The Case of the Man Who Died Laughing: From the Files of Vish Puri, Most Private Investigator by Tarquin Hall

He’s done it again. 

Targquin Hall has written another clever and entertaining detective novel that, in addition to the inherent pleasures of a well-conceived detective novel, also shines a bright flashlight on the enigma of India. In my review of an earlier book (The Case of the Deadly Butter Chicken), I said a lot about Hall and his project, and I have a hard time adding anything new to those insights, so this review will be short. However, do not take away from the brevity of my review that the book lacks. A book that delves into Delhi, gurus, magic, “kitty parties”, family relations, and the whole tangle that is contemporary India so deftly deserves high praise. Highly recommended for insight and fun.

Cross-posted in Steve's View from Abroad

Better Late Than Never: A Review of A Passage to India by E.M. Forster

Only 38 years after receiving the assignment, I've completed it. I’ve now read A Passage to India. 

I received the assignment to read the novel for my Modern Fiction course taught by David (“First Blood”) Morrell. The book was near the top of the reading list, and in a semester that began with a mistake (I misread my transcript), I had to read more works than I had time for. In the words of the Panda, I “had to be strategic”. Fortunately, Professor Morrell told us about the echo, the Freytag triangle, and how this novel helped create the transition to modern fiction. Anyway, it was enough to do well in the course. Within the last year, of course, this omission began to haunt me. Shouldn’t I now read this classic? Well, I again procrastinated. I’d seen the movie years ago (and remember virtually nothing about it), but mostly I wanted to focus on reading about other aspects of India, both longer ago (Moguls and rajas) and the recent past and contemporary India. Thus, until recently, I’ve avoided reading about the British Raj. Now, however, perhaps for the mere fact that Indian Summer had been looking at me for so long (my books look at me longingly and pleadingly when I don’t pay attention to them), I decided to read Forster's classic. Then, when I saw a good edition of A Passage to India (Penguin, with an introduction by Pankaj Mishra), I bought it  and moved it toward the top of the pile. 

And so how was it? Outstanding. 

Forster’s novel creates complex and sometimes puzzling characters set in a society and landscape that he evokes with beautiful and insightful prose. The central characters, the Moslem physician Dr. Aziz and the British schoolteacher, Cyril Fielding, struggle and fight for every moment of friendship that can break through barriers of culture and personal insecurities. Indeed, the central incidents occur early in the novel. These events concern a visit to the Marabar caves and whatever happened (or didn’t happen) to Ms. Quested there, the subsequent trial, and its effects. These events take up the first two-thirds of the book, but the story continues beyond that attempting to appreciate the individuals and circumstances from which the problems all arose. 

Forster is hard upon the administrators of the British Raj. If anyone thinks that Forster is a cheerleader for the Raj, that person is sorely mistaken. Forster, who visited India on two different occasions (and who perhaps had an Indian lover) displays the vile racism that had developed among many of the Brits. Fielding is an exception, and yet even he must deal with ambiguities and misunderstandings that could frustrate even the most sympathetic of souls. The characters of Adela Quested, Mrs. Moore, and Professor Godbole each have complex if lesser roles that create a true richness in the story.

Finally, I should remark on how Forster uses the landscape to help set the tone of the story. Writing as I am now from central India and having lived here the last 10 months, I know how heat, dust, random mountains, ravines and (often dry) watercourses mark the landscape and impress themselves on those who, like me, come from such different circumstances. Forster’s language, which creates wonderful conversations, takes a poetic turn when describing some of these landscapes and the attendant weather.  

So now, 38 years after I received the assignment, I can mark it complete. I get no credit for that now—other than the enjoyment and perspective that I received from reading a great novel about this complex land. This is now the credit I most want.

A Review of Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder by Nassim N. Taleb

Probably every book authored by Nassim Taleb should include a warning label. It should state something like the following: 

Warning: The following book may be hazardous to your health. Exposure to this material may cause irritation, anger, outrage, or other severe emotional disturbances. In addition, it may change your mind.

