These thoughts by Timothy Egan and these from Jonathan Chait @ TNR add to the current discussion about the effect of incendiary or outright hate speech. The piece from TNR raises a good point: to say that discourse should become more civil and less incendiary is different from trying to "limit free speech". There's a difference, a crucial difference, between norms (voluntary, governed by social convention) and laws (enforced by the coercive power of the state). I don't want to limit free speech, which is to say I don't think that the government should normally control what people can say. However, by the use of social norms, I suggest that we can and should limit such speech. How? Don't listen to it (e.g., Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck, who get paid according to their ratings). I wouldn't let someone use my blog space to spew hatred or invective. Remember, "free speech" is a matter of legal rights that limit government action and not a compulsory requirement for individuals or private entities.
I truly believe that spirited public discourse can be fruitful in a democracy. However, invective, calling into question the legitimacy of an adversary, grade-school level name-calling--all of that is unnecessary and stupid. (How's that for invective!)
Finally, we are influenced by words. Some--especially the mentally limited or deranged--more than others. We like to think that "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me". But you know that's not true. Please write in if you've never been cut by words. Please write if you have reacted viscerally to some report that has later proven false or incomplete. Let's face it, humans, we're all suckers for words. We need to have our crap-detectors on 24/7, but it's not easy. Think of the incredible karma for words, how they are all mustard seeds. Some blow away in the wind, some grow a bit and die, but some, in the right conditions, come to fruition, for good or ill. Please! Sow carefully.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Douthat's Counter-Point to Krugman
Because I want to be fair, and because Douthat makes some interesting points, I want to link to his article in counter-point to Krugman's. I still think that that deranged minds aren't so deranged that they act randomly. Irrationally? Yes, but not randomly. The Oswald and Bremer cases are thoughtful counter-points, but I still think that the political atmosphere affects such occurences, more than just a little. Thoughts?
Krugman on the Arizona Shootings
I wish that I didn't think Krugman right about this. I wish we could say that we're experienced an isolated, deranged soul committing a random act of violence. Yes, a deranged soul, but no, it was not a random act of violence. The shooting was aimed at a political figure. Although it came from a deranged individual, the targets were not entirely random--he choose a political target. Someone like this individual, and others before him, act out in a way that they think will resonate in the wider culture.
I also have to say that Krugman is correct when he eschews any pretense that both Left and Right stand equal in invective. The "left", which means, I think, those who adhere to the values of the Enlightenment (and which can certainly include Republicans and conservatives) value reason, democracy, and resist the use of violence. A few--but a very vocal few--on the Right promote fear and violence. Even during the Bush Administration, when from the point of view of many on the Left, our nation's institutions were deeply harmed and our values degraded, we saw no widespread turn to talk of violence and resistance. No, generally in America, violence and fear come from the Right. We see it again. Leaders in the Republican Party need to speak out loudly and clearly against it. Failing to do so may constitute good politics (I hope not), but it clearly constitutes a moral failure.
I also have to say that Krugman is correct when he eschews any pretense that both Left and Right stand equal in invective. The "left", which means, I think, those who adhere to the values of the Enlightenment (and which can certainly include Republicans and conservatives) value reason, democracy, and resist the use of violence. A few--but a very vocal few--on the Right promote fear and violence. Even during the Bush Administration, when from the point of view of many on the Left, our nation's institutions were deeply harmed and our values degraded, we saw no widespread turn to talk of violence and resistance. No, generally in America, violence and fear come from the Right. We see it again. Leaders in the Republican Party need to speak out loudly and clearly against it. Failing to do so may constitute good politics (I hope not), but it clearly constitutes a moral failure.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
John LeCarre: Our Kind of Traitor
Yours truly has been a John LeCarre fan for a long time. I have encountered his work both in his novels and in film and television productions of them. He started writing about espionage (and more importantly, those involved in it) during the Cold War. Since the end of the Cold War, he's dealt with corruption of a more private nature for the most part, or one could say in the spirit of current parlance, within the context of a public-private partnership. In some ways, his more recent work makes one almost pine for the good ol' Commies. Now, the nemesis is often found in the nefarious world of corporate crime or "the Americans" running rough-shod into some scheme justified by the "War on Terror" (a term that should be burned at the stake). LeCarre isn't the type of writer you want to read if you want to always look on the bright side of life (to borrow a turn of phrase from his fellow Brits @ Monty Python's Flying Circus).
As to this particular book, I found it one of the most engaging by LeCarre that I've read. I enjoyed its immediate predecessor--A Most Wanted Man--as well, but in this novel, the array of characters really drew me in. The central characters are a young British couple who encounter a family led by a Russian mobster. However, the mobster quickly displays many endearing qualities, plus he has a desire to avenge a death by fellow mobsters. He goes looking for "fair play English". The story unfolds from this chance vacation encounter in Antiqua, then to London, and then on to Switzerland. During the novel, we come to know a number of different characters, and LeCarre paints each one with details that give us a sense of the individuality of each of them. Indeed, as the novel progresses, I come to hope for a happy ending for all of them. But, of course, this is LeCarre, and one just doesn't think that things will work out that way. Of course, to learn how it turns out you need to read the book!
P.S. I didn't link to Amazon's site for the book as I normally do. I listened to this book, I did not read it. The audio presentation was quite good, with the narrator providing excellent characterization to the dialogues. Highly recommended.
Enjoy.
As to this particular book, I found it one of the most engaging by LeCarre that I've read. I enjoyed its immediate predecessor--A Most Wanted Man--as well, but in this novel, the array of characters really drew me in. The central characters are a young British couple who encounter a family led by a Russian mobster. However, the mobster quickly displays many endearing qualities, plus he has a desire to avenge a death by fellow mobsters. He goes looking for "fair play English". The story unfolds from this chance vacation encounter in Antiqua, then to London, and then on to Switzerland. During the novel, we come to know a number of different characters, and LeCarre paints each one with details that give us a sense of the individuality of each of them. Indeed, as the novel progresses, I come to hope for a happy ending for all of them. But, of course, this is LeCarre, and one just doesn't think that things will work out that way. Of course, to learn how it turns out you need to read the book!
P.S. I didn't link to Amazon's site for the book as I normally do. I listened to this book, I did not read it. The audio presentation was quite good, with the narrator providing excellent characterization to the dialogues. Highly recommended.
Enjoy.
Stephen Walt: Diplomacy at Work & the Value of Deterrence
I found this piece worthwhile, having some interest in diplomacy and international relations, among other things. I hold a particular interest in the workings of deterrence, which, by the way, is not of little consequence in law and life. In this particular speech, the conversation between Saddam Hussein and the U.S. ambassador before the outbreak of the Gulf War suggests that Saddam wasn't fully apprised of the U.S. opposition to an Iraqi invasion and the consequences it would bring to him. One hopes that the decision to go to war wouldn't rest on a single conversation, but sometimes great endeavors, including great mistakes, can flow from tiny causes. Perhaps tiny triggers might provide a better description. The assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand didn't "cause" the Great War, but it was a trigger, certainly. A match doesn't do much without a powder keg, but in the presence of such a keg, a big match isn't necessary.
Also of note in the piece comes Walt's distinction between the "spiral model" of conflict and that of deterrence theory. An interesting distinction to consider. I'm not sure which one is right (or either), or which of them in might prove most useful in different situations. However, given that life is a lot like IR, it's something worth thinking about.
Also of note in the piece comes Walt's distinction between the "spiral model" of conflict and that of deterrence theory. An interesting distinction to consider. I'm not sure which one is right (or either), or which of them in might prove most useful in different situations. However, given that life is a lot like IR, it's something worth thinking about.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Gary Taubes: Why We Get Fat & What We Can Do About It
This may be the most important book you will read in 2011.
Repeat: this may be the most important book that you read in 2011.
This book is a science book, it is not a diet book.
Repeat: this is a science book, not a diet book. (Well, except in the sense that it's a slimmed down version of his superb book, Good Calories, Bad Calories. (I couldn't resist the play on words.)
Taubes takes his groundbreaking work from Good Calories, Bad Calories and reduces it to a more manageable length with the intention of reaching a wider audience. As he notes, and as we all should know, we are currently in the midst of a runaway epidemic of diseases all associated with metabolic syndrome: type 2 diabetes, heart disease & hypertension, and cancer, to name a few of the major diseases that plague us.
So what does Taubes say? I'll attempt to summarize it here:
1. Saying that we get fat because we take in more calories than we expend is like saying that an alcoholic is an alcoholic because he (or she) drinks too much. Dah! The real question: why do we eat (drink) too much?
2. Counting and cutting calories doesn't work. It's too hard, too imprecise (for the purpose it's intended), and it's too irrelevant.
3. More exercise "works up an appetite", and as one of the national news weeklies said in a cover article in the last year or two, it doesn't really seem to help with weight-loss. (It's good for other reasons, but long-term, boring cardio workouts aren't worth much at all and may even prove harmful.)
4. A sedentary life does not (in itself) make a person fat.
5. Some people hold more fat than others do, which is simply to say we have different body types. Some people suffer from rare disorders that cause unusual fat formations on the body. (See photos on the book.)
6. Some people eat enormous amounts of food and don't get fat. It's as if they are robots or are hypnotized to eat lots. E.g., teen-age boys. Can anyone think of any examples?
7. Teenagers, infants, expectant moms: all eat more because their hormones "order" them to.
8. Only two hormones "order" us to fatten up: one doesn't really matter much, and the other is insulin.
9. Insulin orders the body to store fat. The more insulin we produce, the fatter we become.
10. The body produces insulin to process carbohydrates.
11. The more carbohydrates we eat, the more insulin we produce.
12. The more insulin, the more fat, the more fat, the more messed-up our hormone balance becomes and the more insulin resistance we develop (which means the more insulin the body must produce to process any given amount of carbohydrates). You can discern the negative feedback loop that the body enters into here.
13. We can safely replace carbohydrates (not all, mind you) with protein and fat.
14. Fat phobia, at least for some fats, is misguided and bad science. Ditto fear of protein (although, with about anything in Mother Nature, everything has its limits).
Okay, there is my 14-point summary of Taubes's book. I assure you, this summary does not do it justice. Taubes builds his case very meticulously. In addition, his work really brings out the human (and therefore, history) of science. Alas, for all our hopes and dreams, science is a human enterprise, full of all kinds of biases, errors, and contingencies. The loss of German-language medical knowledge and research because of the Second World War comes through clearly in Taubes's books. GC, BC, the longer and more complete book, of course, covers all of this extremely well, the newer book, of necessity, less so, but it still notes some of these twists of fate.
Make no mistake: what Taubes argues is not widely accepted, as he well documents. But ask yourself, how well are we doing in addressing this epidemic of fat and attendant metabolic disease? You and I know the answer: very poorly. Based on the work of Taubes, along with that of De Vany, I really have altered my thinking and, yes, my diet (in some measure, not perfectly) because of this new knowledge. Therefore, if you want a very well written, well argued book to consider, you couldn't find a better book to consider than this one.
More on this topic to come!
Repeat: this may be the most important book that you read in 2011.
This book is a science book, it is not a diet book.
Repeat: this is a science book, not a diet book. (Well, except in the sense that it's a slimmed down version of his superb book, Good Calories, Bad Calories. (I couldn't resist the play on words.)
Taubes takes his groundbreaking work from Good Calories, Bad Calories and reduces it to a more manageable length with the intention of reaching a wider audience. As he notes, and as we all should know, we are currently in the midst of a runaway epidemic of diseases all associated with metabolic syndrome: type 2 diabetes, heart disease & hypertension, and cancer, to name a few of the major diseases that plague us.
So what does Taubes say? I'll attempt to summarize it here:
1. Saying that we get fat because we take in more calories than we expend is like saying that an alcoholic is an alcoholic because he (or she) drinks too much. Dah! The real question: why do we eat (drink) too much?
2. Counting and cutting calories doesn't work. It's too hard, too imprecise (for the purpose it's intended), and it's too irrelevant.
3. More exercise "works up an appetite", and as one of the national news weeklies said in a cover article in the last year or two, it doesn't really seem to help with weight-loss. (It's good for other reasons, but long-term, boring cardio workouts aren't worth much at all and may even prove harmful.)
4. A sedentary life does not (in itself) make a person fat.
5. Some people hold more fat than others do, which is simply to say we have different body types. Some people suffer from rare disorders that cause unusual fat formations on the body. (See photos on the book.)
6. Some people eat enormous amounts of food and don't get fat. It's as if they are robots or are hypnotized to eat lots. E.g., teen-age boys. Can anyone think of any examples?
7. Teenagers, infants, expectant moms: all eat more because their hormones "order" them to.
8. Only two hormones "order" us to fatten up: one doesn't really matter much, and the other is insulin.
9. Insulin orders the body to store fat. The more insulin we produce, the fatter we become.
10. The body produces insulin to process carbohydrates.
11. The more carbohydrates we eat, the more insulin we produce.
12. The more insulin, the more fat, the more fat, the more messed-up our hormone balance becomes and the more insulin resistance we develop (which means the more insulin the body must produce to process any given amount of carbohydrates). You can discern the negative feedback loop that the body enters into here.
