Krugman: Follow the Money

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

Pink on Effective Signs

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

Words from Marcus Aurelius

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

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

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

Wills on the Church Scandal & Ferguson on History

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

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

Imaginative Literature

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

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

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

Chalk One Up for the Rule of Law

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

Tyler Cowen and Kindle Highlights

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

Lewis Mumford

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

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

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

Works I'd recommend:

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

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

                

Stephen Walt on Political Institutions

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

Brooks on Government

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

The Secret of Kells: Movie Review

C & I saw The Secret of Kells tonight at the Bijou (it's not yet out on DVD), and it was a delight. This animated feature combined realistic drama—Irish monasteries under attack by Vikings in the 8^th century—with Irish myth. We've seen stories of Irish myth combined with realism filmed with enchanting results in The Secret of Roan Inish and Into the West, but never by an animated film. The visuals were spectacular, unlike anything produced by the American studios. The figures were highly stylized and geometrical. (It reminded me of the art of Tommie de Paola, but my date differs with me on this.) The music, all manner of Irish music, worked well with the film, and the mythic and realistic portions of the story meshed to create a seamless narrative. At one point we see the main character battling an ouroboros. A film for the Jung at heart! I must say that this film is not for young children. The Northmen (Norsemen, Vikings) are scary, and the film portrays vividly the fear and destruction that these marauding warrior wrought. If you have children who can deal with these haunting images (also attacking wolves), I highly recommend this film for them as well as the adults in the family. Having seen Up! and The Fantastic Mr. Fox, I can say that this film presents the best visual fare, truly incredible, and probably the best entire package of an animated film (although I must say that I did like Mr. Fox and friends). Highly recommended.

Taleb Meets Erwan Le Corre

Taleb hooked-up with Erwan Le Corre, and here (127—"Learning From Erwan Le Corre & Robust Exercise") Taleb writes about his encounter. Mr. Wild Fitness meets Mr. Mathematical/Skeptical/Literate/Philosopher, and the later (Taleb) sings the praises of Le Corre's regime. This should come as no surprise, as Taleb came onto the idea of evolutionary (or paleo) fitness from Art Devany, one of the founders of the movement. Check out this Youtube and this one of Le Corre to get a sense of what he's about. It looks fun and makes a lot of sense. It provides some food for thought for us gym rats and perhaps even yogis.

 

Some quick notes on Le Corre:

1. From the fact that one shot shows him running across an aqueduct, the seashore shots, and that he's French, I'll be those scenes were shot in the south of France, Provence, perhaps. In any event, the countryside looks beautiful to me, one of the places I'd definitely like to go and hang. We drove through Provence once, but at about 100 mph, which detracted from my ability to enjoy the scenery.
   
2. Le Corre's MovNat seems a lot like parkour, only in the wild. Both look like a great deal of fun.
   
3. All this makes me eager for summer to come & perhaps some time to put on my Five Fingers and go out hiking. The res isn't Provence, but it has some good hiking opportunities.

Krugman: The Emperor Has Few Clothes

In his column today, Krugman discusses financial reform, and he makes a point worth repeating: the financial sector has become a huge portion of the economy without adding a great deal of real value. Krugman argues that the financial sector doesn't do nearly as much as they claim. Indeed, of late, they've mostly just gambled with our money. As someone who does not make widgets, and whose "product" is relationships (legal), I understand that our contemporary economy might be dubbed "beyond widgets". Somewhere, however, you have to make and sell stuff. It's great and crucial to allocate capital and make investments, but these activities have to amount to more than Ponzi schemes. Krugman's article reinforces my belief that measuring economic well-being by dollar signs, or even by the sheer amount of stuff that one has, doesn't provide an accurate portrayal of well-being; in fact, it creates a deceptive measure of well-being.

Wills, Brooks & Ferguson Quick Takes

Garry Wills is interviewed about his background (he started with William Buckley & National Review), his thoughts on Obama (too much placation), and his new book Bomb Power (the undermining of Constitutional restraints on government because of prerogatives claimed by the National Security State). Great listening (no reason to watch, little to see).

Dave Brooks culls social science again for insights, this time challenging some earlier work by Obama friend, appointee, and potential SCOTUS nominee, Cass Sunstein. Brooks suggests that the internet isn't as polarizing as Sunstein originally feared. Sunstein has written some very interesting things about group polarization.

Niall Ferguson writing for the Financial Times "Too much Hitler and the Henrys'" argues that teaching history in the UK needs the same type of attention that Jamie Oliver brought to school lunches (Jamie did it first in the UK, and has since taken in West Virginia). Ferguson finds the curriculum disjunct, with no over-arching narrative to bring cohesion to the curriculum. Let me include a few quotes from his article:

    Why is this downgrading of history a bad thing? Well, for one thing, the current world population makes up only about 7 per cent of all the human beings who have ever lived. The dead outnumber the living, and we ignore the accumulated experience of such a huge majority of mankind at our peril. Second, the Past is our only reliable guide to the Present and to the multiple futures that lie before us, only one of which will actually happen.

Ferguson, however, realizes that history has a bad rap as a school subject:

    Now, nobody wants a return to the kind of mind-numbing history that used to be taught a generation ago – those strings of facts and dates, one damned thing after another, half-memorised by comatose pupils and famously lampooned in WC Sellar and RJ Yeatman's 1930 classic, 1066 and All That.

It's no coincidence that the most boring teacher at Hogwarts in JKRowling's Harry Potter books is the history teacher, Mr Binns, whose lessons about the goblin wars are so tedious that he himself has died of boredom without noticing.

Ferguson goes on to comment on the smorgasbord courses in lower grades that are supposed to constitute the history curriculum:

    The excessive concentration of sixth-formers on learning about either Hitler or the Henrys – the Third Reich or the Tudors – was already a cause of concern when I was a college fellow and tutor in history at Oxford University in the 1990s. I shudder to think what it must be like to conduct Oxbridge admissions now.

What we urgently need in this country is a campaign for real history in schools, to match Jamie Oliver's campaign for healthy school dinners. Like junk food, junk history is bad for kids. It encourages snacking and the mental equivalent of obesity – a chronic lack of mental shape. So here's what I would propose to vary the historical diet in English education.