To those who aren’t acquainted with the Taleb, you should know that he is a native of Lebanon, where he grew up in a prominent and Christian family during the civil war. He came to the US and attended Wharton business school. After completion of his MBA, he went to work in the banking and investment industry. After having made sufficient money (“f--- you” money, as he terms it), he became an independent scholar and writer. He is at once innovative and very cantankerous. While at times I can find I find his style abrasive, as he liberally hands out insults and putdowns, he nevertheless always seems to provide mind (and practice) altering insights. So, if you read this latest of his books, Antifragile, you stand forewarned of this risk.

Taleb started his career as a popular writer talking about probability, and he made a very big splash when he published his book, The Black Swan, which discusses the impact of the highly improbable in markets and in life. Philosophically, he’s dealing with the problem of induction, the kind of thinking that says all we ever see are white swans, therefore, all swans are white. For Europeans, that was true until they went to Australia and discovered black swans. Induction has its flaws. 

In Antifragile, Taleb builds on his previous work and argues that while some things are fragile (e.g., a china cup) and some things are robust (e.g. the Timex watch that “can take a lickin’ and keep on tickin’”), other things are antifragile. Antifragile things actually gain from volatility (shocks or disturbance). The outstanding example that Taleb identifies is evolution, where a certain amount of volatility allows for change. Taleb is quick to point out that things that are antifragile can only withstand a certain degree of volatility. In other words, there can be too much of a good thing. In fact, this is one of the intriguing issues left open by the book: even for systems that could benefit from increased volatility, such as an economy, how do we determine the amount of volatility that we should condone (assuming we can control volatility)? Taleb seems to support (although he does not address the issue directly in the book that I recall), allowing the economy its ups and downs. This hands-off approach makes a certain amount of sense—up to a point. However, in a situation such as we have experienced since 2008, should we really allow market mechanisms to run willy-nilly without any intentional interference on our part? This is something that I don’t think he addresses, yet he suggests, following up laissez-faire economic line of thinking, that this would be correct. He does not directly address the argument of Keynes. Taleb, I think, knows that Keynes had keen insights into issues of probability and uncertainty and humility about our lack of knowledge about the economy. Taleb doesn’t provide or even address the issue of how to provide us with a heuristic or principle by which to judge the amount of volatility we should actively tolerate.

I find his thinking persuasive in the field of medicine, for instance, where a little bit of volatility or exposure to negative influences, such as germs, actually enhances our immune system and makes it stronger. Taleb mentions that he puts it drop of tap water on his tongue when he comes to visit India, which makes a fair amount of sense. Again, the challenge seems to be engaging the right amount of disturbance to tolerate or promote. The same goes for physical training, when we subject ourselves to a stressor, such as weights, and our body reacts by stronger. Our body exhibits antifragility by adapting to the insults of a heavy (beyond normal) weight. Too much weight, however, or an insufficient recovery time, will actually harm the body, causing injury or a failure to thrive. Again, the question is how much is enough or how much is too much.

Taleb also understands the potential ethical problems with his perspective. He is not suggesting that we through the less fortunate over board in order to allow untrammeled volatility in society or the economy (essentially the idea of Social Darwinism). Furthermore, he makes a very persuasive ethical argument that decision-makers should have “skin in the game”. In other words, “banksters” should suffer losses as well as gains when their bets go wrong, as they did so terribly in 2008. Under the existing system, Wall Street was in a “heads we win, tails you lose” mode. The situation was made worse by government bailouts that created moral hazard (although to my mind, the bailouts, while odious, were necessary). Again, I think Taleb skirts some of the bigger issues, but his overall perspective adds an important element of consideration as to how we should run economy and society.

Following are couple of quotes that are worthwhile:

The Italian political and legal philosopher Bruno Leoni has argued in favor of the robustness of judge-based law (owing to its diversity) as compared to explicit and rigid codifications. True, the choice of a court could be a lottery – but it helps prevent large-scale mistakes. (90)

For those readers who wonder about the difference between Buddhism and stoicism, I have a simple answer. A stoic is a Buddhist with attitude, one who says “f*** you” to fate. (153)

As to the first quote about the common law, I think there is a good deal of truth in that. The argument between the English (and American, Indian, etc.) legal systems and those of the Continent have been over the use of codes versus judge-made law. While the U.S. has moved to greater use of codes, we still have a benefit in judge-made law that should improve the flexibility of our legal system. 