13. We can safely replace carbohydrates (not all, mind you) with protein and fat.
14. Fat phobia, at least for some fats, is misguided and bad science. Ditto fear of protein (although, with about anything in Mother Nature, everything has its limits).
Okay, there is my 14-point summary of Taubes's book. I assure you, this summary does not do it justice. Taubes builds his case very meticulously. In addition, his work really brings out the human (and therefore, history) of science. Alas, for all our hopes and dreams, science is a human enterprise, full of all kinds of biases, errors, and contingencies. The loss of German-language medical knowledge and research because of the Second World War comes through clearly in Taubes's books. GC, BC, the longer and more complete book, of course, covers all of this extremely well, the newer book, of necessity, less so, but it still notes some of these twists of fate.
Make no mistake: what Taubes argues is not widely accepted, as he well documents. But ask yourself, how well are we doing in addressing this epidemic of fat and attendant metabolic disease? You and I know the answer: very poorly. Based on the work of Taubes, along with that of De Vany, I really have altered my thinking and, yes, my diet (in some measure, not perfectly) because of this new knowledge. Therefore, if you want a very well written, well argued book to consider, you couldn't find a better book to consider than this one.
More on this topic to come!
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Art De Vany on Evolutionary Principles of Health and Fitness
If you haven't read The New Evolution Diet, you should. Note, however, that the word "diet" is in the title in order to categorize the book, and it really doesn't give the work Dr. De Vany has done proper credit. In fact, on his website and in this talk (about 30' long) I've linked, you learn the fascinating science and mathematical modeling behind his work. If you want to listen to a brief, albeit slightly technical consideration of this work, this link will serve as a good starter. His conclusions seem somewhat radical: limited exercise time (no jogging or marathons) , no grains, lots of rest time, and intermittent fasting,which avoids both regular meals (3-6 a day) and the opposite extreme of caloric restriction (CR) over a lifetime. I noted in browsing through a magazine that C bought, it rated New Evolution Diet a "D" book among diet books rated. This shows you how long it takes for popular conceptions, even among journalists who should be on the cutting edge, to catch up with innovative thinking. Anyway, ignore the magazine, and consider this an "A" book for how to live a healthy life.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Ariana Huffington on Sleep From the TED Talks for Women in DC
I agree with her. I, for one, find nothing makes my day better (including, but not limited to, more "productive"), than a good night of sleep (about 8 hours). Take heed and govern yourselves accordingly! (Too bad Berna couldn't score a ticket for this!)
P.S. "Conditioning Research" is a very good health and fitness website from Scotland.
P.S. "Conditioning Research" is a very good health and fitness website from Scotland.
Stephen Walt on the Top Ten Events of the Past Decade (Political Affairs Edition)
Stephen Walt dodges on predictions (wise him) and reflects on events of the past decade. Worth considering. Ponder this? What if Al Gore, who won the popular vote, had been inaugurated president? Where would the U.S. be now? In Iraq? Doubtful. In Afghanistan? Maybe. I doubt we would have avoided 9/11 or at least some similar calamity. And we do our very best to ignore global weirding. What if Gore had been president, would we awaken sooner from our lethargy?
David Brooks on All Things Shining
Because of Brooks's discussion, I'm going to have to read this book. Brooks, who has a very perceptive eye for current culture (his politics are a bit to the right for my tastes, but nonetheless thoughtful). While Maureen Dowd usually has the snarky (and therefore humorous) take on the zeitgeist, Brooks ponders without proving ponderous. In this brief book review (which is what this column is), he raises some really good points. What is the role of the ecstatic in our culture? What role do sports, religion, or culture (music, theater) play in this? How do we distinguish collective feelings of "whooshing" (see his article for a definition) from the bad?For instance,how is a Nazi rally from the 1963 civil rights rally on the Washington mall? The easy answer is content, obviously, but how do we parse more subtle differences? Anyway, a thought-provoking column about what sounds like a thought-provoking book.
The book, by the way, is All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age, by Herbert Dreyfus and Sean Kelly.
The book, by the way, is All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age, by Herbert Dreyfus and Sean Kelly.
A Better Way to Teach History? Niall Fergusson & Tariq Ali
As someone who loved reading and learning history for as long as I can remember (and I don't know what planted this seed), I'm always distressed and puzzled when people say that they don't enjoy learning history. On the other hand, memorizing dates is nonsense. I'm about as good at dates as anyone (save perhaps some professional historians), and I never studied dates.I've learned narratives, and dates were simply place markers. Anyway, this site is about a five-minute long discussion about teaching history in British schools. Fergusson, and his "left" counterpart, Tariq Ali, agree that history teaching is suffering in GB. Their main point: history needs some overarching narrative (or narratives). Not triumphalism or some such nonsense, but at least a set of questions to guide a narrative of inquiry. History isn't just discreet events, its always part of a past and what was a future, it's a flow. Anyway, anyone who's interested in history and how it's taught, this provides a good brief frame.
And is the interviewer THE Colin Firth?
And is the interviewer THE Colin Firth?
Must You Be of a Certain Age to Enjoy Paul Krugman?
I enjoy reading Krugman for his wit and insight, but now, in addition to earlier Monty Python posts, he's added another blast from my past.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Best Books 2010
Here are my favorite reads and listens for 2010. I will save the favorite in both fiction and non-fiction to the end. Some of these I’ve not posted before (been a bit inattentive of late), but many I’ve posted on before, so I’ll link those to my earlier notes. Besides the last two, I’ll go from the beginning of the year forward. I will include only published books or recorded books . I know the list is long, but I don’t read dogs (or I don’t finish them, although I don’t finish a lot of books that are quite good, but I get distracted to a different topic.) Anyway, enjoy:
If I can get this figured out, I'll re-post with the links that I have with the original reviews. Sorry, but having technical difficulties.
Peter Brown, The World of Late Antiquity: AD 150-750. (See the second entry on the blog this date.)
Atul Gawande: The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right. (See the second entry on the blog this date.)
Pierre Hadot, The Present Alone is Our Happiness: Conversations with Jean Carlier and Arnold Davidson.
John Cassidy, How Markets Fail: The Logic of Economic Catastrophes.
Geoff Colvin, Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else. (Second entry.)
Garry Wills, Bomb Power: The Modern Presidency and the National Security State.
Thomas Cahill, The Mysterious Middle Ages and the Beginning of the Modern World. (2nd entry.)
Peter Clarke, Keynes: the rise, fall, and return of the 20th century's most influential economist
Robert Skidelksy, Keynes: The return of the master
Mark Johnston, Saving God: Religion After Idolatry (2nd entry).
Daniel Pink, Drive.
David Shenk, The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything that You’ve Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ is Wrong.
Jack Matlock, Superpower Illusions: How Myths and False Ideologies Led America Astray—And How to Return to Reality.
Peter Beinart, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris
Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves
Dave R. Loy, A Buddhist History of the West: Studies in Lack
Dashiell Hammett, The Maltese Falcon
Johan Lukacs, George Kennan: A Study in Character (2nd & 4th entries)
David R. Loy, Money, Sex, War, Karma: Notes for a Buddhist Revolution (2nd entry)
John Lewis Gaddis, The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past
Ian Rankin, The Naming of the Dead
Clotaire Rapaille, The Culture Code
John Lukas & George Kennan, Through the History of the Cold War: The Correspondence of George F. Kennan & John Lukacs
Richard Evans In Defense of History
Garry Wills, Outside Looking In: Adventures of an Outsider
David Loy, The World is Made of Stories
Ganga White, Yoga Beyond Belief
John LeCarre, A Most Wanted Man (2nd entry)
Tim Ferriss, The Four-Hour Body
Art DeVany, The New Evolution Diet
Fiction work of the year: Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game.
Non-fiction work of the year: Max Hastings, Winston’s War: Churchill 1940 to 1945 (2nd entry)
And here is hoping for lots of good books for all in 2011!
If I can get this figured out, I'll re-post with the links that I have with the original reviews. Sorry, but having technical difficulties.
Peter Brown, The World of Late Antiquity: AD 150-750. (See the second entry on the blog this date.)
Atul Gawande: The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right. (See the second entry on the blog this date.)
Pierre Hadot, The Present Alone is Our Happiness: Conversations with Jean Carlier and Arnold Davidson.
John Cassidy, How Markets Fail: The Logic of Economic Catastrophes.
Geoff Colvin, Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else. (Second entry.)
Garry Wills, Bomb Power: The Modern Presidency and the National Security State.
Thomas Cahill, The Mysterious Middle Ages and the Beginning of the Modern World. (2nd entry.)
Peter Clarke, Keynes: the rise, fall, and return of the 20th century's most influential economist
Robert Skidelksy, Keynes: The return of the master
Mark Johnston, Saving God: Religion After Idolatry (2nd entry).
Daniel Pink, Drive.
David Shenk, The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything that You’ve Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ is Wrong.
Jack Matlock, Superpower Illusions: How Myths and False Ideologies Led America Astray—And How to Return to Reality.
Peter Beinart, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris
Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves
Dave R. Loy, A Buddhist History of the West: Studies in Lack
Dashiell Hammett, The Maltese Falcon
Johan Lukacs, George Kennan: A Study in Character (2nd & 4th entries)
David R. Loy, Money, Sex, War, Karma: Notes for a Buddhist Revolution (2nd entry)
John Lewis Gaddis, The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past
Ian Rankin, The Naming of the Dead
Clotaire Rapaille, The Culture Code
John Lukas & George Kennan, Through the History of the Cold War: The Correspondence of George F. Kennan & John Lukacs
Richard Evans In Defense of History
Garry Wills, Outside Looking In: Adventures of an Outsider
David Loy, The World is Made of Stories
Ganga White, Yoga Beyond Belief
John LeCarre, A Most Wanted Man (2nd entry)
Tim Ferriss, The Four-Hour Body
Art DeVany, The New Evolution Diet
Fiction work of the year: Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game.
Non-fiction work of the year: Max Hastings, Winston’s War: Churchill 1940 to 1945 (2nd entry)
And here is hoping for lots of good books for all in 2011!
Art De Vany: The New Evolution Diet
Reading Nassim Taleb's Fooled by Randomness in the spring of 2007, I came across the name of Art De Vany, the author of Hollywood Economics. Taleb mentioned it in his book because it addressed the issue of the difficulty of predicting winning movies. De Vany, an academic economist, talks about power laws, stochastic events, complexity, etc. in that academic work. Taleb noted in passing that De Vany also applied these principles to fitness. I checked it out on the web and discovered De Vany's web site, which I've read off and on since that time. Now, he has out his book. It was worth the wait.
De Vany argues that we will benefit greatly from aspects of the environment that human beings evolved in during the paleolithic age. Put most simply, a diet of meat, nuts, vegetables, and not much else. No grain or dairy, not to mention sugar. And as for exercise: brief bursts of intense exercise with lots of rest in between. Now mind you, De Vany isn't a cave man--he writes a blog and is a retired academic! Indeed, his back story provides an interesting lead up to his recommendations. He was a minor league baseball player before becoming an academic economist. His son and then his wife developed type 1 diabetes (so-called juvenile diabetes), which led him to learn all that he could about the physiology of insulin and how it affects the body. He applied his know-how as an economist to consider the body, and he drew on evolutionary studies to get a sense of how the body evolved. This places him in the lead of the growing area of Paleolithic fitness,diet, and health thinking (with others such as Mark Sisson, Rob Wolff, Erwan Le Corre, etc.)
This is an excellent and thought-provoking book. The guy knows whereof he speaks (as an academic he can read the professional literature, but since it's not his professional field, he doesn't have to kow-tow to anyone.)
BTW, Nassim Taleb, who has since adopted a De Vany-like fitness regimen, authored an Afterward for the book.
To your health!
De Vany argues that we will benefit greatly from aspects of the environment that human beings evolved in during the paleolithic age. Put most simply, a diet of meat, nuts, vegetables, and not much else. No grain or dairy, not to mention sugar. And as for exercise: brief bursts of intense exercise with lots of rest in between. Now mind you, De Vany isn't a cave man--he writes a blog and is a retired academic! Indeed, his back story provides an interesting lead up to his recommendations. He was a minor league baseball player before becoming an academic economist. His son and then his wife developed type 1 diabetes (so-called juvenile diabetes), which led him to learn all that he could about the physiology of insulin and how it affects the body. He applied his know-how as an economist to consider the body, and he drew on evolutionary studies to get a sense of how the body evolved. This places him in the lead of the growing area of Paleolithic fitness,diet, and health thinking (with others such as Mark Sisson, Rob Wolff, Erwan Le Corre, etc.)
This is an excellent and thought-provoking book. The guy knows whereof he speaks (as an academic he can read the professional literature, but since it's not his professional field, he doesn't have to kow-tow to anyone.)
BTW, Nassim Taleb, who has since adopted a De Vany-like fitness regimen, authored an Afterward for the book.
To your health!
Orson Scott Card: Ender's Game
Since I'm catching up and doing my end of the year reading pick, I'll say it here: this was my favorite fiction work this year. I thought I learned somewhere that a movie production was coming out, and something prodded me to want to read it. It turns out, no movie. However, I certainly have no regrets in listening to this great SF work (winner of both the Hugo & Nebula awards). Comparisons? It reminded me in some ways of The Lord of the Flies, although the setting is much different. However, it is about children (although some females have roles in this book), and how difficult and sometimes mean-spirirted the world of children can be.