Here's the point where Ferguson may generate some controversy, but this should generate some thought. The remainder of his article follows below:

    I also believe there should be a compulsory chronological framework over the entire period from entering secondary school right through to sixth form. All students at GCSE and A-level should cover at least one medieval, one early modern and one modern paper. The crucial thing is to have an over-arching story – a meta-narrative, as academics pretentiously call it. The one I propose for my new-look history course is called "western ascendancy".

Why do I use the word "western"? Aside from cowboy films, is it not completely passé? And why have I used the word "ascendancy", implying as it does some politically incorrect superiority?

The answer is simple. Western predominance was a historical reality after around 1500, and certainly after 1800. In that year, Europe and its New World offshoots accounted for 12 per cent of the world's population and (already) around 27 per cent of its total income. By 1913, however, it was 20 per cent of the world's population and more than half – 51 per cent – of the income. Today the west's share is back down to 12 per cent of the population, but still around 45 per cent of the income. Like it or not, the fact is that after 1500 the world became more Eurocentric. And understanding why that happened is the modern historian's biggest challenge.

It was a surprising turn of events. Had you made a tour of the world in the early 1600s, you would have hesitated before betting a significant sum that western Europe would inherit the earth.

The Oriental challengers for world power were outwardly a great deal more impressive. Ottoman Turkey under Mehmed IV (1648-87) was able to send an army under Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa to besiege – and very nearly conquer – Vienna in 1683. Mughal India in the reign of Shah Jahan 1627-58) was able to conquer the Deccan and to build the Taj Mahal and the Diwan-i-Am in Delhi. Qing China saw its golden age under the Kangxi Emperor (1662-1722). China had already invented the magnetic compass, paper, gunpowder, the spinning wheel, and the clock. The Muslim world had for many centuries led the west in the crucial field of mathematics. Indian astronomers had been far ahead of their medieval European counterparts.

So why did the states of western Europe – Portugal, Spain, France, the Netherlands and Britain – end up trouncing these eastern competitors, not only economically but also militarily and in some respects also culturally, so that by 1900 the world was dominated by western empires?

Anthropologist Jared Diamond's answer is essentially: geography, which determined two very different political orders. In the great plains of eastern Eurasia, monolithic Oriental empires evolved that had the fatal ability to stifle innovation. In mountainous, river-divided western Eurasia, by contrast, multiple monarchies and city-states engaged in competition and communication, and it was these processes that accelerated innovation sufficiently for an industrial revolution to take place.

His argument is almost irresistibly attractive, but for one difficulty. From the vantage point of the 1630s and 1640s, political fragmentation in Europe meant civil war and chaos.

Other hypotheses exist. One is that it was the acquisition of colonial "ghost acres" and the fortunate location of European coal deposits that gave the west the edge over the east. Or it may have been the cultural legacies of the Reformation.

If I were permitted to hazard some hypotheses they would go as follows. There were, in essence, six "killer applications" that allowed the west to establish dominance over the east: market capitalism, scientific method, representative government, modern medicine, the consumer society, and the Protestant work ethic.

The value of this approach to history at secondary level is threefold. First, it provides a narrative for around 500 years of world history. Second, it makes a comparative approach to history unavoidable, for clearly an interpretation of western success requires some complementary explanation of eastern stagnation. And, third, understanding western ascendancy encourages students to re-examine the present and the future, asking: are we approaching the end of western ascendancy? After all, most of these six elements have been more or less successfully replicated in some major non-western societies.

Let me not be misinterpreted. The point of studying western ascendancy is not to slip covert imperialist apologia into the curriculum. On the contrary, the great strength of this framework is that it allows students to study world history without falling into the trap of relativism, i.e. arguing as if the Ashanti Empire were in some way the equal of the British Empire.

Western ascendancy was not all good, any more than it was all bad. It was simply what happened and, of all the things that happened over the past five centuries, it was the thing that changed the world the most. That so few British schoolchildren are even aware of this is deplorable. Knowing the names of Henry VIII's six wives or the date of the Reichstag fire is no substitute for having a real historical education.

We have recently witnessed a successful campaign to improve the quality of lunches served in British schools. It is time for an equivalent campaign against junk history.

My comment: I think that Ferguson makes a strong argument here. He's talking "big history", which gives context to things like the Reichstag fire and other discrete events. To grasp history, the change wrought by time, one must have some sense of time and continuity, of change with some trajectory, even if caused for random, unanticipated events. For reasons I cannot explain, from a very early age I wanted to understand the sequence of events. I wanted to know who came first, Hitler or the Kaiser? (I kid you not about this, I remember puzzling over this at our house on Pioneer Avenue, and we had moved away from there before the beginning of the third grade.)

As to the importance of history, Ferguson makes a quick argument, but John Lukacs provides an event better and deeper appreciation of the importance of history. Put simply, everything is history. People, institutions, nature (think evolution as the keystone to modern biology), thinking itself, is always history (we can only think and imagine based on what we've experienced in the past). The late Neil Postman, NYU professor of "media ecology", argued that almost all subjects should be taught through their history. If you think about it, a lot of social science is history frozen in time to allow for more careful examination, much as a biologist takes a living organism out of history by killing and then dissecting it. Ferguson's argument should receive serious consideration both in the UK and in the US, the subject matter is too important to ignore.

Stiglitz on Skidelsky on Keynes

Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel Prize in economics and a faculty member @ Columbia, writes a review of Skidelsky's Keynes: Return of the Master. I reviewed this book earlier, but for a consideration from a (I must say) better source, read this one. I think that Stiglitz raises many interesting issues here. Our recent financial meltdown remains a source of fascination for me, as I think that a lot of contemporary economics is built upon illusion.

Dan Pink on Motiviation

Listening to Dan Pink's new book, Drive, and found this short piece that will give you an executive summary of his points. I haven't finished the book yet, but I'm enjoying it very much. In less than 10', this News Hour report gives you the gist of his argument.

Lawyer Stuff: Who Is the Greatest Lawyer of the Century?

An interesting discussion of who should receive recognition as the greatest lawyer of the century. Clarance Darrow receives the nod over Thurgood Marshall & Edward Bennett Williams. http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue2/uelman.pdf.

