Drew Weston Cheers Obama & the Dems

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

Krugman: Keynes Was Correct!

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

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

Antidote to Stephen Bloom's Bleak Vision

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

On Cloning

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Stars" in Politics

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


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

Interval Training from Conditioning Research

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

Habermas on Religion in the Public Square

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

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

Time Warrior by Steve Chandler

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

2011 Best History Books from BrainPickings

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

Jonah Lehrer on the Perils of Causation

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

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

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

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

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

Longevity

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

The Ultimate Stephen Bloom Disses Iowa Rebuttal?

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

More on Hungary: Fascinating & Frightening

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

Inequality

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

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

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

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

Creepy Stuff from Hungary

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

More on Stephen Bloom's Atlantic Article About Iowa

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

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

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

Great Reading Recommendations

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

Dr. Terry Wahls on Diet @ Iowa City TEDx

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

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

Some Good Guys & Some Real Disappointments on Protecting Our Security

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

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

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

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

Shame on Obama

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

Stephen Bloom's Iowa Firestorm

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

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

Maureen Dowd on Newt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Niall Ferguson on Charlie Rose

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

David Brooks on Cass Sunstein

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

Krugman on Creepy Europe

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

Beinart on Obama's Narrative

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

Ferguson on Britain's Dissent Fiscal Union

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

Frum & Brooks on Newt

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

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

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

A Draft Letter to the President & My Congressional Respresentatives

Readers,

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

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

December 8, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely yours,


Stephen N. Greenleaf

Ken Rogoff on Capitalism

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

Holy Shades of Paul Krugman, Batman!

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

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

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

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

Skeptical Anticipation: Tinker Tailor Movie Coming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Id. 324.

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

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

David Brooks: The Social Animal

David Brooks is a socialist.

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

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

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

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

In the end, a highly enjoyable and recommend a book

Now Reading: Wills on Shakespeare & Rome and Gaddis on Kennan

I've now embarked on these two very promising titles:

1. Garry Wills, Rome & Rhetoric: Shakespeare's Julius Caesar (2011).

2. John Lewis Gaddis, George F. Kennan: An American Life (2011)

Fun reading ahead!

Niall Ferguson's Civilization: The West & the Rest

Niall Ferguson's Civilization: The West and the Rest (2011) describes six "killer apps" that defined Western civilization and led to its preeminence in the 500 years between 1500 and 2000. Ferguson is a lively and engaging writer who steps into the sweep of a 500-year history with verve and flair. Ferguson is not adverse to controversy, and he doesn't shy away from making judgments. This has made him a controversial figure within the ranks of some historians. In addition, he moonlights as a commentator on current events. Nevertheless, I think we can disagree with him and still find him very persuasive.

Ferguson argues that competition, property rights and liberty, modern medicine, the Scientific Revolution, consumer goods, and the work (or word) ethic distinguished Europe and its progeny (North America and Australasia) from its rivals in the Ottoman empire and China, both of which were surely were more advanced than most of Europe as of 1500. Indeed, the "great divergence" begins about 1800.

Some have criticized Ferguson for underplaying the detrimental aspects of European colonial empires. However, I find these criticisms unpersuasive. Ferguson, who certainly has a combative streak in him, argues that colonialism, for all its downsides, nevertheless has some good sides. In some sense, this is simply a truism. Ferguson certainly notes some of the horrors associated with colonial rule. He does not spend much time dealing with the day-to-day indignities that colonialism entailed. Nevertheless, his critics seem to miss the point. That point is that Western civilization brought cultural, scientific, and industrial advances to portions of the world where they would not have arisen or where they would only have arisen much later.

Perhaps Ferguson is most interesting in this work when he talks about where we go from today. Has he argues in his book, Japan was the first of the Asian nations to take up and apply the "killer apps" of the West. Other Asian nations have done so quite successfully, and China is now in the midst of making an incredible transformation. Ferguson notes, however, that few of the Asian nations have "downloaded" all of the apps. For instance, China has only a limited sense of private property and no real democracy. Russia has some vestige of democracy, but no real sense of property rights. Ferguson suggests that in order for any nation to get all of the benefits of this heritage, all of the "apps" must be downloaded and run.