This rightly should be considered an SF classic, and if you're at all of an SF reader, I can recommend it highly. BTW, the audio edition that I listened to was excellent, and an talk by the author amended to the end. The author stated that he preferred the audio production as a way to experience the book. Amen.
This rightly should be considered an SF classic, and if you're at all of an SF reader, I can recommend it highly. BTW, the audio edition that I listened to was excellent, and an talk by the author amended to the end. The author stated that he preferred the audio production as a way to experience the book. Amen.
Tim Ferris: The 4 Hour Body
This book, one of three in a series that I'll review, comes from writer Tim Ferris, who, in his early 30's, has set himself up as a bit of a publishing phenomena. This title riffs off of his earlier success with The Four Hour Week, and beyond that connection, the title means little. The book, however, is interesting because Ferris has used himself as a human guinea pig. That is, he has tested what he recommends when it comes to hacking the human body for various types of performance or appearance advantages. He does it, so he claims and recommends, all legally. He does mention a lot of supplements, and I don't want to mess with supplements and expensive drugs, even if legal; however, for some it may prove worthwhile. I do like his n=1 experimental style that he pulls from the Seth Roberts, among others (and from whom he includes a brief essay). Ferris invites his readers to pick and choose among his recommendations and experiments, he recommends that you test his recommendations, an attitude of good old-fashioned American pragmatism that I admire. He also give nods to the likes of Pavel Tsatsouline, Art De Vany, Nassim Taleb, and Dr. Doug McGuff, among others, all persons that I think have some very important ideas about health and fitness.
In all, a fun read that you can dip into and find useful and provocative information that might prove useful on the health and fitness path.
In all, a fun read that you can dip into and find useful and provocative information that might prove useful on the health and fitness path.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Print or Electronic? The New Debate
I liked this post, as it reflects my own ambiguity about the brave new world of reading options. I don't like the computer screen much, but the Kindle is very easy on the eyes, and therefore I do like mine. On the other hand, for me some books must be read and keptin print form. I think size & subject matter will have the most effect on the choice of medium. One thing that I do now is take any longer reading from the internet (say a longer blog post or book review), save it to Word, at the end of the week save it as a PDF, and then send to Kindle for conversion. I can then read at my leisure and with much less strain on my eyes.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Krugman: My Laugh of the Day on Puerile Wall Street & Atlas Shrugged
I love the quote with which Krugman concludes his blog entry today. He calls out Republican hypocrisy like no one else that I read (at least on a regular basis). He has his crap detector on 24-7. High praise, indeed, in my book.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Mark Lilla on Obama's Sales Problem; or The Passions
I found this a very interesting article. It follows my interest in persuasion, both as a professional concern (ever try to convince 8 or 12 strangers to come to a unanimous conclusion about some disputed point?) and personal (to paraphrase Sartre: hell is having no persuasive influence over people). I think Lilla is right about Obama; indeed, Obama has been poisoned, as are most persons who go through law school. We try to think all about rational argument. Nonsense! Oh, it's the icing on the cake, the flower of the plant, but only that. Persuasion is truly effective at much deeper levels. Obama should remember that he was elected by passion, misdirected or misunderstood as it may have been. For instance, Obama did not run as any kind of radical, at least in policy, although in person, as an African-American, he personally embodied huge change. But in policy? No, he has always been relatively centrist and conciliatory.
Anyway, the article, and the brief intellectual history are all worthwhile. How do you deal with Plato's triumvirate vying for power in each of us? Still, more than a couple of millenia on, a really key question.
Anyway, the article, and the brief intellectual history are all worthwhile. How do you deal with Plato's triumvirate vying for power in each of us? Still, more than a couple of millenia on, a really key question.
Mark's Daily Apple: Great Source on Health & Nutrition
For no particular reason other than it popped up in my Google Reader, I want to give a shout-out to Sisson's site, which is an excellent source for health and nutrition information. Sisson is "primal", with loads of well considered and accessible information and advice. I'm gotten part way through his book The Primal Blueprint, which is a fun and interesting read. I'd be finished, but new books by Art De Vany & Tim Ferriss have created a reading backlog in the health and fitness category (all quite exciting). Anyway, this site is a good place to get a wide-ranging sample of Sisson's work. Enjoy. Health and fitness to you!
New START Treaty Passes; Grassley Disappoints
In a bit of uplifting political news, the New START treaty was ratified by the Senate today. Republicans--well, some of them--can act in the national interest and are not overtaken by thoughts of partisan political advantage and knee-jerk distrust of negotiated agreements (well, unless you want the Republican nomination for president). Sadly, one of my senators (Grassley) joined only 25 others in voting "no". I sent an email in reproach. I know that this is spitting in the wind, but I had to. My message below:
Dear Senator Grassley,
I was deeply disappointed to see that you voted against the New Start Treaty, while 1/3 of your fellow Republicans did support the treaty. I appreciate that the national interest can still come before partisan electoral posturing. Your position disturbs meet greatly because you ignored the recommendation of every living Secretary of State, Republican and Democrat, by voting against ratification. You also turned a deaf ear toward the recommendations of our military leaders. Your statement in opposition, while effectively echoing the talking points of the moment, fails to address the real underlying issues.
I hope that in the mean time, as a senator that voted in favor of the original START treaty, you will come back to the mainstream of arms control and not continue to support those who seem to oppose such efforts as a matter of habitually limited thinking.
Thank you for your attention to this.
Merry Christmas to you and your staff.
Steve Greenleaf
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Tim Ferris on Practical Pessimism
This talk of < 6' by Tim Ferris highlights some salient points of Stoicism. It's worth watching, as Ferris has latched on to at least one important aspect of the Stoic ethic. More on Ferris to come, as I just finished his new book, which, like this short piece, is chuck-full of interesting ideas.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Incredible! Chinese Acrobats Do Swan Lake
Having had the privilege to see Chinese acrobats perform in Beijing, I know well the Chinese prowess in gymnastic feats. However, this clip may take the cake. Incredible! As someone who looks like he's just consumed a six-pack before attempting a simple tree pose in yoga class, I have nothing but shear awe for these performances. If the Chinese can do this, what else can they do when they set their minds to it? Food for thought!
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Alfred McCoy on Dim American Futures
Somehow (one has a hard time retracing steps through the web) I came across this very interesting article. University of Wisconsin historian Alfred McCoy has given this subject some thought. Of course, like any prediction, it is uncertain. However, I do think that historians have a better perspective than most about how history may flow. I doubt that history has "laws", but it does follow patterns. We're all animals, and we love patterns. Culture, after all, is a pattern very widely accepted in a group. The culture of nations and how they interact also follows patterns. The pattern, can change, or there may be a choice of patterns. So, this is a "for what it's worth" piece, and I think it's worth something. It should lead us to think about our alternative futures. We, like Scrooge, have many ghosts of Christmas future in front of us. The way the U.S. electorate and political leadership are acting now, I'm not so optimistic. I hope I'm overly pessimistic. Anyway, McCoy provides some sobering thought.
Bill Gates vs. Matt Ridley
This is an interesting "debate" between Bill Gates of the Gates Foundation (and if you're from another planet, Microsoft) and Matt Ridley, the Rational Optimist, of whom I've posted before. The debate is a well-argued one, with each participant respecting the virtues of the other. Gates, like me, admires Ridley's work on history and his guiding metaphor of exchange--exchange of stuff and ideas--as a prime mover in human improvement. I agree with Gates, however, that Ridley sometimes seems to take an Alfred E. Newman (my choice, not Gates's) attitude ("What? Me worry?"). Gates rates risks with available knowledge, understanding that innovation could change the scene, but we can't count on it. I agree. In all, this is an intelligent exchange between two very capable and, I might add, well-mannered gentlemen.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Krugman on Bush Tax Cuts: Don't Cut a Deal!
I have given and want to continue to give the Obama Administration every benefit of the doubt on most issues. I appreciate that to get things done with Congress or foreign nations (not to mention family!), you sometimes have to make deals that are less than ideal. However, sometimes you have to just say NO! So I see the need to stand firm on several upcoming issues: the Bush tax cuts for the uber-wealthy, DADT repeal, and ratification of the new START treaty. On the tax cuts, the subject of the post today, Democrats, led by the President himself, should make it clear: Republicans would rather raise taxes on everyone than let the very richest suffer a modest tax increase. Republicans would let unemployment benefits expire for those hardest hit by their recession. I agree with Krugman, and I learned from Bill Clinton. On this, it's time to draw the line in the sand. BTW, I sent the following message this morning to Senator Harkin (Grassley, of course, is hopeless).
Dear Senator Harkin,
I strongly urge you to work to repeal the Bush tax cuts for highest tax brackets. I understand that the Administration and the Republicans are looking at a deal, but the deal is a bum one for U.S. fiscal policy, for deficit reduction, for the health of programs supporting those most in need, and for the soul and spine of the Democratic Party. I urge you to resist such a deal. Of course, Congress should extend unemployment benefits, but not at the price of Republican blackmail.
Thanks for your attention to this and for your work on our behalf.
Steve Greenleaf
Sunday, December 5, 2010
10 Questions with NNT
Nassim Taleb answers 10 questions from readers of Time magazine in this brief video. It's a good, brief introduction to his "Black Swan" idea and to his current consideration of "anti-fragility". Also, it lacks the bombast that sometimes marks his talks.
Deirdre McCloskey: Explaining the Birth of the Modern Economy
This is an interesting interview because, I think, McCloskey has an interesting project: understanding the incredible change since about 1600 that allowed the modern world to emerge. McCloskey, at one time a faculty member at Iowa, really seems to have a very wide-angle perspective and a humanist sense of economics; i.e., of economics that really looks at it's roots in Hume, Smith, Mill, and others. For a sense of her take on this immense change, which is the subject of the Ian Morris book that I'm reading, as well as a forthcoming book by Niall Ferguson, I recommend this relatively brief interview. I've got her first book in this projected series on my reading list, and I'm look forward to following her investigation into this topic.
Work Productivity
Jason Fried tells some plain truths about the workplace. On the whole, I agree with his take on things. When I really have to get something thoughtful done, I will work at home. At the office, my "Do no disturb" light on the my phone is often on, although my staff usually knows when I want to talk to certain persons. In larger workplaces, I can imagine that problems only multiple.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Hans Rosling with Good News
Hans Rosling has given seven TED talks. His talks concern development issues, and he uses superb graphics. He's from Sweden, so his Swedish-tinged English also marks his talks. This talks celebrates the Millennium Development Goals and shows progress on child mortality in Africa and other developing areas. Some good news, indeed!
Carol Dweck on Two Different Mindsets
Just an interesting piece via Daniel Pink. I've heard of her work, and when you think about it at all, you say, "Of course!". However, a good graphic reminder never hurts.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Presentation Zen on Teaching
Presentation Zen is a great site for anyone who has to present on anything. For instance, I have trials, hearing, and appeals, and so I try to keep abreast of the best ideas in this field. But then, what field doesn't require some communicating & teaching? Anyway, this one is worth repeating. Garr (Mr. Presentation Zen) notes the excellent work of Sir Ken Robinson, and Dr. Tae. I watched the whole of Dr. Tae's presentation. He's a physics professor @ Northwestern. What he says about school really applies in a lot of areas of education, although in a humanities and social sciences curriculum you have a different way to engage in the classroom. Engagement and personal effort at understanding and learning are keys to any field. His demonstration of learning a new skate board move is fun to watch, including his responses to failures. Not your staid academic!
Friday, November 26, 2010
Wise or Crazy? Interesting Thoughts from Nassim Taleb
If nothing else--and I think he provides a lot of insight--NT gives us something to think about. In the brief written piece, he prognosticates, always a dangerous undertaking. Is he a hedgehog or fox (a la Phillip Tetlock)? In this taped interview also the The Economist, he talks about his new main idea: "anti-fragility". An interesting concept indeed.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Freeman Dyson & the Hubris of Humankind
I read this article with great interest, as I'd known of Dyson's skeptical attitude towards global climate change (or more accurately called, I think, "global weirding"), and I know of his genius. This article tries to make sense of his position. The header sets the tone of the article:
The author, Kenneth Brower, I might add, knows Dyson and has obvious admiration and appreciation of Dysons's skills and merits. This is not a hatchet job, but a carefully considered assessment of Dyson's peculiar attitude. In the end, Brower believes that Dyson is (almost literally) a man of the cosmos, and not a mere terrestrial being.
However, the article really caught my attention because, like my comments on Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist, I'm skeptical of humankind's ability to tame Nature. In this perspective, I am a skeptic and conservative. I'm conservative in the Burkean sense, except that I'm less skeptical about social change than I am about environmental change (or better yet, I see social change as a species of environmental change). Burke didn't have to address the huge environmental changes that industrialization has wrought since his lifetime. To compare to a more contemporary figure, as far as the environment is concerned, I side more with the perspective of Nassim Taleb, who, I believe, shares a very cautious attitude toward the environment, as well as toward financial and economic systems. Also, Thomas Homer-Dixon has also written about what could be our Ingenuity Gap. As Brower writes, we have lots of technological schemes to address global climate change, and they're very pie-in-the-sky (or something in the sky or the ocean, etc.). We don't even have a public that thinks we have a problem, whether caused by humans or not.