As to the second quote, about Buddhism and Stoicism, I’m still looking for a good comparison, because I think that there is a close relationship, in attitude, if not in genealogy. His passing comments fails to say enough, buy it is tantalizing. 

Overall, it’s a very worthwhile and important book. Laugh and snicker when he rails against those whom you also dislike, and ignore him when he offends you, and you’ll gain all the benefits without suffering the warned-against side effects.

Grassley Responds re Gun Control: What a Disappointment, But Not a Suprise

The following is a letter that I received from Sen. Grassley about gun regulations. I find it mind-numbingly bad. Sad, sad, sad. I'm going to write him back and tell him so. Below his letter is my response to it. 

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your support for stricter gun regulation. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to hear from concerned Iowans.

Recently, the Senate has debated and voted on proposed gun control legislation in response to the tragic events in Newtown. On April 9th, the Senate voted to proceed to consider gun control legislation. There were several amendments proposed from Senators that included stricter gun control legislation.

One amendment that was proposed was a large magazine ban. Limiting magazine capacity does nothing to stop violent crimes. Criminals can simply carry multiple magazines. This restriction would only further restrict law abiding citizens. With a recorded vote of 46-54 the amendment was not agreed to. Senator Feinstein also proposed an amendment that would have included her ban on certain semi-automatic weapons. I have concerns with Senator Feinstein’s ban. The goal of such a ban is to prevent shootings similar to the tragic shooting in Newtown. While I do not doubt her sincerity, I do doubt the effectiveness of such bans. Her amendment also failed by a vote of 40-60.

Congress needs to examine the current laws and background checks to make sure they are properly preventing prohibited persons from obtaining firearms. I have supported legislative efforts to improve and enforce reporting of crimes and mental deficiencies that would improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Additionally, I have repeatedly voted for legislation that would strengthen the prevention of illegal gun trafficking.

Another amendment offered by Senators Manchin and Toomey proposed expanded background checks. I have concerns with the amendment’s effect on private sales. Movement of firearms from one law-abiding citizen to another would be legal or illegal based on arbitrary distinctions that citizens could not be expected to know. For example, something as innocent as posting an advertisement for a hunting shotgun in a church bulletin that results in a private sale between members without a background check could result in federal penalties. This amendment also failed to reach the 60 vote threshold for an amendment to be accepted with a vote of 54-46.

While I did not vote to support the Manchin/Toomey amendment, I did author a comprehensive amendment that would target the causes of gun crime, address mental health records, and strengthen school security.

The Grassley amendment would have inserted the text of the Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act of 2013 in its place. This legislation, sponsored by 25 senators, would reauthorize and improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), increase resources for prosecutions of gun crime, address mental illness in the criminal justice system, and strengthen criminal law by including straw purchasing and illegal firearm trafficking statutes.

Specifically, the Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act addresses violent crime committed with firearms in a number of ways. First, it fixes problems with the National Instant Background Check System (NICS), with a focus on improving the availability of records to the NICS database, including mental health records from federal and state courts that are currently not reported to the NICS system. These records include those of individuals found to not have the mental capacity to stand trial, or who were found not guilty by reason of mental defect. Further, they would ensure that states provide records to the NICS system by penalizing those who fail to provide records. The non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) recognizes that this failure is a problem with the current NICS system. Additionally, my amendment would also codify the executive order issued by President Obama requiring federal agencies to submit relevant federal records to the database and report to Congress whether they are complying with the law. Together, these changes would strengthen the existing background check system instead of following the Manchin/Toomey model of simply expanding a broken system to cover more transactions without fixing it.