Ferguson also delves into where we might head from here. His greatest concern is that empires in the past have often collapsed quite suddenly. Rome, the Soviet Union, and numerous other examples show a sudden and drastic collapse as opposed to the stereotype of a slow decline. He ponders the possibility that current Western nations may suffer the same fate. Knowing that it is very difficult to predict the future (a point about which I think that he would agree), one can only speak conditionally; nonetheless, this prior pattern causes some concern. By the way, Ferguson delves into complexity theory and sudden tipping points that might cause collapse, an important and fruitful perspective.

This book makes a fine companion to Ian Morris's book. Both deal with the transition that distinguished Western Europe and its offspring from the remainder of the world. This is one of the great historical phenomena. It is the dominant narrative of the past 500 years, and Ferguson conversation in an engaging and worthwhile manner.

In sum, I highly recommend this book, and I enjoyed a great deal. If you're looking for a good overview of what happened and why, this is it an excellent place to start.

QT: Niall Ferguson on Debt, the EU & the US

We are in a hard place. Yes, we need to reduce debt, and yes, we need stimulus. We have to put the petal to the metal and then drive like granny. Not an easy course to successfully follow. No, I don't think that Washington is quite like Athens or Rome, but we do need to be careful. Sticky wicket, I say.

QT: Jack Goldstone Gets It Right on the Supercommittee

Goldstone posts his comment from back in August and I must say, he seems to have nailed it from the beginning. President Obama needs to step up vigorously on these issues.

QT: Drew Weston Again on Obama

I don't want to belabor a point, but I think that Drew Weston has again found a serious weakness in President Obama's decision-making regime. One senses a lack of strong, forceful leadership from the president. My hopes were buoyed by his adoption of a new stimulus program to go to Congress, but everything seems to be languishing. I do believe that the American electorate, as it so often does, foisted its hopes onto Obama in a way that he never justified, nor did he discourage. Indeed, every politician has to hope for such a magical time. However, the downside is that difficult decisions need to be made, and those difficult decisions define the decision-maker at each turn. Thus, a blank slate can no longer remain blank, and some hopes can no longer be projected onto that person. Obama is bright and has good instincts, but I share a sense that he lacks the fighting characteristics that made someone like FDR a great president.

Johan Huizinga on History

I'm listening to David Brooks's The Social Animal (quite fun), and he throws in this quote from the great Dutch historian Johan Huizinga about the feeling he received from engaging history:

A feeling of immediate contact with the past is a sensation as deep as the present enjoyment of art; it is an almost ecstatic sensation of no longer being myself, of overflowing into the world around me, of touching the essence of things, of through history experiencing the truth.

In my own modest way, I understand what Huizinga says. The stories of history often engross me, and they have since I was a little guy. Not just "what happened?" but more a matter of "what's going on here?", something deeper than--although dependent on--narrative. Perhaps call it narrative plus. I think great novelists can capture it, and I suspect that great novelists and great historians have much in common (hat tip to John Lukacs). Anyway, an interesting quote (found @ p. 233 of Brooks book).

Henry Kissinger on George Kennan

Yesterday I posted an entry about Henry Kissinger, and in doing so I noted that he, along with George Kennan, are probably the two most important figures in American foreign policy outside of some presidents (and more important than some presidents). In the New York Times today, Kissinger reviews the new biography of George Kennan by John Lewis Gaddis. Kissinger's review is lengthy and thorough. Kennan is a complex figure, and Kissinger argues that Kennan would offer both realist and idealist visions that often contradicted each other. This trait limited Kennan's work as a policymaker, but it contributed to the deep insights that he could provide to those in power. As John Lukacs also notes, Kissinger remarks that Kennan is a superb prose stylist.

This new book is going to near the top of my reading list. As readers of this blog may recall, Lukacs has written about his friend can in a short biography and Lukacs published a selection of the letters that they exchanged over the course of around 40 years. It will be interesting to compare perspectives of the authorized biographer Gaddis with those of the friend Lukacs.