This leads to my last thought: reading Morris's Why the West Rules--For Now, which goes back to the earliest humans, we have survived, but it often seems we did so despite ourselves. Since I'm listening to a Jack Kornfield recording currently, speaking of the Buddhist perspective of innate goodness, I want to believe that, and I do believe we have some grounds for this perspective. However, I also have my inner Calvinist (hey, my dad was a Presbyterian!). Frankly, the weight of the evidence is against us. Take Exhibit A, Dyson, a genius of incredible stature, seems really out to lunch on this crucial issue. If he's out to lunch, where are we mortals? Well, perhaps something less than genius intelligence--or a different array of multiple intelligences--is rather a good thing. Anyway, we fiddle while Earth burns. Are we the Nero species? How on earth (pun intended) can we change this? Advice welcome.
In the range of his genius, Freeman Dyson is heir to Einstein--a visionary who has reshaped thinking in fields from math to astrophysics o medicine, and who has conceived nuclear-propelled spaceships designed to transport human colonists to distant planets. And yet on the matter of global warming he is, as an outspoken skeptic dead wrong: wrong on the facts, wrong on the science. How could someone as smart as Dyson be so dumb about the environment? The answer lies in his almost religious faith in the power of man and science to bring nature to heel.
The author, Kenneth Brower, I might add, knows Dyson and has obvious admiration and appreciation of Dysons's skills and merits. This is not a hatchet job, but a carefully considered assessment of Dyson's peculiar attitude. In the end, Brower believes that Dyson is (almost literally) a man of the cosmos, and not a mere terrestrial being.
However, the article really caught my attention because, like my comments on Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist, I'm skeptical of humankind's ability to tame Nature. In this perspective, I am a skeptic and conservative. I'm conservative in the Burkean sense, except that I'm less skeptical about social change than I am about environmental change (or better yet, I see social change as a species of environmental change). Burke didn't have to address the huge environmental changes that industrialization has wrought since his lifetime. To compare to a more contemporary figure, as far as the environment is concerned, I side more with the perspective of Nassim Taleb, who, I believe, shares a very cautious attitude toward the environment, as well as toward financial and economic systems. Also, Thomas Homer-Dixon has also written about what could be our Ingenuity Gap. As Brower writes, we have lots of technological schemes to address global climate change, and they're very pie-in-the-sky (or something in the sky or the ocean, etc.). We don't even have a public that thinks we have a problem, whether caused by humans or not.
This leads to my last thought: reading Morris's Why the West Rules--For Now, which goes back to the earliest humans, we have survived, but it often seems we did so despite ourselves. Since I'm listening to a Jack Kornfield recording currently, speaking of the Buddhist perspective of innate goodness, I want to believe that, and I do believe we have some grounds for this perspective. However, I also have my inner Calvinist (hey, my dad was a Presbyterian!). Frankly, the weight of the evidence is against us. Take Exhibit A, Dyson, a genius of incredible stature, seems really out to lunch on this crucial issue. If he's out to lunch, where are we mortals? Well, perhaps something less than genius intelligence--or a different array of multiple intelligences--is rather a good thing. Anyway, we fiddle while Earth burns. Are we the Nero species? How on earth (pun intended) can we change this? Advice welcome.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Ian Ayres: Short Attention Spans?
I found this an interesting blog post. I'd listened to his book Super Crunchers!, and he teaches what is probably the best law school currently in the U.S. Anyway, I do wonder about the electronic phenomena and how it may affect our ability to concentrate and focus. I know, I know, here I am making a short blog post, and I certainly read them. But still, we do have to be careful. Remember: you crap-detector must be on 24-7. Anyway, this post and the couple of others that he cites to are very thought provoking.
Check out this related post, and this one.
Check out this related post, and this one.
More Stephen Walt on American Foreign Policy: Too Much Security or Too Much Insecurity
Stephen Walt furthers an argument that I posted about the other day. He responds to a very thoughtful comment in The Economist that addresses neocon ideas (or as the article puts it, "magical thinking")about national security. The Economist article is very thoughtful as well. Walt says that they both have a point: we are too secure, but not nearly as secure as we think we are. I'd say our weaknesses aren't military, they're perceptual and long-term. If you follow foreign policy, these posts are very pertinent to things like the START treaty and Afghanistan.
Robert Wright on Afghanistan: Worse than Viet Nam
Robert Wright's article in the NYT today sets forth a distinct case against continued military operations in Afghanistan. I note that he cites the Afghan Study Group report in the postscript of his article, and I heard member Michael Hoh speak last week at the Iowa City Foreign Relations Council. I am becoming more and more pessimistic about this whole enterprise: a drain on lives, morale, and treasure--for what? I want to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt on all of this, but how long can we sit quietly? The big difference from Viet Nam, of course, is the lack of widespread resistance to the war at home. Since the sons and daughters of the middle class aren't going to war, we see no widespread protests. And, not wanting to repeat the shameful treatment given to many Viet Nam vets by the nation, we want to be very careful not to harm the brave men and women who serve. Be certain: the domestic resistance the Viet Nam war caused a great deal of havoc and really hurt the nation, as did the war itself. Cool heads don't prevail in times of war, which is one reason that war is poison for democracy. It may be a necessary poison, but it should be suffered only when absolutely necessary and in the very smallest possible dose.
We need to make some hard strategic decisions here. I think that it's time for me to write my congressional representatives. What do you think?
We need to make some hard strategic decisions here. I think that it's time for me to write my congressional representatives. What do you think?
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Niall Ferguson on the West & China: Past, Present, and Future
This article really deals with two topics. First, how "the West" came to such a great lead in development over Asia, and second, how that's now changing very quickly. The first question about the history of development is one that I'm reading about currently in Ian Morris's Why the West Rules--for Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future , a very extensive history of human development from paleolithic times to the present and into the future. Very good, but more about it later. ( Ferguson gave it a shout out in this review in Foreign Affairs.) The second part of Ferguson's article deals with current developments. This, too, is fascinating, as we're seeing a new challenge to U.S. and Western leadership. How we address these issues will prove a real challenge to our leadership.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Thomas Barnett on the U.S. and China--Again
This was too good to pass up. Let me provide my executive summary of his key points (i.e., points that I find persuasive):
1. We act in a passive-aggressive manner toward China and many nations. Get over it.
2. We have overlapping interests with the Chinese, and, Oh, yeah!, the rest of the world. We have to work on these relationships. As someone who deals with negotiations and conflicting interests regularly, the need to negotiate relationships is fundamental. The sticking point is the audience (client, voters) whom you have to please, your clients, so to speak. But you have to cut a deal (if you can) even if its with potential (or actual) rivals. It's called leadership.
3. We must accept some "satisficing" (Herbert Simon). This is, we have to expect less-than-perfect outcomes. That's life as we know it. The enemy of the good is the best (or something like that).
4. The idea of a nuke-free world, as attractive as it is, overreaches, at least at present. We need to move to a nuclear-limited world. (See my prior entry for some sanity on that topic.)
5. Real politics involves "consensus building", but also deal-making. Sometimes you have to make deals with the devil (e.g., FDR & Churchill dealt with Stalin to defeat Hitler; Clinton cut deals with Newt Gingrich).
6. Strategic thinking involves a lot more than thinking about war. I suggest that it's all about energy. Not just oil, but money (fungible energy) and attention (human energy), but that's a whole different post.
Barnett makes some important points here.
1. We act in a passive-aggressive manner toward China and many nations. Get over it.
2. We have overlapping interests with the Chinese, and, Oh, yeah!, the rest of the world. We have to work on these relationships. As someone who deals with negotiations and conflicting interests regularly, the need to negotiate relationships is fundamental. The sticking point is the audience (client, voters) whom you have to please, your clients, so to speak. But you have to cut a deal (if you can) even if its with potential (or actual) rivals. It's called leadership.
3. We must accept some "satisficing" (Herbert Simon). This is, we have to expect less-than-perfect outcomes. That's life as we know it. The enemy of the good is the best (or something like that).
4. The idea of a nuke-free world, as attractive as it is, overreaches, at least at present. We need to move to a nuclear-limited world. (See my prior entry for some sanity on that topic.)
5. Real politics involves "consensus building", but also deal-making. Sometimes you have to make deals with the devil (e.g., FDR & Churchill dealt with Stalin to defeat Hitler; Clinton cut deals with Newt Gingrich).
6. Strategic thinking involves a lot more than thinking about war. I suggest that it's all about energy. Not just oil, but money (fungible energy) and attention (human energy), but that's a whole different post.
Barnett makes some important points here.
Walt: Too Secure? A Message to the Senate
I may just send this link to my U.S. senators, especially Senator Grassley, whom I fear may be playing the anything-to-defeat-Obama tune that many, if not most, Senate Republicans seem willing to play. How sad!
The Republican attitude here gives us an understanding of what "playing politics" means. First, it means trying to gain electoral advantage and ignoring the real work of political decision-making. Because most voters can be fooled by posturing, or really believe in the posture taken, Republicans can claim the need for a "strong defense", when in fact, as Walt argues, it goes the other way. Second, the "playing" in "playing politics" demonstrates a childishness in the actions taken. Of course, both sides do it on occasion, but we expect--or should expect--most to rise above it.* I don't have a problem with genuine differences of opinion and perception, but many instances we're seeing either intentional cynincism or group delusion at work.
*Play can be a good thing for adults, I should add. I play--volleyball, basketball, etc.--all the time. I go to "plays", but this is different.)
The Republican attitude here gives us an understanding of what "playing politics" means. First, it means trying to gain electoral advantage and ignoring the real work of political decision-making. Because most voters can be fooled by posturing, or really believe in the posture taken, Republicans can claim the need for a "strong defense", when in fact, as Walt argues, it goes the other way. Second, the "playing" in "playing politics" demonstrates a childishness in the actions taken. Of course, both sides do it on occasion, but we expect--or should expect--most to rise above it.* I don't have a problem with genuine differences of opinion and perception, but many instances we're seeing either intentional cynincism or group delusion at work.
*Play can be a good thing for adults, I should add. I play--volleyball, basketball, etc.--all the time. I go to "plays", but this is different.)
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Nic Marks on The Happiness Index
C & I watched several TED Talks tonight, and I thought I'd share on this one. If you can't watch it, I'll give you the executive summary. Mr. Marks says that five factors govern happiness:
1. Connect with others
2. Keep active
3. Take notice of the world around you
4. Keep learning
5. Give
You can go to this website to learn more.
If you stop and think about these factors, they reflect a great deal of wisdom and they are factors well-represented in religious and wisdom traditions. Too often we forget them, especially in our race for wealth and consumer goods. A very worthwhile talk.
1. Connect with others
2. Keep active
3. Take notice of the world around you
4. Keep learning
5. Give
You can go to this website to learn more.
If you stop and think about these factors, they reflect a great deal of wisdom and they are factors well-represented in religious and wisdom traditions. Too often we forget them, especially in our race for wealth and consumer goods. A very worthwhile talk.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Walt & Colleagues: Cut Defense Budget
Stephen Walt and other foreign policy realists, among others, are saying the plainly obvious: we have to cut the defense budget in order to get our national fiscal house in order. When it seems the nation is completely daft on this issues, it's reassuring to see those who think most deeply on this topic speak some sense. One only hopes that the newly minted deficit hawk Republicans pay attention to this.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Krugman Trumps Brooks
I go with Krugman on this, and I think Brooks does have it backwards, although the tendency in general for economists to go overboard in their faith in models may cross the fresh water--salt water divide. I think that the economists who speak and write in languages primarily other than math will have the best perspectives. I take this position not because I'm anti-math (I'm not) nor because I'm not fluent in math (which is true: I'm not). No, I think that the danger arises from an inflated sense of certainty that the use of mathematical models may create. Keynes was a brilliant mathematician, but check out The General Theory: it's written in English. Ditto The Wealth of Nations. Also, the market (fresh water) economists seem most enamored by market models and models of rational man [sic]. No, I think that Brooks could write the same column even more accurately aimed at so-called conservative economists. For instance, those who predict the end of the world with QE2. No, I have to side with Krugman on this one, plus he has a well-honed argument that the stimulus simply wasn't large enough because Obama bowed too easily to Congressional skittishness.
Tyler Cowen's Best Books of the Year
Marginal Revolution has some interesting stuff, and Cowen is an eclectic and discerning reader. I can only claim to have read Winston's War by Max Hastings, which I found excellent. Some of the others I've read reviews of, and they sound very good. I love a good book list!
Monday, November 15, 2010
Spoiler Alert: Don' Spoil Your Two Hours on Morning Glory
To be blunt, Morning Glory was a waste of time. I can't say much good about it. If you've seen the trailer, you've seen anything that might constitute a high point.