Second, the Act combats gun related violent crime by increasing federal prosecution of violent offenders who commit gun crimes, and by cracking down on straw purchasers and firearms traffickers with new prosecution tools and increased penalties for gun crimes committed by prohibited persons. These provisions provide new criminal laws to federal law enforcement to combat the illegal straw purchasers that buy guns for criminals. It also creates a task force to strengthen Department of Justice efforts to investigate and prosecute cases involving convicted felons and fugitives who illegally attempt to purchase a firearm. The Act would also provide increased federal resources to hire prosecutors and agents to combat gun crimes and those who supply criminals and felons with firearms. Additionally, it would increase criminal penalties for gun crimes, including cases where criminals lie on background check forms in order to obtain firearms illegally. Finally, it directs the National Academy of Sciences and National Institutes of Justice to conduct a study examining the causes of mass shootings and reviewing causes of these violent acts.

Third, the Act seeks to reduce crimes committed by mentally ill offenders by: providing resources to state and local law enforcement to help interact with mentally ill offenders and reduce criminal recidivism by those with mental illness; clarifying to the Veterans Administration’s procedures regarding adjudication process for determining when a veteran is mentally defective for firearms possession; and by adding new purposes to existing federal grants to provide necessary training and support for state and local law enforcement agencies dealing with individuals with mental illness.

Finally, the Act expands the use of grant funds for school safety, including surveillance equipment, and the establishment of hotlines or tip lines for the reporting of potentially dangerous students and situations. The Act also establishes an interagency task force to develop and promulgate a set of advisory school safety guidelines.

My amendment was joined by over 25 cosponsors and gained larger bipartisan support than the Manchin/Toomey amendment. Despite this it failed to achieve the 60 votes necessary for passage under the consent agreement with a vote of 52-48. This common sense alternative legislation is a step forward and a way to ensure that criminals are prosecuted, gun crime is reduced, background checks are strengthened, mental health is addressed, and schools are secured; all while ensuring that law abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights are not infringed. I am disappointed it failed to pass, but believe it offers a sensible way to address these difficult issues responsibly.

Since the tragic events that took place in Newtown there has been an emotionally charged debate over gun control legislation from both sides of the issue. I have met with families from Newtown to discuss the legislation that has been debated. It has been emotional and difficult for all of us. It is important however, that we do not rush to pass legislation that does not address, and would not have prevented recent shooting tragedies by infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens. I look forward to continuing the debate on how to keep criminals from obtaining firearms while insuring the safety of innocent Americans.

Again, I want to thank you for sharing your thoughts on this debate. Hearing from concerned Iowans gives me an opportunity to serve Iowans better.

Sincerely,

Chuck

Dear Senator Grassley:
I received your email letter to me about recent gun regulation votes. I found it profoundly disappointing and terribly flawed in its reasoning. You really should investigate this issue rather than simply following the party line. In addition, I want to mention how the U.S. Senate has deteriorated as an institution, especially in regard to the use of the filibuster as an anti-democratic practice that has no support in the Constitution or law. You should move to abolish it immediately.

Thank your for your attention to this,
Steve Greenleaf

State Building: Governance and the World Order in the Twenty-First Century

The first issue that I should address comes from the fact that that I have posted this book review on my “Steve’s View from Abroad” website. What has this to do with India? While a far cry from the failed states that are the primary focus of this book, India, nevertheless, is a state (or states, as it’s a federal system) that fails to function effectively in many realms. Anytime I speak about India, I almost always mention the lack of basic government services and the effect that this has daily life. Poor roads, poor drainage, poor sewers, poor water and air quality—I could go on (and did with some dinner partners just the other night). I believe that India will gain a measure sophistication and decent quality of life (which includes and transcends a mere increase in GDP) when Jaipur no longer has garbage strewn upon its streets; when the poor living in shanties have found decent housing; and when the middle class has initiated a “Progressive Era” for India to clean-up political corruption and to address its failing infrastructure. India is far from a world-class economy currently, but if it can reach a critical minimum of an engaged middle-class willing to fight the good political fight, it has a future. A lot of work—a lot—remains to be accomplished, but it can happen. 