Kennan is an intriguing figure, who, like many number of great persons, he is at once contradictory, vexing, and inspiring. Full of very human foibles, but full of striking insights and accomplishments as well, I'm sure that this book will prove worthwhile. I look forward reporting on further in the future blog post.

Kissinger: National Geographic Documentary

Along with George Kennan, probably no other other American in the 20th century--excluding some presidents--has had such a profound (and controversial) influence on American foreign policy than Henry Kissinger. Love him or hate him (and he's been the subject of strong emotional reactions for a long time), this recent interview, which runs about an hour and a half, takes us into his world. Still quite sharp into his 80's, he reflects on his time as national security adviser and has Secretary of State. His interviewer, Niall Ferguson, who's undertaking an authorized biography of Kissinger, is barely heard in this interview, as the words come almost exclusively from Kissinger. Because of his incredible role in relations with the Soviet Union, China, the Middle East, and Viet Nam, his reflections on these events and situations is bound to hold interest.

On the other hand, the interview doesn't hold the pathos, sense of revelation, and soul-baring that Robert McNamara's interview in Errol Morris's film, The Fog of War, displayed. Perhaps it's the Irish-American McNamara's personality vs. that of the German-Jewish immigrant Kissinger's that accounts for the differences. In any event, if you're interested in recent history and American foreign policy, it's well worth the time to view this.

I found this to take a moment say again what I fine collection our public library (ICPL) holds. Another gem!

QT: A Better Food Pyramid

Although I'm an imperfect practitioner (hell, I'm pretty imperfect at about everything), I do think that Mark Sisson has the best all-around advice on health and nutrition. (He's a bit less draconian than Art DeVany, so maybe that's why he gets my nod by a nose.) Anyway, here's his (and my perfect) food pyramid. Yea, that's right. Try it, and I'll bet you like it (i.e., feel better & test better.)

QT: More Chris McDougall on Running

If anyone could convince me to run, it would be Chris McDougall. I joke that I only want to run if I'm chasing or being chased. But more likely, it just wasn't ever comfortable, whatever that means. Anyone, here is more McDougall (of Born to Run fame) on the latest in barefoot running. Don' miss this video, either. I just might try it!

Austerity vs. Stimulus: The False Dichotomy

This conversation highlights a big problem, well, maybe a couple.

The press promotes the idea of a dichotomy of thinking where I think none exists. Ferguson agrees that some stimulus further could prove useful (and that it did keep us from going over the cliff), and Krugman acknowledges that in the long-term that we need to get our fiscal house in order by dealing with debt. The press does us a disservice when they promote this either-or thinking. Of course, Ferguson, who seems to relish verbal brawls, may make matters appear starker than they are. His point, that things could crumble quickly, seems worth heeding, but Krugman's worry of a slow crumble (slow growth, high unemployment) also presents dangers. We're in a tight spot, and sound thinkers need to navigate between the extremes.

I might note that this video piece by Ferguson supports my point, although his endorsement of tax reform as a third way strikes me as misguided at best (more below). Not that we couldn't stand to improve our tax code (see Robert Franks & Richard Thaler for some really innovative ideas), but how does this really help us? On the other hand, putting people into meaningful work--read infrastructure upgrades--seems very doable and worthwhile.

Note to Ferguson: You're right that we're always fighting the last war (see his comments on Milton Friedman and Keynes), but he fails to say that history NEVER repeats itself. Of course, "this depression is different", but how different? I think we are seeing some new wrinkles (as Ferguson notes re inequality). So, he's right to suggest new answers, but I doubt the tax system. Also, corporate taxes may not work in principle, but then they are "persons" (NOT "people"). (Persons is a legal term in this context.) Anyway, new thinking and updated perspective are always needed, but the tax code business seems quite lame.

Ferguson loves to pick a fight, I think.

My motto, Keynes in crisis; Hayek day-to-day.