However, let's give some thought to this film nevertheless. My thought arose from the premise of the film that the character played (really, over-played) by Harrison Ford should lighten up and get into the froth of morning TV. He is portrayed as a pompous former anchorman who wants to do "real" news. During the course of the film, our heroine, young, perky, and determined Rachel McAdams transforms by show by various antics: an anchor kissing a frog, the weatherman televised on a roller-coaster, and other inanities. And the only "real" news that occurs in this endless film comes when the sitting governor is confronted with criminal charges right before the cops show up to arrest him. This isn't news, it's a spectacle of humiliation (even if he is guilty, which no one is assumed to care about after viewing the bust). Television news becomes more and more of a wasteland all the time from what I can see (which is as little as possible beyond the Daily Show and the Colbert Report). But as much as one naturally pulls for Rachel McAdams to succeed, I kept thinking that success isn't worth it. What have you done? She gets the guy in the end, but by the end, your really don't care.
My review mixes two types of criticism, bad movie-making and bad journalism, but if you choose to go, you're forewarned.
However, let's give some thought to this film nevertheless. My thought arose from the premise of the film that the character played (really, over-played) by Harrison Ford should lighten up and get into the froth of morning TV. He is portrayed as a pompous former anchorman who wants to do "real" news. During the course of the film, our heroine, young, perky, and determined Rachel McAdams transforms by show by various antics: an anchor kissing a frog, the weatherman televised on a roller-coaster, and other inanities. And the only "real" news that occurs in this endless film comes when the sitting governor is confronted with criminal charges right before the cops show up to arrest him. This isn't news, it's a spectacle of humiliation (even if he is guilty, which no one is assumed to care about after viewing the bust). Television news becomes more and more of a wasteland all the time from what I can see (which is as little as possible beyond the Daily Show and the Colbert Report). But as much as one naturally pulls for Rachel McAdams to succeed, I kept thinking that success isn't worth it. What have you done? She gets the guy in the end, but by the end, your really don't care.
My review mixes two types of criticism, bad movie-making and bad journalism, but if you choose to go, you're forewarned.
David Frum: Good Conservative?
As a former Bush speechwriter, I never expected to like David Frum. I guess we all have our prejudices, and one of mine is George W. Bush. However, this article by Frum in the the NYT Magazine yesterday really struck me as some very good advice. He caught me with the opening truth of his first paragraph: the Democrats won in 2008 because of the economy, and the Republicans won in 2010 because of the economy. It's really that simple. Beyond that, he recognizes the value of the welfare state (picking a fine G.K. Chesterton saying along the way to makes his point); he talks about the need for Republicans (and Democrats) to take off their ideological blinders, and most importantly, he shared this insight about populism that I think really captures a great deal about our current (and much of our past) politics. About the populist divide, he writes:
Digging back in memory, this fits with theories of Richard Hofstadter and perhaps Robert Wiebe, whose works I read as an undergraduate, or shortly after. The Tea Party phenomena has been the most interesting and scary item to watch of late. Intellectually, it's incoherent, as Frum recognizes, but it captures feelings, and feelings are much, much stronger than ideas. In thinking about our recent Iowa Supreme Court election vote, I was struck by the attitude of resentment expressed more than the anti-gay aspect. VanderPlats didn't do any overt gay-bashing, he couched his argument in terms of "elites" and "activist judges" "re-writing the Constitution". This is the real problem. The problem of crowds, the uneducated, the demos, the mob, and so on. When do we move from a democracy to a tyranny of the many? The Greeks, like Aristotle and Plato, understood the downside of democracy, and as I learn more, I gain a greater appreciation of their concerns (although I still don't buy any alternative).
Getting back to Frum, it's a really thoughtful piece. Here! Here! to more conservatives like him.
American populism has almost always concentrated its anger against the educated rather than the wealthy. So much so that you might describe contemporary American politics as a class struggle between those with more education than money against those with more money than education: Jon Stewart’s America versus Bill O’Reilly’s, Barack Obama versus Sarah Palin.
Digging back in memory, this fits with theories of Richard Hofstadter and perhaps Robert Wiebe, whose works I read as an undergraduate, or shortly after. The Tea Party phenomena has been the most interesting and scary item to watch of late. Intellectually, it's incoherent, as Frum recognizes, but it captures feelings, and feelings are much, much stronger than ideas. In thinking about our recent Iowa Supreme Court election vote, I was struck by the attitude of resentment expressed more than the anti-gay aspect. VanderPlats didn't do any overt gay-bashing, he couched his argument in terms of "elites" and "activist judges" "re-writing the Constitution". This is the real problem. The problem of crowds, the uneducated, the demos, the mob, and so on. When do we move from a democracy to a tyranny of the many? The Greeks, like Aristotle and Plato, understood the downside of democracy, and as I learn more, I gain a greater appreciation of their concerns (although I still don't buy any alternative).
Getting back to Frum, it's a really thoughtful piece. Here! Here! to more conservatives like him.
Thomas Barnett on the U.S. and China
As I often find, Dr. Thomas Barnett has something interesting to say about the contemporary world. In this case, the growing rift between the U.S. and China. Each nation has its own particular needs, strengths, and weaknesses, and both need each other for continued peace and prosperity. I fear growing Chinese nationalism, but I also fear an increasingly confrontational attitude by the U.S. As Barnett notes, China has a rather unique demographic challenge, one that makes ours seem small. We have to work with their needs if they're going to work with ours. I hope that this and following administrations act out of our long-term interest toward China not out of domestic political expediency.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Ganga White: Yoga Beyond Belief
This is another book that I finished recently, and very different from the LeCarre. White is a long-time yoga practitioner (check out some of the 60's and 70's hair he used to have!). This book was really quite an excellent general introduction to the practice of the Hatha Yoga tradition. White addresses all manner of issues in a very accessible prose. It covers a wide variety of topics that any practitioner, new or experienced, will likely face. He also goes into some of he history of the discipline. If you're interested in learning more about yoga, this is a good place to begin.
John LeCarre's A Most Wanted Man
I finished this novel recently. I am very much a LeCarre fan, so the anticipation is always great. I'd rate this novel as good, but not great. It's an enjoyable read. The young lawyer dealing with the demands and aspirations of her profession, the aging banker, and the various Muslims living in Germany, all are characters that intrigue. Add in LeCarre's understanding of the world of espionage and police work--and all of the conflict and rivalry that you have in that milieu--and you get a very compelling tale. Not as complex or deep as some of his past efforts, but nonetheless compelling. If you enjoy a good, contemporary realistic novel that focuses on current events, then you can't do much better than this.
Dave Brooks on the Deficit Reduction Commission
Dave Brooks takes a look at this issue from the big picture, and he makes important points. While Krugman goes for the details, Brooks does a good job of trying to see the big picture. I wold hasten to note, however, the Krugman has expressed a very real appreciation of the danger of the deficit, and he's not moved by the fear of bond markets that Brooks, like Niall Ferguson,share. Both express a fear of market collapse. Nonetheless, I think Brooks joins the debate. In the end, to reduce this deficit, we're going to have to do some things differently. Cut defense spending significantly would be a great start. Maintaining slightly higher taxes on the wealthiest would also be fine by me. Ending breaks for economic interests that don't serve the general welfare would work for me. A higher retirement age for Social Security? Perhaps for some. Anyway, we should engage in a vigorous public debate on these issues and take steps to reduce the deficit, but not by hurting those at the lowest end of the economic spectrum.
Krugman on the Deficit Reduction Commission
This link is to Krugman's take on the deficit reduction commission. Krugman, as usual, cuts to the chase and criticizes aggressively where he thinks it's warranted. I really applaud this. We all have to serve as advocates for what we believe is right. N.B., this doesn't mean that we act like jerks toward one another, but neither must we cower at the prospect of conflict.
My next post is of Dave Brooks today: read and compare.
My next post is of Dave Brooks today: read and compare.
Robert Kaplan on Obama's Asian Tour & Strategic Balancing
This article by Kaplan in the NYT today is an interesting one. We are living through a period of rising new global powers, especially China, but also India, Turkey, and Brazil, among others. How the reigning hegemon, the U.S., reacts to these changes is a major challenge to U.S. leaders. Can we accommodate and reach a working understanding with the new players, or will we panic and try to spend all of them under the table? The latter was the Bush administration plan until 9/11 sent us scurrying off to Afghanistan and Iraq. It does seem that the rise of China poses many of the same challenges for the U.S. that the rise of Germany did for Great Britain at the beginning of this century. Let hope it all works out better than that relationship did.
Of course, one may ask if there is an alternative to all of this balancing of forces and such, and the answer is probably "no". However, as we pour lives and resources into Iraq and Afghanistan, can we afford an active role in all of this?
Of course, one may ask if there is an alternative to all of this balancing of forces and such, and the answer is probably "no". However, as we pour lives and resources into Iraq and Afghanistan, can we afford an active role in all of this?
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Be Afraid? Glen Beck on George Soros: Echos of the Past?
I don't know what to make of Glen Beck. I want to think of him as an ignorant, albeit malevolent, clown. However, this piece from The Daily Dish takes my wishful thinking to task. How do we, how should we, respond to what seems to be a real anti-Semitic tirade? Is he really so ignorant that he doesn't know that he's echoing the archetypes of anti-Semitic slander? Do we ignore him? And if not, how does one respond? One has to doubt the efficacy of rational argument in the face of such nonsense? Like the crazies from Kansas, I want to ignore them, I don't want to feed their hatred mixed with a need for attention; however, neither should such statements or prejudices go unchallenged. This is a real dilemma, certainly for anyone who considers oneself any kind of a liberal (at least as it relates to free speech).
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Guess What? The Wealtier Live Longer
Well, if money can't buy you love, it certainly improves your chances for a longer life. Like a good deal of social science, this only makes sense when you stop and think about it. It's hardly counter-intuitive. The point Krugman wants to make is that making all workers wait longer for retirement penalizes those in the lower half of the income bracket. For lawyers, for instance, we should be able to work longer than coal miners or steel workers, and farmers for that matter (although I know farmers who pretty much died on the tractor).
Nick Morgan & Herbert Watzke on the Brain in Our Gut
Nick Morgan writes on public speaking and presentation, and I regularly read his blog. Besides his sound advice, he sometimes puts on examples, and TED Talks provide a fertile source. This talk is about research on the "gut" and how it works as a part of our nervous system. As C and I have both been reading on brain research for our respective professional reasons, I found it interesting. It's quite an enjoyable and informative presentation.
Some Good News (Maybe) About the American People
Stephen Walt points out that the American public aren't buying Bush. Walt points out that few watched Bush's big interview with Matt Lauer. I hope Walt's right. However, I did see that someone claimed to have a poll that showed Bush beating Obama in a mock presidential contest. Since this is not a real contest, maybe the respondents were just mocking the poll-takers and poll-readers. I hope so. Right now, I'm a bit down on the electorate (i.e., those who voted Republican). The other explanation is that instead of watching Bush most folks watched some other junk on TV. There's lots of competition for brain drain on the tube.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
More Quotes from Loy's The World of Stories
The following are more quotes taken from the Loy book. I have yet to right a proper review of it, and I plan to do so. But I find the quotes intriguing as stand alone thought starters. Anyway, for your casual consideration:
Without a foundation in conventional truth,
The significance of the ultimate truth cannot be taught.
Without understanding the significance of the ultimate truth,
Liberation is not achieved.
--Nagarjuna
The literary language of the New Testament is not intended, like literature itself, simply to suspend judgment, but to convey a vision of spiritual life that continues to transform and expand our own. That is myths become, as purely literary myths cannot, myths to live by; its metaphors become, as purely literary metaphors cannot, metaphors to live in.
--Northrup Frye
Absolutely unmixed attention is prayer.
--Simone Weil
Attentiveness is the natural prayer of the soul.
--Nicholas Malebranche
Let your mind come forth without fixing it anywhere.
--Diamond Sutra
There is no specifiable difference whatever
between nirvana and samsara.
The limit of nirvana is the limit of samsara.
There is not even the subtlest difference between the two.
--Nagarjuna
We make stories because we are story.
--Russell Hoban
The reality of cosmos becomes a story to be told by the man who participates responsively in the story told by the god.
--Eric Voegelin
The eye I see God with is the eye God sees me with; my and God’s eye are one eye, one seeing, one knowing and one love.
--Meister Eckhart
The soul’s vision of its divine Lord is the vision which He has of the soul.
--Ibn ‘Arabi
Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the superman—a rope over an abyss. A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting.
--Nietzsche
Literature is the Imaginal in script.
--Northrup Frye
“I feel as if I was inside a song, if you get my meaning.”
--Sam Gamgee, in The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkein
The East emphasizes liberation from the human condition, while the Western spiritual traditions place special value on the human incarnation in its own right, and are more interesting in fulfilling the meaning of this incarnation than in going beyond it or in finding release from it . . . to bring these two together is an important evolutionary step.
--John Welwood
Friday, November 5, 2010
David Loy's The World is Made of Stories
This book by David Loy will get a fuller treatment later. It was a delight to read, and it requires further digestion. However, one thing makes it quite fun: its numerous quotes spread throughout the text. Delicious little bits of thought. I've written some of my favorites for your delectation. (However, don't let these substitute for reading the book!)
The universe is made of stories, not atoms.
Muriel Rukeheyser
The limits of my language are the limits of my world.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
The Greek polis was formed by warriors coming back from the Trojan Wars. They needed a place to tell their stories, because it was only in the stories that they achieved immortality. Democracy was created to make the world safe for stories.