So issues of governance drew me to this work as one reason, but the other is the reputation of Fukuyama himself. Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man, now much maligned, is a very interesting and instructive book. I read it many years ago to great benefit and delight. The benefit and delight came from understanding a train of political thought that I’d never grasped very well before. Plato, Hegel (via Kojeve), and Nietzsche were brought to life in a manner that I’d never before appreciated. The English tradition, with Locke, Bentham, Mill, etc. emphasizes rational, utilitarian man, homo economus. However, this older tradition, going back to Plato and Thucydides (although Plato wanted to crush all human instinct under reason), emphasizes thymos, our human demand for dignity and respect, the kinds of things that the English tradition, at least in economics, tended to downplay if not outright ignore. Fukuyama raised my understanding Hegel’s dialectic of master and slave, something that in a rush toward Marx, too much political theory ignored. For this education alone, Fukuyama’s book was very worthwhile. 

The other part of The End of History and the Last Man concerns the growing trend toward liberal democracy in the world, and here’s where people have come down hard on Fukuyama, considering him a failed prophet. However, I don’t recall (sorry, my copy not here with me) that Fukuyama emphasized that we would all become happy, bourgeoisie democrats. What I believe that he did—and on which he has not been rebutted—is to establish that no political system is more appropriate for human affairs than liberal democracy. As a practice, liberal democracy has not swept the field, but as an ideal (non-utopian), who stands as a contender? No other system, I submit, and for this reason, Fukuyama deserves more praise than the easy derision he has received. 

The criticism that The End of History and the Last Man has received hasn’t slowed Fukuyama, and he’s gained in prominence. I enjoyed his The Great Disruption and Trust, and well as a number of articles that he’s written. Meanwhile, the Panda (sometimes Hungry, sometimes Inscrutable), during her earlier visit India, was reading his most recent book, The Origins of Political Order (Part 1). She began it with some skepticism but concluded it with approval and assigned it to me to read (my copy awaits me in IC). Thus, when I saw this slender (179 p.) book, I took it up and read it in less than a day. It proved worthwhile, indeed. 

Written in 2004 after the invasion of Iraq and our incursion (if that’s the right term) into Afghanistan, it reflects on these experiences as well as the long list of “failed-states” that grabbed world attention in the years following the collapse of the Communism. Put simply, states (governments) serve crucial functions and when they fail (no longer function effectively), people suffer and often die. Fukuyama initially details the function of states and how these functions can vary. For instance, the state in the U.S. is much more limited than European states in the provision of services and policies. Think healthcare, for instance. While thoughts can vary in this regard, a certain minimum number of functions need attention. In addition, Fukuyama devotes a chapter to public administration, which proves to me, again, not only his mastery of a great empirical body of knowledge, but his ability to draw out some of the fundamental theoretical and practical aspects of a topic like public administration. 

Fukuyama discusses how public administration is an issue around the globe and identifies its unique problems. For instance, the agency problem, the scope of authority problem, and the motivation problem. Fukuyama criticizes the microeconomics approach to public administration and the institutional approach, at least to the extent that those approaches aren’t augmented by a sociological approach. Fukuyama notes that organizations, or more exactly, the individuals within them, are governed by group norms, personal relationships, leadership standards, and other non-economic motivations (without totally ignoring the economic issues). His example of the armed forces serves perfectly: men and women don’t fight and die for the great pay; they fight and die for each other. (By the way, this applies to terrorists as well. See Scott Atran’s work Talking with the Enemy.) Among our economics-envying social sciences, this may come as news. It shouldn’t, but at least in the current policy-making world, it does. (Economics, in the meanwhile, suffers from a perverse physics-envy.) Everyone should consider this from Fukuyama: 