Krugman Parodies McConnell

If you don't read Paul Krugman regularly, you should (including his blog). His cred is impressive, including a Nobel Prize in economics. However, he writes in his column for the NYT in a very accessible, and often quite humorous, manner. Here he makes a superb argument by analogy and parody. Oh, that all political discourse could prove so entertaining and enlightening! Instead, we tend to hear a lot of Tea Party rants. Am I wrong, or do some conservatives—certainly not all—go primarily with rants and taunts for political persuasion and "liberals" (hard to define, mind you) go more with humor and parody to make their points? Think The Daily Show and the Colbert Report.

The Classics Edition

Following up on the post from yesterday, the following list of "classics" that I've found most gratifying. Again, I go with authors rather than any one particular work (although the last entry, Max Weber, got on based on a single, relatively short work). Again, I list these in roughly chronological order:

1. The Old Testament (Hebrew Bible). We're talking selections, not the whole thing. Especially Genesis, Exodus, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes.
   
2. New Testament. (I read the entire NT straight through as a senior in high school, once I'd returned from the Dark Ages of pretty much not reading books after the 6^th grade.)
   
3. Plato (Apology, Crito, Phaedo, and Republic)
   
4. St. Augustine (Confessions, City of God (portions)).
   
5. Dante (Comedia. Perhaps the greatest single work in Western lit? )
   
6. Machiavelli (The Prince).
   
7. Montaigne (Essays)
   
8. Shakespeare (a long list: the four great tragedies, The Tempest, Henry V, etc.
   
9. Spinoza (Ethics).
   
10. Ralph Waldo Emerson (Essays, etc.).
    
11. Karl Marx (No, I am not a Marxist; however, he gets included because the early Marx was an interesting idealist and the later Marx was such a force that even if one disagrees with him, one must consider him and respond accordingly).
    
12. William James (essays, Talks to Teachers, and especially The Varieties of Religious Experience).
    
13. Max Weber (Politics as a Vocation).
    

A Baker’s Dozen of Influential Thinkers for Me

Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution recently posted a list of his top 10 most influential books, and his site pointed the way to others who compiled such lists. I gave the matter some brief thought, but I found the project too intimidating. Only 10 books? I can't limit myself that that low a number for a year-end list, let alone a lifetime. However, perhaps more to the point, I tend to think in terms of authors and not single works (although there can be one hit wonders). Therefore, I decided upon a baker's dozen of thinkers whom I have found that have most affected my thinking, beliefs, and that have served in some way to inspire me. In a later post, I think I'll do a list of "classics", and then a list of Modern (since 1800) literature. For inclusion on this list, the person must have been alive during my lifetime, essentially, the 2^nd half of the 20^th century. I have read a number of works by each of the authors, so it's not a single work that I can easily point to. For each person, I'm considering a body of work that has had, and in some ways continues to have, an effect on my thinking and outlook. I will just name the list today (and honorable mentions), and I will try to comment on each member in later posts. In addition, I am attempting to compile the list (but not the honorable mentions) in roughly the order that I recall that I "discovered" each of them. Here goes:

1. Hannah Arendt
2. Garry Wills
3. Alan Watts
4. Robert Solomon
5. Ken Wilber
6. Reinhold Neibuhr
7. John Patrick Diggins
8. Northrup Frye
9. Jon Elster
10. Colin Wilson
11. John Lukacs
12. Pierre Hadot
13. Nassim Taleb

Receiving honorable mentions in no particular order at all except in the order that they popped into mind:

1. Jacob Needleman
2. Phillip Bobbitt
3. Niall Fergusson
4. James Hillman
5. Robert Anton Wilson
6. Buddhist writers (have to work on this, as a number could pop into mind)
7. Martha Nussbaum
8. Robert Kaplan
9. Charles Hartshorne
10. William Irwin Thompson
11. Gerry Spence

Enough for now. Food for thought.

Great Thought of the Day from Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan liked to say that everyone is entitled to his own opinions but not his own facts."

From http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/no_way_to_treat_a_senator_20100413/, discussing how Tom Coburn (yes, that Tom Coburn, the Oklahoma senator) gets nailed for suggesting in public that Nancy Pelosi is a "nice lady" and that people won't be sent to jail by the health care reform bill. Wow.

Mark Johnston’s Saving God: Religion After Idolatry

Saving God: Religion After Idolatry (2009, 198 p.) is an extended essay by Princeton philosopher Mark Johnston. Johnston's book provides a well-written and tightly argued understanding of God in the Western monotheistic tradition. His conclusions are not orthodox, but his insights create a deeply satisfying and challenging work. While a small portion in the latter part of the book involves some rather dense (but not inaccessible) philosophical argument about the existence of God (reaching a panentheist conclusion), the better part of the book addresses the understanding of God in the three great monotheistic religions based on the Bible and their respective traditions. Because this book is so well written, insightful, and persuasive (to my mind), it's difficult to review it. In fact, I read it twice; once through initially, and almost right away again with my pencil handy, marking and annotating, like a 49'er who stops sifting through the dust and finds something that merits a pick-ax and a toothbrush.


The title of this book happened to grab me because of its reference to idolatry. I wondered for some time about this issue of idolatry, worshiping a false god or a false image of God. My own sense was that all religion consists of a form of idolatry, perhaps necessarily, as a part of human fallibility. This seems true despite the stark Biblical injunction against idolatry. Johnston argues that asking favors of God amounts to a form of idolatry. There is, however, in Christianity (and I think in Judaism and Islam, as well) a tradition of the via negativa, a tradition of not attempting to attribute qualities to God, or attempting to define God, because God is sui generis. Think Pseudo-Dionysus, The Cloud of Unknowing, Meister Eckhart, and more recently, Paul Tillich's conception of God as the Ground of Being. Johnston does not explore this tradition. However, I think that this tradition bolsters his argument. (I think a good deal of Johnston's perspective originates in Spinoza, the incredibly insightful 17th-century Dutch philosopher.)


To close, and to give you a better sense of Johnston's perspective and insight, I offer the following extended quote comparing the death and example of Jesus with that of Socrates. This follows in the book shortly after my recent posting of a Johnston quote to celebrate the Easter season. Johnston writes:

    And when all the crowds who had gathered there for this spectacle saw what had taken place, they returned home, beating their breasts. (Luke, 23:48)

    This is the sense in which Christ destroys the Kingdom of self-love and false righteousness. Of course, it is not that the psychological power of self-love and false righteousness is actually diminished by the Passion and Crucifixion. Instead, self-love and false righteousness—that is to say, the central elements of the characteristically human form of life—no longer make up a defensible realm.