Ernest Becker
Reality is what doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.
Phillip K. Dick
No dharma has ever been taught by a buddha to anyone, anywhere.
Nagarjuna
Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
To the native Irish, the literal representation of the country was less important than its poetic dimension. In traditional bardic culture, the terrain was studied, discussed, and referenced; every place had its legend and its own identity . . . . What endured was the mythic landscape, providing escape and inspiration.
R.K. Foster
Just as the flower is made of non-flower elements, the self is made only of non-self elements.
Thich Nhat Hanh
The sense of the world must be outside the world.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Storytelling reveals meaning without committing the error of defining it.
Hannah Arendt
Myth is not entertainment, but rather the crystallization of experience, and far from being escapist literature, fantasy is an intensification of reality.
Alan Garner
What does our great historical hunger signify, our clutching about us of countless other cultures, our consuming desire for knowledge, if not the loss of myth, or a mythic home, the mythic womb?
Nietzsche
Theology is a branch of fantastic literature.
Jorge Luis Borges
Fantasy is true, of course. It isn’t factural, but it is true. Children know that. Adults know it too, and that is precisely why many of them are afraid of fantasy. They know that its truth challenges, even threatens, all that is phony, unnecessary, and trivial in the life they have let themselves be forced into living.
Ursula K. LeGuin
One does not refute symbols; one deciphers them.
Henri Corbin
She kept asking if the stories were true.
I kept asking her if it mattered.
We finally gave up.
She was looking for a place to stand
& I wanted a place to fly.
Brian Anderson
The only secure truth men have is that which they themselves create and dramatize; to live is to play at the meaning of life.
Ernest Becker
We accept reality easily, perhaps because we sense that nothing is real.
Jorge Luis Borges
Our truth consists of illusions that we have forgotten are illusions.
Nietzsche
I plan on more to come!
The universe is made of stories, not atoms.
Muriel Rukeheyser
The limits of my language are the limits of my world.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
The Greek polis was formed by warriors coming back from the Trojan Wars. They needed a place to tell their stories, because it was only in the stories that they achieved immortality. Democracy was created to make the world safe for stories.
Ernest Becker
Reality is what doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it.
Phillip K. Dick
No dharma has ever been taught by a buddha to anyone, anywhere.
Nagarjuna
Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
To the native Irish, the literal representation of the country was less important than its poetic dimension. In traditional bardic culture, the terrain was studied, discussed, and referenced; every place had its legend and its own identity . . . . What endured was the mythic landscape, providing escape and inspiration.
R.K. Foster
Just as the flower is made of non-flower elements, the self is made only of non-self elements.
Thich Nhat Hanh
The sense of the world must be outside the world.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Storytelling reveals meaning without committing the error of defining it.
Hannah Arendt
Myth is not entertainment, but rather the crystallization of experience, and far from being escapist literature, fantasy is an intensification of reality.
Alan Garner
What does our great historical hunger signify, our clutching about us of countless other cultures, our consuming desire for knowledge, if not the loss of myth, or a mythic home, the mythic womb?
Nietzsche
Theology is a branch of fantastic literature.
Jorge Luis Borges
Fantasy is true, of course. It isn’t factural, but it is true. Children know that. Adults know it too, and that is precisely why many of them are afraid of fantasy. They know that its truth challenges, even threatens, all that is phony, unnecessary, and trivial in the life they have let themselves be forced into living.
Ursula K. LeGuin
One does not refute symbols; one deciphers them.
Henri Corbin
She kept asking if the stories were true.
I kept asking her if it mattered.
We finally gave up.
She was looking for a place to stand
& I wanted a place to fly.
Brian Anderson
The only secure truth men have is that which they themselves create and dramatize; to live is to play at the meaning of life.
Ernest Becker
We accept reality easily, perhaps because we sense that nothing is real.
Jorge Luis Borges
Our truth consists of illusions that we have forgotten are illusions.
Nietzsche
I plan on more to come!
Statement from Ousted Iowa Supreme Court Justices
The following (except for the very last line)is the press release by the ousted Iowa Supreme Court justices. A very thoughtful and appropriate response that bears repeating:
November 3, 2010
The following public statement was issued by Justice David Baker, Justice Michael Streit and Chief Justice Marsha Ternus.
Des Moines, November 3, 2010— It has been our great privilege to serve the people of Iowa as justices on the Iowa Supreme Court. Throughout our judicial service, we have endeavored to fulfill our duty to Iowans by always adhering to the rule of law, making decisions fairly and impartially according to law, and faithfully upholding the constitution.
We thank all of the Iowans who voted to retain judges around the state for another term. Your support shows that many of our citizens value fair and impartial courts. We also want to acknowledge and thank all the Iowans, from across the political spectrum and from different walks of life, who worked tirelessly over the past few months to defend Iowa's high-caliber court system against an unprecedented attack funded by out-of-state special interest groups.
Iowa's merit selection system helps ensure that our judges base their decisions on the law and the Constitution and nothing else. Ultimately, however, the preservation of our fair and impartial courts will require more than the integrity and fortitude of individual judges; it will require the fervent and steadfast support of the people.
To which I say "Amen!"
November 3, 2010
The following public statement was issued by Justice David Baker, Justice Michael Streit and Chief Justice Marsha Ternus.
Des Moines, November 3, 2010— It has been our great privilege to serve the people of Iowa as justices on the Iowa Supreme Court. Throughout our judicial service, we have endeavored to fulfill our duty to Iowans by always adhering to the rule of law, making decisions fairly and impartially according to law, and faithfully upholding the constitution.
We thank all of the Iowans who voted to retain judges around the state for another term. Your support shows that many of our citizens value fair and impartial courts. We also want to acknowledge and thank all the Iowans, from across the political spectrum and from different walks of life, who worked tirelessly over the past few months to defend Iowa's high-caliber court system against an unprecedented attack funded by out-of-state special interest groups.
Iowa's merit selection system helps ensure that our judges base their decisions on the law and the Constitution and nothing else. Ultimately, however, the preservation of our fair and impartial courts will require more than the integrity and fortitude of individual judges; it will require the fervent and steadfast support of the people.
To which I say "Amen!"
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Thoughts After the Election
The following are random thoughts on the election yesterday, which, for the most part, reflects my disappointment and despair, although not much in the way of surprise.
Iowa is a conservative state. Not a Republican state, but a conservative state. We don’t go easily for change. Only one incumbent, Democrat or Republican on the statewide or federal ticket, was defeated. The defeated incumbent, Chet Culver, was replaced by a man who previously served sixteen years in the job! Also, note that both U.S. senators, one an old school Republican and the other a liberal Democrat, have both held office nearly forever. The great exception to this, of course, is the defeat of our three Supreme Court justices who were selected at random to be (figuratively) executed as an example to other judges not to drag Iowans into the 21st century. They dragged Iowa into the future when they ruled that our fundamental law requires the state to extend the benefits of marriage to gays. I don’t take these results as especially homophobic (although in some measure this is certainly true), but it does reflect a deep-seated conservatism and resentment. The resentment is seen by comparing results from Johnson and other larger Iowa counties with the more rural and poorer western counties, where voters more likely supported the summary executions for their audacity.
The electorate, taken as a whole, seems more and more like a petulant child that stomps its foot when it doesn’t get what it wants when it wants it. In 2008 it went center-left (Obama is nothing if not a centrist), and now it wants to veer sharply to the right. This makes no sense. Clotaire Rapaille in The Culture Code suggests that the U.S. is an adolescent country, and I bristled a bit at that, but I think this election demonstrates the truth of his contention. People are unhappy because Obama and the Congress couldn’t deliver a miracle, because that’s what it would have taken to undo the Bush mess. Of course, this may be endemic to democracy. Look at the French, unhappy that they can’t keep early retirement. Sorry, folks, we’re living too long and have too many bills! So maybe this crazy inconsistency is attributable to democracy anywhere and not just in the U.S.
Democracy, as we practice it today, isn’t so great. I happened to read about Socrates and his death at the hands of an Athenian jury again this morning. It struck me: a democracy put to death a good man (and one we’d label a great man) because he questioned the local pieties and prejudices. Next to Jesus and perhaps St. Paul, Socrates holds the greatest sway over Western culture, yet he died at the hands of a democracy, at the direction of the popular will. There are much worse systems of government out there, all worse in some way, but let’s not think that our contemporary U.S. democracy is so great. It gets by. It does so despite degrading the level of public discourse. Consider many of the television commercials aired: they insult the intelligence; they either lie outright or seek to deceive. This goes for both parties, although I honestly think that Republicans are better at it and more comfortable with it. Are unflattering images and less than complete sentences what we should base our decisions upon?
The bad news is, in some view, good news. The fickle electorate will change likely. Remember 1994. Maureen Dowd’s column today serves as a reminder of how the more things change the more that they stay the same. One can only hope that Republicans will remain as foolish. Obama should not be finished. He just needs to play the game adeptly and aggressively. Clinton did and won despite his personal shortcomings. I just hope that not too much damage gets done in the mean time.
Iowa is a conservative state. Not a Republican state, but a conservative state. We don’t go easily for change. Only one incumbent, Democrat or Republican on the statewide or federal ticket, was defeated. The defeated incumbent, Chet Culver, was replaced by a man who previously served sixteen years in the job! Also, note that both U.S. senators, one an old school Republican and the other a liberal Democrat, have both held office nearly forever. The great exception to this, of course, is the defeat of our three Supreme Court justices who were selected at random to be (figuratively) executed as an example to other judges not to drag Iowans into the 21st century. They dragged Iowa into the future when they ruled that our fundamental law requires the state to extend the benefits of marriage to gays. I don’t take these results as especially homophobic (although in some measure this is certainly true), but it does reflect a deep-seated conservatism and resentment. The resentment is seen by comparing results from Johnson and other larger Iowa counties with the more rural and poorer western counties, where voters more likely supported the summary executions for their audacity.
The electorate, taken as a whole, seems more and more like a petulant child that stomps its foot when it doesn’t get what it wants when it wants it. In 2008 it went center-left (Obama is nothing if not a centrist), and now it wants to veer sharply to the right. This makes no sense. Clotaire Rapaille in The Culture Code suggests that the U.S. is an adolescent country, and I bristled a bit at that, but I think this election demonstrates the truth of his contention. People are unhappy because Obama and the Congress couldn’t deliver a miracle, because that’s what it would have taken to undo the Bush mess. Of course, this may be endemic to democracy. Look at the French, unhappy that they can’t keep early retirement. Sorry, folks, we’re living too long and have too many bills! So maybe this crazy inconsistency is attributable to democracy anywhere and not just in the U.S.
Democracy, as we practice it today, isn’t so great. I happened to read about Socrates and his death at the hands of an Athenian jury again this morning. It struck me: a democracy put to death a good man (and one we’d label a great man) because he questioned the local pieties and prejudices. Next to Jesus and perhaps St. Paul, Socrates holds the greatest sway over Western culture, yet he died at the hands of a democracy, at the direction of the popular will. There are much worse systems of government out there, all worse in some way, but let’s not think that our contemporary U.S. democracy is so great. It gets by. It does so despite degrading the level of public discourse. Consider many of the television commercials aired: they insult the intelligence; they either lie outright or seek to deceive. This goes for both parties, although I honestly think that Republicans are better at it and more comfortable with it. Are unflattering images and less than complete sentences what we should base our decisions upon?
The bad news is, in some view, good news. The fickle electorate will change likely. Remember 1994. Maureen Dowd’s column today serves as a reminder of how the more things change the more that they stay the same. One can only hope that Republicans will remain as foolish. Obama should not be finished. He just needs to play the game adeptly and aggressively. Clinton did and won despite his personal shortcomings. I just hope that not too much damage gets done in the mean time.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Garry Wills Outside Looking In: Adventures of an Outsider
Anyone who knows me knows that I've been a big fan of Garry Wills since 1976, when in one summer I read Bare Ruined Choirs (aloud with C) and Nixon Agonistes. Since then I have continued to enjoy a steady stream of books from Wills on a wide variety of topics: St. Augustine, Shakespeare's MacBeth, Jefferson, Henry Adams, John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, Lincoln, Venice, and so on. However, in this book, Wills, similar to a part of his earlier Confessions of a Conservative, brings himself directly into view. But not as the sole figure in a frame, but always with someone else. In some cases, we meet rather scheming and deluded preachers, in others, the opera star Beverly Sills and her family, and in others contemporary politicians like Hillary Clinton (whom Wills speaks fondly of). Wills has met this quite varied and interesting collection of persons by starting out as a "book worm". His father paid him not to read for a week and Wills took his winnings out and bought a new book. Perhaps the most interesting thing about Wills is that while he received a Jesuit education topped off by a Yale doctorate in classics, he got his real start writing for magazines, first National Review (he was "discovered" by William F. Buckley), and then Esquire. Mixing these two callings, academic and journalistic, made Wills a compelling writer and not just a brainy writer.