On China by Henry Kissinger

When I was an undergraduate in my class on 19th Century Europe with David Schoenbaum, he assigned us to read A World Restored, Kissinger’s work on the Congress of Vienna that created the post-Napoleonic European state system that lasted until the First World War. Of course, we knew who Kissinger was, as he was then serving as Secretary of State, and before then he served as Nixon’s national security adviser. Since then, I’ve read a big chunk of his book Diplomacy (very interesting, but I got distracted, by another book project. I’m definitely going back). Thus, as you can discern, Dr. K has some credentials with me. But, I thought, isn’t he really an expert on the European state system, you know, Westphalia, Vienna, Versailles, etc.? What does he know about China? I know that he went there to pave the way for the rapprochement led by Nixon, but just another stop on a busy itinerary, right?

Wrong, wrong, wrong. At age 88, he’s published a very engaging, nuanced book about China’s relation to the world that provides a fascinating and lasting impression. In fact, Dr. K has been to China on over 50 occasions, and he continued to meet with Chinese leaders well after he left office. Thus, we get the insights and thoroughness of a great scholar as well as the insights of a statesman who lived and contributed to much of the history that he discusses.

Dr. K understands Chinese strategic thinking. For instance, think of the Japanese game called “go” as the eastern counterpart to chess in the West. These two games display different perspectives on strategic thinking. After this foray into culture, Kissinger goes deeply into Chinese history in the 19th century, as China comes under domination by the Western powers. He recounts how China begins its long march back to great power status (where certainly it is today). Kissinger documents the Chinese perspective very well (at least from my limited knowledge). Of course, when he becomes a player, things begin to get more interesting in the book and in the world. The great Chinese leaders now come alive under first-hand observation. What a treat!

The final part of the book allows Kissinger to analyze how the future might unfold in light of the past. The historical example most often cited as a precedent for U.S.—Chinese relations is the rise of Germany in the second half of the 19th century and how that challenged Great Britain, the dominant power. Of course, we know that these two leading powers collided in WWI, a huge calamity. Are the U.S. and China destined for a violent encounter as China rises relative to the U.S.? Kissinger gives hope that this precedent need not prove the case. In this discussion, Kissinger shows himself the true statesman and diplomat. Careful and nuanced considerations of national interests, strategic, economic, and cultural (including human rights issues)—all must be carefully weighed, valued, and applied. No, there are not quick and easy answers, but answers, he believes, can be found.

A terrific book (best of the year)? I should also add that I listened to it, and the narrator, who sounded quite American most of the time, pronounced Chinese names as I would expect 1HP to have pronounced them, so this lent an air of authenticity to the reading.

1HP: After you’ve read this book, I would be delighted to share a guest post.

Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength by Roy Baumeister & John Tierney

Social psychologist Baumeister and science journalist Tierney have teamed up to provide a popular account of type of academic work that Baumeister and his colleagues have conducted. This body of research has given us a new perspective on the age-old problem of the will. Actually, as scholars as diverse as Hannah Arendt and Garry Wills have written about the fact that St. Augustine developed the idea of the will in Western culture, a concept that the Greeks never really developed (although they were quite concerned with issues of self-control and self-regulation). Augustine was trying to understand why he didn’t always do as he would have himself do, a problem explored in Greek culture (witness Odysseus binding himself to the mast, Aristotle on habit, and St. Paul on why he does what he would not), but never directly addressed. No writer until Augustine addressed this topic head-on. In any event, having perceived myself as suffering a weak will, I’ve certainly read on the topic, and I find this book a welcome and useful addition to this literature.

The authors do a good job of mixing the findings of academic research with reports on contemporary and historical individuals as exemplars of willpower. David Blaine, the magician and stunt artist (which I do not intend as a derogatory term), David Allen (of GTD fame), Eric Clapton (recovering alcoholic), Oprah (dieting victim), and Stanley (of “Dr. Livingstone, I presume” fame), all provide true stories of individuals dealing with particular problems of will. This mix of reporting academic research with real-life examples works well (although how their findings and conclusions fit with Victorian willpower isn’t as completely explored as I would like).

