Nasty. It's enough to ruin my cup of ice cream! This 60 Minutes segment really brings the point home!

BTW, I learned of this via the site War on Insulin. Good stuff there.

Recipe for The Hunger Games Movie

Mix the following ingredients:

1. A serving of Shirley Jackson's The Lottery;
2. Add a hint of Richard Connell's The Most Dangerous Game
3. Season with some Wizard of Oz (an Emerald City and those city folk in their funky dress;
4. Add some Spartacus: Roman names and a Roman-style spectacle in a bread & circuses atmosphere;
5. Throw in a Harry Potter train ride;
6. Mix in some Last of the Mohicans (Daniel Day-Lewis version with the American woodlands & a mercy killing to save a rival from cruel and lingering slow death);
7. A healthy dose of the faux-reality of American "reality" television;
8. A equal amount of talk show faux-intimacy;
9. Some Walker Evans scenes of Appalachian poverty;
10. A Twilight love-triangle (I've not seen any of them, but the previews sure suggest it);
11.Some old Western gun-slinger life;
11. And just a hint of Acemegulu & Robinson's Why Nations Fail (an the extractive elite and the exploited, politically weak majority).

Did I forget anything? Well, probably. This was quite a mash-up, almost a never-ending homage. Yet, despite the mulligan stew of elements, I really rather enjoyed it. Predictable, indeed familiar in many senses, but nevertheless compelling. The acting didn't go over the top. Ms. Lawrence presented a pleasant but not overwhelming presence (she is not knock-out gorgeous, which was actually refreshing).

Paul Krugman on fringe politics & Richard Hofstadter

More scary stuff from Krugman. To get a feel for what he's written, I highly recommend the book he cites by the great American historian, Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics. Why? Because, as Krugman notes, this styles is back. Like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers (best in the original 1956 production), it's taking over more and more minds, and it's creepier than ever.

Rick Perlstein and his version of "Still Crazy After All These Years"

Upon reading and listening to a good deal of Jon Haidt in the last couple of day and his appreciating his efforts to understand conservatives and liberals and to bridge some divides, we still have to deal with the reality that a lot of conservatives are really whackadoodle (a term that Perlstein uses). So I read with great interest this piece by the historian of the right-wing, Rick Perlstein. The nuttiness is not new. I know, I was there, especially in 1964 at the Republican National Convention that nominated Barry Goldwater. (Thank goodness, my Republican parents were moderate Republicans, not conspriricy-nut Republicans that seem to have the staying power of the zombies. Dead ideas but live mouths.

Yes, we have to understand what others want, but some others are just nuts. There were communists in our government (e.g., Alger Hiss), but not very many and not enough to justify the frightening megalomania and paranoia of Joseph McCarthy and his supporters.

So how do we deal with this?

P.S. Apologies to Paul Simon

Jon Haidt with Bill Moyers

This is an outstanding program & conversation. I read Haidt's The Happiness Hypothesis a few years ago and found it very persuasive. Now with his new book, The Righteous Mind, I think that I'm going to find him an even more important thinker. Moyers, as usual, does an outstanding job of engaging his guest in elucidating the guest's viewpoint. And this case, it's especially important and useful because Haidt argues that political conservatives in the U.S. understand more about moral psychology than do liberals. Overall, elections since the 1980's have born this out. Haidt adds a great deal of social science sophistication to understanding what's going on (and wrong) in our world today.

Moyers & Haidt touch on a number of topics: moral areas of concern (Haidt identifies five), reason & argumentation (Haidt seems to argue for the Sperber-Mercier view), sacralization of issues, and various other topics. There's a transcript @ the site, although I chose to listen, as Moyers usually carries on an enlightening conversation, and it's refreshing to experience it done well.

Michael Dowd about New Books on Evolution

This entry, courtesy of Jonathan Haidt (whose new book I'm eager to read) cites to an author that I haven't read, but he sounds interesting. Also, his discussion of the three books by Haidt, Wilson (E.O.) and another, piques my interest in them. Why? In short, the theory of evolution, much more than, say, the theory of relativity, provides a crucial understanding of our world. Einstein's theory is at the fringes of our reality; evolution goes to the heart of it. That is, as "big history" writers suggest, it applies not just to biology, but to human society. Interesting stuff, with some other good sites that I picked up upon.

Michael Erard, Babel No More: The Serach for the World's Most Extraordinary Language Learners

Our recent stop at Powell's in Portland landed this book in my bag. We heard Joshua Foer later that night speaking about his book Moonwalking with Einstein, and it reminded me about this book. Being the presence of much more accomplished language-learners than me, I bought. I can say with some certainty that I regret not having studied foreign languages more. Indeed, I can only claim four years of high school Spanish, which UI thought was enough. Well, it wasn't, but that's old history. The topic is still fascinating, and I'd already read some about one of the subjects of the book, Alexander Arguelles.

A book about extraordinary people is always fun, and what keeps you going (besides sheer wonder at their achievements) is how do they do it? Born geniuses, or certain keys to unlike the Tower of Babel? Well, read the book. It's easy and fun. Bon chance! Buen suerte, etc.!

John Lewis Gaddis, George Kennan: An American Life

This is a complete and fascinating biography of a man who lived a full, one-hundred-year plus life. Others more qualified than me have reviewed and praised this book, so there's not a lot that I can add. However, I will add this: Kennan was a complex and difficult character. He was often elitist and pessimistic. He seems to have been ridden with one illness or another (yet he lives, with his wits about him, to over 100!). But the one question that Gaddis doesn't answer or address as fully as I would like in this book: where did Kennan get his seemingly unique perspective of containment as a way to draw the line on Soviet expansion? Roosevelt and American liberals seem quite naive about Stalin and the Soviet system. But Kennan, writing from bed (ill again), sends his "Long Telegram" (later transformed into "The Sources of Soviet Conduct" by "X"). He alone seems to have articulated this very successful and insightful perspective about Soviet conduct and how to check it. Where did this come from? Well, he learned Russian as a young American diplomat He spent a good deal of time in the Soviet Union (two stints by the time he wrote his fame-producing article in 1946). And he read Gibbon while on a vacation. Gibbon helped form his sense that the Soviets would not be able to "digest" their land grab in Eastern Europe, Kennan thereby proved himself a prophet by about 1989. No, it doesn't appear that Kennan had a "grand theory" (a course Gaddis helps teach). It appears that Kennan developed his insights through patient observation and reading history. (I've failed to mention that Kennan seriously considered writing a biography of Chekhov.) Of course, after establishing the idea of containment, Kennan spent the next 40 years trying to keep it from misapplication as simply a crude military doctrine.

Quite a good book indeed, and quite a fascinating subject. At 698 pages of text, it's not a quick read. If you want a quicker sense of Kennan, turn to two works by his friend John Lukacs, their letters edited by Lukacs and Lukacs's biography. Both are briefer but insightful (and of course, Lukacs appreciates Kennan as both an actor and as a historian.)

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.