Wills's portraits of his friends Beverly Sills, Studs Terkel, and others can be quite touching. He is quite fair to Richard Nixon, whom he credits as the politician who provided the most interesting answer to his question about favorite books. But the two most interesting subjects are Bill Buckley and Wills’s wife Natalie. Buckley and Wills had a long falling out over the Viet Nam war, but they eventually reconciled through the good offices of one of Buckley’s sisters. Wills provides a respectful and fascinating portrait of Buckley. As for his wife Natalie, Wills struck up a conversation over a nerdy book he was reading (Bergson) on a flight to NYC to meet Buckley and on which she worked a stewardess. They have been together since then, with her serving as his first draft reader—lucky her. No, really, lucky her!
For me this was fun glance into the behind-the-scenes world of one of my favorite writers. For me, it was like hearing a special guest tell tales from an interesting life, and an interesting life it has been, and I hope will continue to be for some time, for this book worm Garry Wills.
Wills's portraits of his friends Beverly Sills, Studs Terkel, and others can be quite touching. He is quite fair to Richard Nixon, whom he credits as the politician who provided the most interesting answer to his question about favorite books. But the two most interesting subjects are Bill Buckley and Wills’s wife Natalie. Buckley and Wills had a long falling out over the Viet Nam war, but they eventually reconciled through the good offices of one of Buckley’s sisters. Wills provides a respectful and fascinating portrait of Buckley. As for his wife Natalie, Wills struck up a conversation over a nerdy book he was reading (Bergson) on a flight to NYC to meet Buckley and on which she worked a stewardess. They have been together since then, with her serving as his first draft reader—lucky her. No, really, lucky her!
For me this was fun glance into the behind-the-scenes world of one of my favorite writers. For me, it was like hearing a special guest tell tales from an interesting life, and an interesting life it has been, and I hope will continue to be for some time, for this book worm Garry Wills.
Iowa Judicial System Under Attack
The following is a piece that I wrote for our local paper. They haven't seen fit to print it (yet?), but, hey, what's a blog for but to serve as our electronic street corner (and perhaps as effective, but if you've read this far . . . .). Anyway, my thoughts written earlier this month:
Failed Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats has turned his attention this fall from running for governor to leading a campaign to radically change our judicial system. In doing so, he’s enlisted the aid of Newt Gingrich and a couple of hundred thousand dollars in out-of-state money. The motive behind the movement spearheaded by Vander Plaats is the Iowa Supreme court’s unanimous decision in Varnum v. Brien. Varnum rules that denying the right of marriage to gays and lesbians in Iowa violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. Vander Plaats and his supporters want to express their dissatisfaction and to intimidate any future court decisions that fail to support their agenda. The intend to accomplish this by voting against retaining the three Iowa Supreme Court justices who happen to be up for a retention vote this year.
Even if one disagrees with extending constitutional rights to gays and lesbians and wants to join Vander Plaats and his supporters in seeking to overturn the decision, there is a political remedy. Those seeking to overturn this right can work to convince the Iowa legislature and Iowa voters to amend our Constitution and adopt a provision that exempts gays and lesbians from equal protection of the laws governing marriage. To date, the Iowa legislature has refused to tamper with provisions governing this fundamental right.
If a majority votes against retaining the three Supreme Court justices on the ballot this fall, it will be the first time since our current system of judicial selection began in 1962 that a Supreme Court justice is removed from office by a vote. If voted out, the three up for a retention votes, Chief Justice Ternus and Justices Streit and Baker, will have been chosen at random for retribution, since all of the members of the Court joined in the Varnum v. Brien decision. These three justices just happen to be the ones on the ballot this fall by way of a regular rotation.
What will it mean for justice in Iowa if a majority of voters remove any of these justices from office? The first conclusion certain to be drawn is that social conservatives dominate Iowa politics. However, more worrisome will be the conclusion that out-of-state money can come to Iowa to buy elections and judges. Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad, who appointed two of the justices that voted in favor of the Varnum decision during his earlier tenure as governor, proposes a different fundamental change to our current system. Branstad now wants the power to appoint all judges directly with the approval of the state senate. Branstad’s proposal would take the initial screening of candidates out of the hands of the non-partisan judicial nominating committees that provide the governor with two or three names from which to choose to fill a judgeship. Whether a Republican or a Democrat sits in the governor’s office, under the Branstad plan, judicial appointments will more often reflect repayment of political favors and adherence to party doctrine, something that our current systems tends to avoid.
Having practiced in Iowa from 1979 (with a brief stint in Illinois), I can report that taken as a whole, our judicial system and judicial selection system works about as well as one can hope in our democracy. In this assessment I’m not alone, as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce rates Iowa as the fifth best judicial system in the Union. The system is not perfect, nor are our judges infallible (the proof being that they sometimes rule against me and my clients), but taken as a whole, the voters of Iowa would be making a terrible decision and setting a terrible precedent if they vote to remove the three Supreme Court justices who are up for retention this fall. The real issue isn’t the propriety of a single ruling, but the ability of the judicial system to stand outside the political tides and to make decisions that may not prove popular. We alter such a system only to the peril of our liberties.
Failed Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats has turned his attention this fall from running for governor to leading a campaign to radically change our judicial system. In doing so, he’s enlisted the aid of Newt Gingrich and a couple of hundred thousand dollars in out-of-state money. The motive behind the movement spearheaded by Vander Plaats is the Iowa Supreme court’s unanimous decision in Varnum v. Brien. Varnum rules that denying the right of marriage to gays and lesbians in Iowa violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. Vander Plaats and his supporters want to express their dissatisfaction and to intimidate any future court decisions that fail to support their agenda. The intend to accomplish this by voting against retaining the three Iowa Supreme Court justices who happen to be up for a retention vote this year.
Even if one disagrees with extending constitutional rights to gays and lesbians and wants to join Vander Plaats and his supporters in seeking to overturn the decision, there is a political remedy. Those seeking to overturn this right can work to convince the Iowa legislature and Iowa voters to amend our Constitution and adopt a provision that exempts gays and lesbians from equal protection of the laws governing marriage. To date, the Iowa legislature has refused to tamper with provisions governing this fundamental right.
If a majority votes against retaining the three Supreme Court justices on the ballot this fall, it will be the first time since our current system of judicial selection began in 1962 that a Supreme Court justice is removed from office by a vote. If voted out, the three up for a retention votes, Chief Justice Ternus and Justices Streit and Baker, will have been chosen at random for retribution, since all of the members of the Court joined in the Varnum v. Brien decision. These three justices just happen to be the ones on the ballot this fall by way of a regular rotation.
What will it mean for justice in Iowa if a majority of voters remove any of these justices from office? The first conclusion certain to be drawn is that social conservatives dominate Iowa politics. However, more worrisome will be the conclusion that out-of-state money can come to Iowa to buy elections and judges. Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad, who appointed two of the justices that voted in favor of the Varnum decision during his earlier tenure as governor, proposes a different fundamental change to our current system. Branstad now wants the power to appoint all judges directly with the approval of the state senate. Branstad’s proposal would take the initial screening of candidates out of the hands of the non-partisan judicial nominating committees that provide the governor with two or three names from which to choose to fill a judgeship. Whether a Republican or a Democrat sits in the governor’s office, under the Branstad plan, judicial appointments will more often reflect repayment of political favors and adherence to party doctrine, something that our current systems tends to avoid.
Having practiced in Iowa from 1979 (with a brief stint in Illinois), I can report that taken as a whole, our judicial system and judicial selection system works about as well as one can hope in our democracy. In this assessment I’m not alone, as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce rates Iowa as the fifth best judicial system in the Union. The system is not perfect, nor are our judges infallible (the proof being that they sometimes rule against me and my clients), but taken as a whole, the voters of Iowa would be making a terrible decision and setting a terrible precedent if they vote to remove the three Supreme Court justices who are up for retention this fall. The real issue isn’t the propriety of a single ruling, but the ability of the judicial system to stand outside the political tides and to make decisions that may not prove popular. We alter such a system only to the peril of our liberties.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Maurenn Dowd on Ignorance Chic
In her column today, Maureen Dowd, queen of reading the zeitgeist, goes after the cult of ignorance--yes, you read that correctly--exhibited by some running for office today. She juxtaposes this current attitude with that exhibited by none other than Marilyn Monroe, the blonde bombshell, the "dumb blonde". In fact, MM had aspirations and an apparent sense of depth that could lead her to despair. Do we see that today with some public figures? To say that some running for office today are vacuous seems kind. Anyway, as usual, Dowd's take on the culture of the day seems quite on point to me.
Winston's War by Max Hastings
I’ve completed listening to Winston’s War: Churchill 1940 to 1946 by Max Hastings (2010, 576 p.). I hesitated to start another book on Churchill, as I’ve read a great deal about him already. He is, I think, the most written-about figure in the 20th century. Indeed, when we cleaned out my mom’s house we found a montage of Churchill that I’d done in 6th grade. Can there be anything new under the sun? Well, in this case, yes.
Hastings has written a fascinating book. Indeed, there is a lot that I learned that I either never knew or appreciated. Hastings does all this with a very judicious eye about what is near craziness (WSC was impulsive) and what amounts to heroic leadership. Churchill faced a number of challenges upon taking the premiership in May 1940 through the time he was deposed by voters in July 1945. Dealing with the English people, dealing with the mutual suspicions of Americans and Brits toward one another, wooing FDR (only to have FDR later shun him so that FDR could woo Stalin), having meetings and decisions reported to Stalin by Soviet agents before meetings could even begin—these are just a few of the matters considered by Hastings. Add in the use of area bombing (of civilian centers such as Hamburg and Dresden), the use of local resistance fighters (probably not worth the toll on civilians), and various military misadventures, and you get a sense of all the complicated decisions that WSC faced (or chose not to face) during his time. The complicated history of WWII is seen through the actions of this one man and considered by this gifted historian makes for a terrific read. The brevity of my post here belies the terrific enthusiasm that I have for this book. Highly recommended.
Hastings has written a fascinating book. Indeed, there is a lot that I learned that I either never knew or appreciated. Hastings does all this with a very judicious eye about what is near craziness (WSC was impulsive) and what amounts to heroic leadership. Churchill faced a number of challenges upon taking the premiership in May 1940 through the time he was deposed by voters in July 1945. Dealing with the English people, dealing with the mutual suspicions of Americans and Brits toward one another, wooing FDR (only to have FDR later shun him so that FDR could woo Stalin), having meetings and decisions reported to Stalin by Soviet agents before meetings could even begin—these are just a few of the matters considered by Hastings. Add in the use of area bombing (of civilian centers such as Hamburg and Dresden), the use of local resistance fighters (probably not worth the toll on civilians), and various military misadventures, and you get a sense of all the complicated decisions that WSC faced (or chose not to face) during his time. The complicated history of WWII is seen through the actions of this one man and considered by this gifted historian makes for a terrific read. The brevity of my post here belies the terrific enthusiasm that I have for this book. Highly recommended.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Despair?
I read the following in Maureen Dowd's NYT column:
This is one of the most distressing items that I've read in a long time. I can laugh (sometimes) at the likes of Glen Beck and crazy Tea Party types, hoping--really hoping--that they can't be serious, or taken seriously in any event. However, these poll numbers make me cringe to think about our electorate. Are they nuts? Incredibly short-sighted? Stupid? Harsh words, I know (and now you know that I'm never running for office). I have little doubt that Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents in our history. Obama should receive acclaim for not letting Bush's bus go off the cliff. Now, people complain because the trip is taking longer. Incredible. FDR had an advantage in that when he took over from Hoover the bus had gone off the cliff. In Obama's case, he got to the wheel in time to avoid the worst, but people now blame him for the detour. Incredible.
As Barack Obama struggles to rekindle the magic, one of the most pathetic headlines was the one on a CNN poll last week: “Was Bush Better President Than Obama?”
“Americans are divided over whether President Barack Obama or his predecessor has performed better in the White House,” the CNN article said.
This is one of the most distressing items that I've read in a long time. I can laugh (sometimes) at the likes of Glen Beck and crazy Tea Party types, hoping--really hoping--that they can't be serious, or taken seriously in any event. However, these poll numbers make me cringe to think about our electorate. Are they nuts? Incredibly short-sighted? Stupid? Harsh words, I know (and now you know that I'm never running for office). I have little doubt that Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents in our history. Obama should receive acclaim for not letting Bush's bus go off the cliff. Now, people complain because the trip is taking longer. Incredible. FDR had an advantage in that when he took over from Hoover the bus had gone off the cliff. In Obama's case, he got to the wheel in time to avoid the worst, but people now blame him for the detour. Incredible.
Monday, October 4, 2010
The Iowa Judicial System
The following is an email that I sent to the Iowa Justice Association list serve. This is the organization of plaintiff's lawyers in Iowa. The subject is the effort by Bob VanderPlats and lots of outside money to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices this year on the retention vote because they joined in the unanimous Varnum decision that held the Iowa ban on gay marriage violated the equal protection clause. My thoughts in general on this issue and our method of judicial selection in Iowa.
Readers,
In thinking about our upcoming retention vote and the implicit--and perhaps explicit--decision that we have to make about our current judicial system, I think that we need to keep in mind some important points:
1. Judges, human beings that they are (well, for the most part), make mistakes and have numerous foibles, and I'm talking about the better ones. Yet, we must look at our judicial selection and retention system as Churchill looked at democracy: the worst form of government, except when compared to all of the others. Compared to others, we coming out looking very good.