    Contrast the death of Socrates. He also asks for it. He is a victim of those who would police the Athenian conception of respectability, an averaged-out conception of pious virtue. But Plato romanticizes the death of Socrates; his death is a fearless and noble suicide. Socrates talks philosophy until the very end; he is full of arguments, for the soul, and even when he is not relying on these (bad) arguments, he remains convinced that release from the body remains a very desirable thing, something that philosophy prepares us for. Socrates accepts the hemlock as a healing balm for the sickness that is life.

    But suppose instead that he had to anticipate being stripped, beaten, and hung from a tree; how would the pose of nobility and fearlessness have held up then? Is there not something decadently twee about the death of Socrates as Plato presents it? And is this not connected with the calming doctrine of the afterlife, and with the corresponding idea of this life as a sickness that death heals?

    Crucially, Plato's Socrates recognizes the legitimacy of the Athenian state; he accepts its claims upon him and does not flee even in the face of an unjust sentence. In this way the death of Socrates secretly valorizes the false righteousness of Athenian respectability, by showing that even someone who really understands virtue will bow to this false righteousness in the end. Human ways of going on are secretly redeemed by Plato's Socrates. The Kingdom of self-love and false righteousness remains legitimated.

    The ordeal of Christ's Passion and Crucifixion is not at all like this. There is nothing noble or "humanly redeeming" about it, beginning as it does with his desperation in the Garden and ending with his despair on the Cross. It is not a cathartic tragedy. It leaves us at a total loss. We can return to human ways of going on only if we forget what happened. If we do not forget, we need to find a way to live that is not some form of self-love and false righteousness. In addition, if we do not forget, we know that we cannot find this in ourselves. Then, and only then, are we prepared to take the two commandments, the salvation from without, seriously.

Wills on Remnick on Obama

New Yorker editor David Remnick's new biography of Obama, The Bridge: The Life & Rise of Barack Obama (2010) (just released) is reviewed in the NYT by Garry Wills. Remnick's Lenin's Tomb is an excellent book on the collapse of the Soviet Union that I enjoyed very much, and the New Yorker probably still has the best writers in its stable as any magazine—print or electronic—in the world, so all of that speaks well for Remnick's credentials. As for Wills, the author of Nixon Agonistes (a great book), Reagan's America, The Kennedy Imprisonment, as well as other biographical pieces, we have a writer who has considered and understood American political leaders in a way that very few can match. This combination makes for a very worthwhile review. Wills, in his typical way, finds the irony in Obama's traits that brought him to the top (such as conciliator) but which may prove his undoing (or at least great limitation) as president. Read it and come to your own conclusion. I see Wills' point, but I remain hopeful that Obama's capacity for change and adjustment may seem him through to further successes. If Obama can take himself beyond what got him there, he has the potential to become a great president.

Mark Johnston for Good Friday

I recently finished Mark Johnston's exceptional book, Saving God: Religion After Idolatry (2009, 198 p.). I could write a great deal about this book, and I hope to do so, but apropos for today, I think it best just to share this quote:

    Why did Christ have to suffer and die at the hands of legitimate religious and political authorities? Why wouldn't the viper [a fatal viper bite in the Garden of Gethsemane] have sufficed? Not, pace Girard, because only then could the suffering and death of Christ be a reductio ad absurdum of scapegoating sacrifice, but because only then could it expose the mechanisms in the heart of false righteousness, this secret love of self-love trying at all costs to put down the anxiety of how to live, even to the point of murder. The Crucifixion discloses how far we are prepared to go in order to defend our idolatrous attachment to one or another adventitious form of righteousness." [Emphasis in original.]

    Johnston, Saving God, p. 171.

Brooks on Bullock & Happiness

The other night at the grocery store, as I absent-mindedly pushed the shopping cart, my eyes fell on the tabloids, and all I seemed to see was Sandra Bullock. However, she was not featured for winning her Oscar, but because her husband seems to be a cheating jerk. Well, it seems Dave Brooks must do some grocery shopping as well, as he just published a column entitled "The Sandra Bullock Trade". Brooks asks the rhetorical question: which brings greater happiness, an Oscar, or a happy marriage. Brooks looks to social science to provide an answer: the marriage. Really, this topic of research into happiness goes back to ancient times (think Buddha, Socrates, Aristotle, etc.) but why not throw in some polls and math? In short, while success in professional endeavors certainly can bring rewards—Oscar winners live on average four years longer than Oscar losers—these rewards don't carry nearly the lasting effect or magnitude of loving relationships. So here, first, a shout out to my wife and daughters, and to all my family (by blood & marriage), and friends and colleagues and so on. I have every appreciation of what a great hand life has dealt to me.

While professional rewards can provide a great deal of satisfaction, they come and they go. Sometimes we lose. Telling a client that we've lost his or her case is a very difficult and unpleasant task. The race doesn't always go to the swift, but we always believe that it ought to.

In addition, our communities matter. How we as members of communities, such as towns, states, nations, churches, social groups, etc. value experiences and things (such as fellow human and dollars, to take two quick examples) will greatly affect the quality of our lives.

Finally, a shout out for social science. It can provide us with perspectives on things that sit in plain sight right before our eyes, but for which we lack perspective. On the other hand, sometimes it simply points to the ridiculously obvious: sex can make us happy. Dah.

Brooks on Economics

David Brooks does a quick take on economics, and he believes that economics as history and a part of the humanities will make a comeback. I agree. I see more and more evidence that economics will change away from its pinched idea of humanity. Adam Smith was an outstanding moral philosopher; Hayek dealt primarily with the limitation of knowledge; Keynes with uncertainty and "animal spirits": all great precedents. These great thinkers knew that we humans are as much flaw as reason. Brooks gives a shout out to Herbert Simon, Tversky and Kahneman, and Becker. Someday, perhaps, the economists will catch up to the political scientists!