            It has been a longstanding dream of the social sciences to turn the study of human behavior into a true science, moving from the mere description to formal models of causation with nontrivial predictive value, based on rigorous empirical observation. This project can be realized more readily in some spheres of human behavior than in others. Markets are susceptible to this kind of analysis, which is why economics emerged as the queen of the social sciences in the late twentieth century. But organizations constitute a complicated case. Individuals in the organizations look out for their narrow self-interests, and to the extent they do, the economist’s methodological individualism provides genuine insight. But to a much greater extent than in markets, norms and social ties affect individual choices in organizations. The effort to be more “scientific” than the underlying subject matter permits carries a real cost in blinding us to the real complexities of public administration as it is practiced in different societies. (123)

Agreed. Thus, theorists like Herbert Simon, James March, and Chester Barnard receive Fukuyama’s use and praise instead of more recent thinkers. In addition, I must note the fascinating account of Japanese public administration after WWII when American “experts” attempted to “fix it”. Amazing. 

Finally, Fukuyama addresses the issue of sovereignty, one in which the U.S. (especially the Bush Administration) and other countries often parted ways. To his credit, Fukuyama mentions Robert Kagan, whom I believe has been a critic of Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man. He cites Kagan’s appreciation of the differences between the U.S. and Europe on these issues. 

All in all, a short but powerful book. Having now experienced ineffective or marginally effective states (I’ll throw in Cameroon as well), I have a new and greater appreciation of the mundane but crucial work of government.

Reply from Senator Harkin About Campaign Finance Reform

May 31, 2013

Mr. Stephen Greenleaf
345 Magowan Ave
Iowa City, IA  52246-3515

Dear Stephen:

Thank you for contacting me regarding campaign finance reform. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.

As the cost of running for office continues to rise, the integrity of the campaign process continues to wane. This is why I have continually fought for a major overhaul of campaign financing. I believe that placing strict limits on individual, corporate, and PAC contributions would make races fair and more competitive. And, it is also why I co-sponsored the Fair Elections Now Act, which would create a voluntary, publicly financed system to cover Congressional campaigns.

In addition, I strongly disagree with the Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) that the government cannot limit independent corporate spending on elections. The Court's holding was based on two faulty premises, that corporations, perhaps even including corporations controlled by foreign nationals, have the same rights as individual citizens under the First Amendment, and that the ability to spend money is the same as freedom of speech. While I have always been a strong advocate of protecting the First Amendment, I do not consider granting corporations unlimited financial influence on elections to be an issue of free speech. If money is considered speech, wealthy Americans suddenly have a stronger voice than anyone else.

The Court's decision is deeply harmful to our democracy. It limits our ability to restrict the influence of special interests and to restrain the ability of corporations to use their vast resources to distort our campaign process.  This decision, which overturned well-established precedent and a law that has served our country well for over 60 years, is also a blatant exercise of judicial activism.

Because I feel so strongly that the court profoundly erred in Citizens United, in the last Congress I cosponsored a constitutional amendment which would overturn the Citizens United decision and give Congress the power to pass meaningful campaign finance reform and limit corporate influence on elections. This constitutional amendment has yet to be re-introduced in the current Congress.  However, if it is re-introduced I expect that I will sponsor it once again. 

While the Supreme Court has prevented Congress from eliminating corporate influence on our elections, at the very least voters should know who is trying to influence our democracy.  That is why I also a cosponsored the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act, which would limit the harm of the Court's decision, improve the health of our democracy, and restore integrity to our electoral process. So the public will know who is funding political advertisements, the bill will hold corporations accountable by requiring them to publicly disclose the money they spend on influencing elections.  Unfortunately, when this important bill was considered in the Senate last Congress, a minority of Senators blocked the legislation from coming to a final vote.  Similar legislation has not yet been introduced this Congress, but I am hopeful that the Senate will address this important matter in the near future.

We need to have a campaign finance structure which limits the influence of the special interests, restores integrity to the democratic process, and buttresses America's confidence in our democracy. As I have in the past, I will continue to fight for an election system to accomplish all of these things.

Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Please do not hesitate to let me know how you feel on any issue that concerns you.

Sincerely,

Tom Harkin
United States Senator

SNG: Pretty good. I still, however, would like him & others to take the Rootstrikers pledge that Lawrence Lessig is pressing.