2. Judges, like jurors, walk into their positions with loads of pre-existing ideas, political, legal, philosophical, etc. We try to persuade them, but that can be mighty tough sometimes if they walk in with an attitude on an issue. That's why, I think, that this group tends to rejoice more when someone with a plaintiff's background gets appointed to the bench than when experienced defense counsel goes up. Not always, but usually. So, yes, judges do have imperfections, idiosyncrasies, and beliefs that create a great variety of perspectives. Given this, one of the amazing aspects of Varnum was the unanimity of the decision.
3. Those who claim that decision like Varnum should have been made in the political sphere have a strong argument. As a supporter of the conclusion of Varnum, I would have preferred that it would have been made by the legislature and not the courts. However, sometimes the courts have to go against the tide; maybe you like it (desegregation, one man [sic], one vote, abortion rights) or sometimes you don't (due process cases, striking down the New Deal legislation, striking down campaign finance legislation)—all depending on your political point of view, of course. Whether one likes an "activist" court seems to go along with whether one likes the outcome. It's gone both ways over time, sometimes left, sometimes right. But the courts have to do what they have to do--if really forced to. (I have a hard time believing all of the Iowa Supreme Court wanted to get out front on an issue like Varnum, as I don't think that they're naive about the potential public response.)
4. If any of the current Supreme Court justices are voted out, it will have a chilling effect on all future court decisions and allow electoral politics--often at its most base--to infect our judicial system. Those who disapprove of the Varnum decision do have political remedies, and these they should pursue.
5. This really isn't about individual justices (as it should be), but it's about attempting to control the judiciary in a new & very harmful way. It's like picking three soldiers at random to be shot in order booster the morale of the troops. This motivational tool isn't one that we should take up. It's a crude tool even with politicians, but they know that it comes with the job; it shouldn't be so for judges.
Enough for now. I think that this is an important issue for all lawyers and all citizens in Iowa. Thanks for allowing me to share. And vote.
Readers,
In thinking about our upcoming retention vote and the implicit--and perhaps explicit--decision that we have to make about our current judicial system, I think that we need to keep in mind some important points:
1. Judges, human beings that they are (well, for the most part), make mistakes and have numerous foibles, and I'm talking about the better ones. Yet, we must look at our judicial selection and retention system as Churchill looked at democracy: the worst form of government, except when compared to all of the others. Compared to others, we coming out looking very good.
2. Judges, like jurors, walk into their positions with loads of pre-existing ideas, political, legal, philosophical, etc. We try to persuade them, but that can be mighty tough sometimes if they walk in with an attitude on an issue. That's why, I think, that this group tends to rejoice more when someone with a plaintiff's background gets appointed to the bench than when experienced defense counsel goes up. Not always, but usually. So, yes, judges do have imperfections, idiosyncrasies, and beliefs that create a great variety of perspectives. Given this, one of the amazing aspects of Varnum was the unanimity of the decision.
3. Those who claim that decision like Varnum should have been made in the political sphere have a strong argument. As a supporter of the conclusion of Varnum, I would have preferred that it would have been made by the legislature and not the courts. However, sometimes the courts have to go against the tide; maybe you like it (desegregation, one man [sic], one vote, abortion rights) or sometimes you don't (due process cases, striking down the New Deal legislation, striking down campaign finance legislation)—all depending on your political point of view, of course. Whether one likes an "activist" court seems to go along with whether one likes the outcome. It's gone both ways over time, sometimes left, sometimes right. But the courts have to do what they have to do--if really forced to. (I have a hard time believing all of the Iowa Supreme Court wanted to get out front on an issue like Varnum, as I don't think that they're naive about the potential public response.)
4. If any of the current Supreme Court justices are voted out, it will have a chilling effect on all future court decisions and allow electoral politics--often at its most base--to infect our judicial system. Those who disapprove of the Varnum decision do have political remedies, and these they should pursue.
5. This really isn't about individual justices (as it should be), but it's about attempting to control the judiciary in a new & very harmful way. It's like picking three soldiers at random to be shot in order booster the morale of the troops. This motivational tool isn't one that we should take up. It's a crude tool even with politicians, but they know that it comes with the job; it shouldn't be so for judges.
Enough for now. I think that this is an important issue for all lawyers and all citizens in Iowa. Thanks for allowing me to share. And vote.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Richard Evans: In Defense of History
I completed Richard Evans's In Defense of History (1999, 272 p.). Evans writes on the topics that historians must always deal with, either up front and in the back of their minds: issues of causation, facts, sources, choice of topics, and the like. Much of this can seem mundane, but it can also become quite controversial. Evans treats it all with an even hand. His most significant contribution comes from his critique of more radical notions of post-modernism. He welcomes new ideas of perspective and topics, but he rejects the extreme relativism that some promote as a part of this movement. As does Ken Wilber, among others, he points to the performative contradiction at the heart of extreme relativism. Evans is persuasive about this, and I think he take history to a very solid philosophical (in the broadest sense) footing. A find book well considered, and a pleasure to read.
Friedman, Shiller, etc. Miscellaney
Tom Friedman provides a persuasive and succinct description of the Tea Party Movement as a political phenomena. The Tea Party strikes me as having no coherent set of ideas or platform, just a populist outpouring against the world as it is. I think that Obama has the ability and aspirations to reach out and accomplish what Friedman wants, and what he sees as the real problems behind the Tea Kettle party phenomena, but the body politic does seem to be really mired in limited--if not downright stupid--thinking.
In the NYT today, Friedman opens with a quote from Lewis Mumford. This alone merits a shout-out, as Mumford was a great American humanist (for lack of a more specific term), and long-time favorite of mine. In Friedman's article a quote from Mumford is taken from his impressionistic account of history, and more specifically, that of the declining Roman empire. I think that we have to be careful of the "we're the new Rome" stuff, but still, it's a thought-provoking piece, and it allows Friedman to trumpet an important message. Friedman floats the idea of a third-party, a tried and true perspective in American politics (and one that can influence events, but not since the Republican Lincoln, have none have gained power at the presidential level). The problem, as I see it, is that Obama gets criticized for acting too conciliatory and non-partisan. What perspectives or attitudes could a, for instance, Bloomberg add to the national dialogue? If anything, maybe Obama and the Democrats need to act more boldly and move more to the left. Anyway, thanks for quoting Mumford, Tom.
Robert Shiller in the NYT today takes about "animal spirits" (again) in describing how attitudes effect economic outlooks and performance. Yea, Keynes, who wrote in English (although he spoke mathematics very fluently) seems to have his pulse on our situation. Another instance of human behavior not following the guidelines that mainstream economics says that we should.
Finally, a quick note: an article in the NYT about an upcoming series on PBS on religion in America. You cannot understand America if you don't have some grasp of its religious history and its current manifestations in their incredible variety. Sounds promising.
In the NYT today, Friedman opens with a quote from Lewis Mumford. This alone merits a shout-out, as Mumford was a great American humanist (for lack of a more specific term), and long-time favorite of mine. In Friedman's article a quote from Mumford is taken from his impressionistic account of history, and more specifically, that of the declining Roman empire. I think that we have to be careful of the "we're the new Rome" stuff, but still, it's a thought-provoking piece, and it allows Friedman to trumpet an important message. Friedman floats the idea of a third-party, a tried and true perspective in American politics (and one that can influence events, but not since the Republican Lincoln, have none have gained power at the presidential level). The problem, as I see it, is that Obama gets criticized for acting too conciliatory and non-partisan. What perspectives or attitudes could a, for instance, Bloomberg add to the national dialogue? If anything, maybe Obama and the Democrats need to act more boldly and move more to the left. Anyway, thanks for quoting Mumford, Tom.
Robert Shiller in the NYT today takes about "animal spirits" (again) in describing how attitudes effect economic outlooks and performance. Yea, Keynes, who wrote in English (although he spoke mathematics very fluently) seems to have his pulse on our situation. Another instance of human behavior not following the guidelines that mainstream economics says that we should.
Finally, a quick note: an article in the NYT about an upcoming series on PBS on religion in America. You cannot understand America if you don't have some grasp of its religious history and its current manifestations in their incredible variety. Sounds promising.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Through the History of the Cold War: The Correspondence of George F. Kennan & John Lukacs
Through the History of the Cold War: The Correspondence of George F. Kennan & John Lukacs (2010, 276p.) proved a delight to read. The relationship began when Lukacs, then a nobody, wrote to Kennan, then ambassador to the Soviet Union and author of the "X" article, was a definite somebody (but soon to fall from favor). Their relationship grew over the years from a mutual interest in 19th and 20th century diplomatic history to a genuine affection for one another. In addition, we begin to get comments on some current events, different peoples, and insights into their writing projects (after leaving the Foreign Service, Kennan established a second career as a historian of diplomacy). Kennan, for instance, shares my concern that sometimes Lukacs allows his prose to become too dense, while at the same time, each sees in the other examples of fine writing and highly developed descriptive powers that enhances the work of both men. In sum, reading their letters to one another is like listening in to a very urbane and frank discussion between two highly literate and articulate men, who, because of their knowledge of history, have acute sensibilities of times and places that most of us don't perceive. From the quotidian to the grand, we get glimpses over a course of many years. As this is raw history, some of their judgments may seem harsh or ill-considered, but part of the charm of letters like this comes from their frankness and intimacy.
Of course, I think that the best testament that I can provide comes from quoting here and there, as I have in a couple of posts already, from their own words. Quite a joy, I must say. So I offer two quote for today, one on the more profound side, one on the lighter side:
Kennan:
Lukacs:
Of course, I think that the best testament that I can provide comes from quoting here and there, as I have in a couple of posts already, from their own words. Quite a joy, I must say. So I offer two quote for today, one on the more profound side, one on the lighter side:
Kennan:
We know that we cannot look at the sun with direct and naked eyes. It blinds us if we try it. Just so, there are things about the nature of God which we should not, and cannot, attempt to envisage and understand. To suppose that we would be capable of such a thing would resemble in itself a form of blasphemy. (253 11 February 2002)
Lukacs:
This president's (George W. Bush's) mind (and character) is that of a 15 year old American teenager who wants to remain the class president, a position the had got through mere luck. Commentators are wrong when they speculate that he wants to revenge what Saddam H. had planned for his father. No: George W. never liked is father; he wants to show that he can do even better then his father. We know the immortal warning of John Quincy Adams: "we do not go abroad in search for monsters to destroy." This puerile president is worse than that: he proclaims and pinpoints one monster for the sake of consolidating his and his party's popularity . . . ." (260, 5 March 2003).
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
New Start Treaty: Letter to Sen. Grassley
I recently heard Tad Daley, author of Apocalypse Never, speak about the continuing danger of nuclear weapons and the need for us to rid the world of them. I don't buy into quite that radical a project. I believe that the genie is out of the bottle, and that we can't force the genie back in. We have to contain the genie. As in the land of the blind, where the one-eyed man is king; so with nukes, in a world almost without them, the sole possessor would be in a very powerful position. Of course, the only nuclear attacks have been by the U.S., and for a few years, the U.S. did hold a nuclear monopoly. To say that our use of nuclear weapons was justified raises a difficult and perplexing moral issue. To argue that a permanent U.S. nuclear monopoly would have enhanced peace argues a point that can be challenged based on the analysis of strategy and the experience of history. For now, I favor a reduction of nuclear arms (we could probably get by with about 350 such weapons) as well as an aggressive non-proliferation policy.
Daley mentioned the START treaty, which he believed a good move, although wholly inadequate. Accordingly, I wrote and mailed the following letter to Senator Grassley (believing Harkin doesn't need the prod--words with him if he does). I wrote:
Join me in supporting this effort if you agree.
Daley mentioned the START treaty, which he believed a good move, although wholly inadequate. Accordingly, I wrote and mailed the following letter to Senator Grassley (believing Harkin doesn't need the prod--words with him if he does). I wrote:
September 28, 2010
Hon. Charles Grassley
United States Senate
135 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Washington, DC 20510
Re: New START Treaty
Dear Senator Grassley,
I urge you to support Senate ratification of the new START treaty with Russia that the Senate Foreign Relations committee recently referred to the full Senate. This treaty furthers the security of the U.S. and of the world by reducing the risk of nuclear war. Reducing arsenals, limiting proliferation, and demonstrating our commitment to reducing nuclear tensions are extremely important goals that we should pursue with the utmost urgency. I was heartened to see that Senator Lugar and two of his Republican colleagues voted in favor of the treaty. I hope that you will help lead your Republican colleagues in pursuit of Senate approval. You know, and I hope that your colleagues realize, that we are already modernizing our arsenal, which appears to be a concern to some senators. You should also note that as a government, we can no more support excessive and unneeded nuclear weapons that we can justify any other wasteful government spending. We have a history of irrational and reckless spending and building when it comes to nuclear arms. Now is the time to stop this attitude. As a matter of fiscal sanity as well as defense policy, we have to get our house in order.
I hope that you will share this perspective with all of your fellow Senators. Thank you for your consideration of my letter, and I look forward to your support of the treaty.
Sincerely yours,
Stephen N. Greenleaf
Join me in supporting this effort if you agree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)