About All of the Craziness on the Right

The craziness on the Right continues to attract attention. Yesterday, Love is Stream commented on the radical rhetoric of the right. This morning in the NYT, we found these two articles pertaining to the issue. This article discusses how it happens and how it can spread. Frank Rich analyzes what has happened and provides some historical perspective. Comments on Love is a Stream cite commentary from Iowa bard Chuck Offenburger and Charles Blow @ NYT on this topic. Offenburger demonstrates that perceptions of this problem aren't limited to "East Coast elitists" like those who write for NYT. Offenburger (a Republican—how'd that happen?) shows that a few Republicans see the folly and offensiveness of this right-wing hysteria. Blow's analysis notes that topic like rates of taxation and the role of government are legitimate topics for disagreement, but what we read and hear doesn't rise to the level of thoughtful political discourse. I don't think that this phenomenon will last, since, like Social Security and Medicare before it, the world did not end with the adoption of this legislation. However, the violent metaphors and extreme language can trigger some to go off the deep end. Let's hope that we've seen the worst of it.

Krugman Capturing the Zeitgeist Again

Paul Krugman once again captures my take on the world of current politics: the sad state of affairs in the Republican Party. The current reaction of a number of Republicans to the health insurance reform bill is at once both scary and sad. Scary because of the extreme and violent metaphors used by many Republicans, including elected officials, and sad because of the sorry state of ideas on the Republican side. (For a fun take on the sorry state of Republican or "conservative" thinking, watch this clever video.) But the reality: David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, gets drummed out of AEI for criticizing the Republican response to the health insurance legislation. Parody becomes reality.

Clarke & Skidelsky on Keynes

I've recently finished two books on John Maynard Keynes, as we are in the midst of a Keynes renaissance. Based on these two books, this resurgent interest in the mid-twentieth century economist is well deserved. The first of the two that I read, Keynes: the rise, fall, and return of the 20th century's most influential economist by Peter Clarke (2009, 211 p.) provides a good, succinct summary of Keynes's position in history along with some consideration of his relevance to our present circumstances.
Clarke is an accomplished historian, and he displays a solid command of the world that Keynes inhabited. The second book, Keynes: The return of the master by Robert Skidelsky (2009, 221 p.) provided an even better insight into Keynes. One might expect this, as Skidelsky authored a three-volume biography of Keynes that many have highly praised. A one-volume abridgment is available.

After reading these two books, I find myself holding Keynes in high regard, and I've dispelled some myths that many seem to hold about Keynes. Some of the most important points to me:

1. Keynes can write. He belonged the Bloomsbury Group (Virginia and Leonard Woolf, Lytton Strachey, etc.). These folks cared about art and wrote well. Keynes took their examples to heart, even when writing about the "dismal science". Also, Keynes wrote and worked before the take-over of economics by mathematical models (although Keynes himself provided a very capable mathematician).
   
2. Keynes acted in the public arena. Keynes attended the Paris Peace Conference that resulted in the Treaty of Versailles as a member of the British delegation, and he worked for the British Treasury during WWII. He contributed a great deal to the ideas behind the Bretton Woods agreement that helped shape the post-WWII international economy.
   
3. Keynes drew a distinction between "risk" and "uncertainty", a distinction lost by many investors of recent years, and a distinction given new life by Nassim Taleb. In short, "risk" involves situations where odds of an outcome may be calculated, for example, as at a roulette wheel or in a card game. "Uncertainty", a wilder and more natural occurrence, holds that we often just have no idea about what to expect. Economics and investors need to know and appreciate the difference.
   
4. Keynes appreciated the insights of Hayek, contrary to the inferiority complex that one seems to find among Hayek admirers. Is the converse true? I don't get that impression, although Hayek, too, proves useful and popular (to some extent) because he does economics in prose as opposed to mathematics.
   
5. Keynes isn't all about deficit spending and government control. Keynes starts of the traditional liberal and free trade position, and makes modifications as circumstances justify change. Both so-called liberals who run continuing deficits and conservatives, who claim that deficit spending is always bad, do an injustice to the views of Keynes. Keynes, followers and critiques notwithstanding, proves eminently sensible.
   
6. Keynes appreciates that morals as well as "animal spirits" influence an economy and the society in which an economy operates. Keynes proves a forbearer (with impeccable credentials) of those who want to take economics beyond homo economicus and the rational market theories that have proven so sterile and contrary to the evidence. This trend of criticism (actually quite old, but little appreciated of late), continues of grow, and probably no better person to have on the honor role than Keynes.
   

I could go on, but you should have the picture. Two fine books about an extraordinary individual.

Krugman on Health Care & the Repbulicans

Paul Krugman nails it on health care. What a great achievement!

Cahill Celebration of St. Paddy’s Day

A Happy St. Patrick's Day to all! In observance of the occasion (at least from the sober confines of the work place), I offer this celebration of the great Irish gifts from Thomas Cahill. It's a Cliff Notes version of his book How the Irish Saved Civilization. Enjoy!

Philosophy Bites on Plato, Hume, and Architecture

Perhaps one of the great inventions for working around the home is the I-Pod, and with it, the possibility of listening to podcasts or music while performing tasks that we might otherwise consider drudgery. Today, with the first real spring weather (temperature > 60° and sunshine!), I worked outside (the driveway is beginning to rut like a dirt road). Anyway, I've had a chance to listen to three Philosophy Bites.

Philosophy Bites? These are wonderful, short (15-20') talks with outstanding philosophers about philosophers and philosophical topics. As "bites", laypeople like me can easily digest them. Let me share my three most recent adventures.

Simon Blackburn on Plato's Cave: If, reader, you have not read the allegory of the Cave from Plato's Republic, stop, and go do so. It won't take long, but I suspect that you'll agree that this ancient metaphor remains one of the most arresting and abiding in Western thought. You're skeptical? Have you seen The Matrix, which provides an extended meditation on themes raised in Plato's tale? How about George Lucas's early film, THX 1138? Well, Blackburn had recently written on Plato and this allegory, and this discussion provides a very useful summary and consideration of this foundational metaphor.

Stuart Sutherland on David Hume's critique of the argument from design: One amiable Scot discusses another amiable Scot, the man who serves as the fountainhead of analytical philosophy. Hume, by the way, from this discussion and other considerations of him and his work, seems quite the interesting fellow.

Alain de Botton on architecture: De Botton has recently written a book on architecture, and he discusses the topic in this podcast. His considerations of the topic seem quite insightful and balanced. He is the author of the delightful book, How Proust Can Change Your Life.

Brooks on Obama

Once again, Dave Brooks expresses a view that I share. (Is it true then that you can take the man out of the Republican party but not the Republican out of the man?). In any event, while I disagree with him on policy specifics, Brooks usually expresses sound opinions on the big picture; in this case, on Obama. Neither crazy conservatives nor "progressives" understand Obama correctly. I think Brooks does.

Thinking Politician on the Right: David Cameron

David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party in GB spoke at a recent TED talk in London: http://www.ted.com/talks/david_cameron.html. How refreshing! He didn't talk about cutting taxes or balancing the budget or socialized medicine. In other words, unlike most Republicans in the U.S., he didn't just repeat platitudes! (I understand that some Republicans undertook some serious thinking at the recent health care meeting with President Obama, but I assume that came about so that the President wouldn't show them up). Most of what comes out of the mouths of most Republicans amounts to tired campaign slogans. (Yes, Democrats do it, but right now, Democrats have to actually make laws and govern, even though they are only doing a mediocre job of it.) Cameron spoke about how to provide a more effective government and how to empower people. He cited (with photos!) the work of Cass Sunstein (whom crazies on the lunatic fringe demonize in his position as Obama's head of regulatory affairs), behavioral economist Richard Thaler, Sunstein's co-author of Nudge, Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Economics prize-winner who isn't an economist (Nasim Taleb even likes him!), and Robert Cialdini (Influence). Wow, someone on the Right (relatively speaking) who thinks! Of course on the American right we have some thinkers, but they have no influence now and virtually all of the thinking from Republicans seems really tired and behind the times. Anyway, something refreshing from across the pond.

Afterthoughts:

1. Does the fact that the Brits have parliamentary government and have to think about ruling more seriously make them better at transitions and providing better-considered alternatives?
   
2. Does the fact that leaders of the parties in GB have to stand up regularly in parliament and answer questions—tough questions—make them better thinkers and speakers? Could you imagine W at question hour? Even Obama, who thinks and speaks very carefully and rather slowly, would have a hard time in such an atmosphere. I used to on occasion watch Tony Blair at question hour (I don't recall what channel), and I found it quite entertaining and thoughtful. (Although I must say that I watched Gordon Brown's TED talk, and I don't know that I made it to the end.)

Thomas Cahill’s Mysteries of the Middle Ages

Thomas Cahill continues his "Hinges of History" volumes with Mysteries of the Middle Ages: And the Beginning of the Modern World (2008, 368p.). I listened to it a second time as a part of my medieval reading project, and yes, I enjoyed it a second time. Cahill is born storyteller, whose informal style, pithy asides, and trenchant observations make for listening (or reading) that provides both entertainment and insight. Cahill prefaces his book with a glimpse of the Alexandria of Late Antiquity. From there, Cahill bases his tour based primarily on a discussion of notable and noteworthy personages of the period, including saints like Hildegard of Bingen and St. Francis, thinkers like Abelard (including an account of this tragic love affair with Heloise), St. Thomas Aquinas (no dumb-ox he), and Roger the proto-scientist Bacon, and artists Giotto and Dante (my man!). Cahill also discusses the many lives of Eleanor of Aquitaine (think Kathryn Hepburn in Lion in Winter), whose marriages, affairs, and actions provide quite a story in themselves. Cahill provides a sympathetic perspective on these figures so far away in time, and he appreciates how they laid the groundwork for what came later. Of the attitudes one may take about the Middle Ages, from derision to romantic celebration, Cahill takes the role of one who appreciates its positive accomplishments but who also fully acknowledges all of the blemishes.

If you've no real acquaintance with the Middle Ages, I recommend this book as an excellent introduction. A reader will find it full of the lore that makes this period both intriguing and slightly terrifying. BTW, if you haven't read the first book in his "Hinges of History" series, How the Irish Saved Civilization, I highly recommend it as well. It provides the story of the bridge between Roman civilization and the Middle Ages often known as the Dark Ages, but now referred to among historians as Late Antiquity. Anyway, it's the story of the Irish and how their monasteries preserved learning at a time when learning in the West was deeply crippled.

Brooks on Elites and Gates on Energy

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/opinion/19brooks.html?ref=opinion: David Brooks on our meritocracy and where it's gotten us. This type of big picture topic is what Brookes does better than other columnists do. He points out that we have wider access to the elite class, and a more industrious elite; yet, elites don't exercise the same influence that they once did. Think back to the 1950's and before. Of course, Brooks recognizes that these elites were all old white guys, but given that we now enjoy more diversity, why don't they command more respect and exercise more leadership? Brooks floats some ideas. Interesting.

http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html : Bill Gates on energy @ TED Talks. Bill Gates, perhaps the ultimate nerd, is now trying to make the world a better place through his charity. His work on vaccines and schools are well noted and I think quite worthwhile. However, in this informative talk, he reports that if he had one thing that he could provide the world, it would be cheap, clean, and abundant energy. Cheap energy, he suggests, makes our society. (See Thomas Homer-Dixon for confirmation of this perspective.) However, Gates says we have to get to zero CO2 growth—fast. No climate-denier he. Some amazing technologies hold promise, and he does an excellent job of getting his audience to buy into this possibility. Recommended.

Garry Wills with Charlie Rose & Steve Jobs @ Stanford

Charlie Rose interviews Garry Wills about "Bomb Power", Obama, and America in general: http://eztvlinks.com/charlie-rose-christina-romer-garry-wills/. Wills describes himself as "terribly" disappointed in what Obama has done, describing his appointments of Iraq war supporters, insiders on Wall Street, and insiders (AMA, big pharma, health insurance carriers) for health care. Wills suggests that Obama feels more constrained that he needed to be. Too much a lawyer, and not enough of a leader, suggested Rose. Wills counters—and I must agree—that a good lawyer gets people to do things. Wills thinks that Obama threw away a whole year with largely self-imposed constraints. Congress, nevertheless, remains "supine". Wills notes that the willingness of Congress to bow to the president is in part of the "cult" of the commander-in-chief. Wills notes that the presidency is not a military office, as established long ago by court cases. These are just a few quick notes that I took during the interview. It's not a thorough as the book, but for less than 30 minutes, you can get a solid, thoughtful overview, as well as his thoughts on Obama and more general topics.

 

Steve Jobs spoke at the 2005 Stanford graduation. In 15 minutes, he shares three stories from his life that prove quite thoughtful and enlightening. If you think that he's gotten all of the breaks, listen to it and consider. Worth your 15 minutes, I think you'll agree. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1R-jKKp3NA.

My Current Thought on Climate Change

Thomas Friedman captures my current take on climate change. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17friedman.html?ref=opinion. It's probably happening because of human activity (CO2 and the like), and even if current theories and predictions don't prove completely accurate, we still have other very compelling reasons to move forward.

Garry Wills: Bomb Power

It's always good news for me when Garry Wills publishes a new book, as the book inevitably casts new light on a worthwhile subject. I bought Bomb Power: The Modern Presidency and the National Security State (2010, 288p.) last Thursday, and I finished it today. In this book, Wills argues that the Manhattan Project and the Bomb that it produced created a new impetus toward an aggrandizement of presidential power and created a national security state to surround and support this increased power. As always, Wills sets forth his case with a mix of well-documented facts and pithy insights.

The Manhattan Project serves as the prototype of government secrecy. Once the Bomb became an established part of the American arsenal, the president gained new powers. When the Soviets joined the U.S. as a nuclear power, the president might have only a matter of minutes to take us into war. So much for the right of Congress—and only Congress—to declare war. Wills documents how the Cold War facilitated the growth of presidential prerogatives during the Truman administration. Indeed, Wills has interesting things to report on George Kennan (someone I've always admired). Kennan, it seems, helped let the genie out of the bottle with his "Long Telegram" and "X" article in Foreign Affairs, and Kennan spent a number of years later trying to get the genie back in the bottle. However, as Wills argues, the Truman administration was off to the races, and no president—even Obama it seems—wants to put the genie back into the bottle. Wills discusses how these developments effect more than just nuclear issues. The national security state allowed all manner of immoral and irresponsible behavior by the U.S. government. Ike toppled regimes surreptitiously in Iran and Guatemala (and Iran came back to haunt us). JFK, fueled by an infatuation with counter-intelligence and guerilla warfare, wondered into the Bay of Pigs, then the Cuban Missile Crisis, and this led to RFK's involvement in plots to assassinate Castro.

The list goes on, but, of course, the culmination lies in the presidency of George W. Bush (with plenty of warm-up during his father's and Reagan's administrations). During the Bush years we had the "dual administration" of Bush and Cheney, with Cheney and his cohorts straining every possible limit on executive prerogatives for action and deception. Interestingly, John Yoo has just published another book, and Wills takes on the crackpot legal arguments made by Yoo and his ilk (and rejected by true conservatives like Jack Goldsmith). Wills, as a major contributor to works on the Declaration and the Constitution, gives no ground on the words of the Founders and their intent.

In all, this is an important book. Wills breaks no new ground by way of revelations. Anyone who follows post-WWII American history and reads the papers knows this history. What Wills does provide is an indictment. Like a lawyer setting forth his case, he lays out the charges before us. We, the people, and those whom we entrust with the conduct of our government, have allowed our constitutional protections to erode in the face of a perceived imperative made plausible by the Bomb. Now, we the people must face the consequences of this course of conduct. No one professes optimism; however, Wills' closing words bear repeating:

"On January 25, 2002, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales signed a memo written by David Addington [Cheney's legal advisor] that called the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and "obsolete". Perhaps in the nuclear era, the Constitution has become quaint and obsolete. . . . Nonetheless, some of us entertain a fondness for the quaint old Constitution. It may be too late to return to its ideals, but the effort should be made. As Cyrano said, "One fights not only in the hope of winning."" (240-241). Amen.

Quick Take: Robert Shiller on Economic Mood

In my never-ending quest to make economics into something more real, I find another ally. Robert Shiller writes of how "mood" affects an economy in his recent NYT article. Shiller notes how recessions and (yes, we must talk about them) depressions gain steam; indeed, one might summarize his argument by saying that depression (personal) creates depressions (economic). He cites an upcoming work by George Akerlof that "self-esteem" and "identify" affect economics. My goodness! What heresy! Not just money, money, money? (Of course, you're right, some do respond that way: many of our friends on Wall Street seem confirm this trait.) Schiller also cites a recent talk by Samuel Bowles ("Machiavelli's Mistake"—not sure that this is an appropriate title for Bowles to have chosen) suggesting that self-interest alone could fuel a high performance economy. All of this makes sense to me. Precedents? Start with Thucydides.

Cassidy: How Markets Fail

I recently completed How Markets Fail: The Logic of Economic Calamities (2009, 400 p.) by John Cassidy. Last March I recommended Neil Fergusson's The Ascent of Money as the book to read to understand the Great Crash of 2008. Not to take anything away from Fergusson's excellent book, but I now nominate this book for the task.

The crux of Cassidy's argument lies in his distinction between "utopian economics" and "reality-based economics". The Utopians believe strongly in the myth of homo economicus: rational, economic man. Calculating, analyzing, utility maximizing. Based on this model, economics built structures of beautiful mathematical models of how the world works. Some theorists, following the lead of Frederick Hayek, assumed the markets distributed information in the most efficient and rational way. Indeed, in the 1960s and beyond, the idea of "efficient markets" came to the fore, and eventually Allan Greenspan, as head of the Fed, came to think that "the market" would self-correct for anything like greed, myopia, ignorance, and other such imperfections.

It didn't.

Cassidy, after having taken readers through and quick and very informative history of classical and neo-classical economics, and more recent developments in financial theory (once the forgotten relative of economics), then takes us on a history of what he terms "reality-based economics". In this group, we find those who see the imperfections of markets and human behavior, men like Arthur Pigou, John Maynard Keynes, Herbert Simon, and Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. These individuals saw the limits of human behavior, which often proves economically irrational, and the limits of markets, which have their own paradoxes. For instance, Keynes addressed the "rational irrationality" of depressions and recessions. When the economy takes a downturn, people spend less and save more. However, when the economy goes south, someone needs to spend more to get it going again. Hence, for Keynes, we need government spending and intervention. Sound familiar? No wonder Keynes has made a comeback on economics circles (members of the Chicago School thought him a complete has-been). Cassidy addresses this history very deftly and succinctly, without seeming to leave out anything. (I might note here that Cassidy writes for the New Yorker, so you can assume his ability as a writer and expositor.)

In last portion of the book, Cassidy writes in detail about the events of 2007 and 2008, and the proximate causes of the crash. In sum, Wall Street had perverse incentives that in retrospect were certain to lead them to crash and turn our financial bus. For instance, financial risk that was supposed to have been ameliorated by spreading risk around to different holders. However, it turns out to have been only a spreading of ignorance and responsibility. Meanwhile, before the House of Cards fell, Wall Street rewarded itself for its "innovation". Thus the obscene bonuses.

I fear my humble review doesn't do justice to this outstanding book. If you know some economics it helps, but even if you don't, Cassidy is such a fine teacher that I don't think that you'd get lost. In fact, I hope that every member of our national leadership will read this book. (They won't, don't worry.) Cassidy certainly points the way to how we can do better, and how we must recognize where we will continue to fail and need to plan for that failure. Understand this: Cassidy isn't "anti-market" or anti-free enterprise. I deign to think that, like me, he appreciates markets as the primary template for decision-making, since its decentralized process allows for the best flow of information (hats off to Hayek here); however, it's not infallible, and it does not constitute a perpetual motion machine that doesn't need government guidance (not to mention governmental prerequisites). I highly recommend this book.

Hadot: The Present Alone is Our Happiness

2008 publication. A gem. 

I have finished re-reading Pierre Hadot's The Present Alone is Our Happiness: Conversations with Jeannie Carlier and Arnold I. Davidson.(2008 216 p.)--again. This is my third reading. The first time in a hurry to take in this new delight, a second reading with highlighting to absorb his wisdom, and this time to savor the pleasure of his company. This book, interviews of the eminent French scholar of ancient philosophy and philosopher in his own right, gives me the experience of listening to a man who is genuinely interested in wisdom and learning. Hadot became a Catholic priest at an early age (during WWII), but his main interest seems to have been in philosophy and mysticism. Differences with the Church and the development of a love life lead him away from the priesthood, but not away from his philosophical and scholarly pursuits. After the first couple of chapters recounting personal history, the rest of the book addresses his scholarly and philosophical work, which includes works on Plotinus and Marcus Aurelius. Perhaps Hadot's greatest contribution to me comes from his teaching that ancient philosophy addresses the issue of how one lives and holds little concern for systems of thought. Ancient philosophy, starting with the paradigmatic Socrates, emphasized oral teaching about how one should conduct one's life. Ancient philosophers cared little for systematic consistency. Hadot thus instructs us about how to read Marcus Aurelius's Meditations and others like him (especially the Stoic and Epicurean traditions). Hadot, however, does not limit himself to the Ancients, as he reports his appreciation of Montaigne, Goethe, Bergson, and Wittgenstein, among others. (Goethe provides the quote for the title.) I could go on at some length praising Hadot's work and my enjoyment of it, but I suggest that instead, we spend our time reading his work. (My previously posted comment on Hadot is here (item #23).

Colvin: Talent Is Overrated

Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else
by Geoff Colvin (2008, 206 p.) provides a nice compliment to The Talent Code (item #6). In sum, both books argue that talent comes from deliberate practice. Effort, in terms of meaningful practice, much more that genes, creates skillful performers. Colvin, like Coyle, focuses on some of the most skillful performers. Colvin describes NFL receiver Jerry Rice and Tiger Woods. (Note the publication date of 2008. We're talking strictly golf). He also discusses Mozart, among others. The overriding point: the amount of time spent in dedicated practice, even for a supposed prodigy like Mozart, provides the key to ultimate success in a field of performance. Colvin talks about all of the tangents of this issue: how to raise kids, applications of business, whether old people can still learn and perform (yes). He notes that Arthur Rubenstein, the great pianist who performed into his 89^th year, slowed down in many areas, but last of all in his piano-playing skill. In fact, Rubenstein began to perform some sections slower in order to give the perception of increased speed in following sections when he couldn't perform them as fast as he used to. Old folks can be clever! Overall, a quick, entertaining read. The lesson of this books and Coyle's book may be summed up in the old Beatnik joke: How do you get to Carnegie Hall? "Practice, man, practice." A book for teachers, coaches, and parents to share with students.

James Fallows on American Decline

James Fallows has published an article in The Atlantic (Jan/Feb 2010) entitled "How America Can Rise Again". As usual, Fallows provides a thorough and considered report on the topic. He points out that concerns about American decline are as American as apple pie, and the tradition goes back to the founding of the republic. He dubs the attitude "declinism". He makes a number of salient points, most interestingly, about China. Fallows has been living and reporting from China for the last couple of years, so his insights bear some serious consideration. The short summary: the rise of China, in many ways inevitable, actually can work to America's interest (ditto India). In fact, in a point that I agree with him more and more, our greatest challenge lies in the failure of our political system. He believes, as I do, that it's not working at all well. Although he doesn't cite it, the health care problem is a prime example. We have a very clear majority of Congress who support some core reforms (badly needed), and yet it's fate languishes because a Cosmo-type centerfold dude has been elected senator from Massachusetts. It also languishes because of individuals like Joe Lieberman, who has made himself into a party of one. Congress remains stuck in a culture of rotten boroughs (corrupting, old, and unrepresentative political system) that would make the 19^th century blush. I recommend the article for the thoughtful consideration of the concerns and the not necessarily pessimistic conclusions that Fallows reaches.

Gawande: The Checklist Manifesto

I've finished Atul Gawande's The Checklist Manifesto (2009, 175 p.). Yes, I read a whole book about the humble checklist. Yet, as one would expect from someone who is a regular New Yorker contributor, it's very well written. The basic premise is simple: with increasingly complex undertakings, no person can keep the necessary mental notes needed to do everything that must be done when it should be done. This includes surgeons and their staff, airline pilots, contractors, and yes, even lawyers. (I give myself credit for professional reading on this one.) Gawande gives us a tour of how something as complex as a skyscraper gets built, and built right. He takes us to Boeing to see how simple checklists operate airplanes and save lives. He also takes us into surgery with him and his peers to see how they deal with these problems. Many of his accounts, especially of surgical and airline emergencies, are fascinating and scary. His own challenges getting a working checklist into his OR makes for interesting reading as well. In sum, it's a short, fascinating account of how a simple, rather old-fashion device can do a lot of good. Cooks use them all the time: they call them recipes.