The takeaway: we have a certain amount of willpower (which can increase with training), but which declines with use (thus drawing on the some ideas of Freud as the ego as a fixed reserve). Interestingly, researchers have found that a dose of sugar (energy) works to increase willpower when it begins to flag. In addition, dieting, as the “perfect storm” for challenging willpower, gets an interesting chapter to itself. Think about it: you’re exerting extra willpower and you’re short on energy, so the brain orders (loudly) “eat!”. That’s why it’s important to develop life-long good habits.

One other area that they don’t explore is the Buddhist mindfulness tradition and other traditions (Gurdjieff, for instance) and how the academic research might fit with spiritual and philosophical ideas of willpower. Indeed, many religious traditions contain examples of extraordinary self-control and awareness. How does this all fit in? I suggest that we have to write that chapter ourselves.

In the end: a fun, interesting, and useful book. Recommended.

QT: Niall Ferguson TED Talk on the Great Divergence

Niall Ferguson provides a TED talk summary of his forthcoming Civilization: The West and the Rest (2011). In this talk and book (I've read reviews of its publication in the UK this spring), he provides an account of why China, especially, fell back from the West (Europe, U.S./Canada/and Autral-asia) at the beginning of the 19th century, and how China, other Asian nations, and perhaps Latin America, have closed that gap and will likely soon end it. An intriguing and important issue. Ferguson does a fine job of making his points.

QT: Tyler Cowen on Republican Confusion

Tyler Cowen argues persuasively that Republican no-tax ideology (or should we say zealotry) will lead to higher taxes and a worse fiscal position for the U.S. government. Ironic, yes, like a lot in life. Getting through it requires thought, which the Republicans are woefully short of. So sad.

QT: NNT on Taxes

I think that he has a very good point here. Of course, some investors, say Warren Buffett & Charlie Munger, have exercised significant skills (including self-restraint), but a fair amount of success in this area is a matter of luck. Add Robert Frank's suggestion of a progressive tax on expenditure (if this is the right term), we'd probably all be better off.

QT: Jack Goldstone on Why the Deer in the Headlights

Jack Goldstone, a scholar, asks a very direct and important question that has motivated much of his career research and that proves very relevant today: why do government officials, with all of the experts and resources that one could hope to muster, make such poor decisions? His answer, they are politicians concerned about holding office first, and leaders only second. One's first thought might be, well, they ought not to be concerned about reelection. But even if we could convince someone to leave a prestigious, good-paying job, a second reason should compel caution. Without holding office, one cannot do anything in terms of enacting a political agenda . So, caution, and kicking problems down the road. I predicted that Obama would be on the receiving end of some real time bombs, and this has proven true. He has to deal with some of them; others, such as global climate change, he (and most of the rest of the world) seem willing to kick further down the road. So, do we have weakness of will in societies?

QT: David Frum on What Obama Did Wrong

Not the usual Republican hatchet job. Instead, a thoughtful and useful critique. Query: can Obama learn from these mistakes?

QT: Was the Bomb Necessary?

New scholarship about the Japanese and how WWII came to an end in the Pacific. Maybe the A-bomb wasn't the key factor, in which case . . . . Such constant probing and questioning really can challenge our conventional thinking, and that's a very good thing. An intriguing article.

QT: About Collective Violence & Rioting

As I'm afraid that we're likely to see more unrest around the world, for good (Arab Spring?) or ill (London riots), this is a pertinent piece. Jack Goldstone on revolutions is a good source also.

QT: On my "to read" list: A.S. Byatt on a Norse myth

This sounds like a very interesting read. And as a LeGuin fan, and knowing of Byatt by reputation, it all seems like a good idea. However, I don't find it in bookstores or libraries here.

QT: Dr. Kurt Harris on What to Eat (and not to eat)

Here's an interesting summary of a primal perspective from a doc that trained here in Iowa City. Now he works in the area of primal (my term, not his) nutritian. He seems quite sensible in his recommendations. Within this general train of thought you can find a lot of very thoughtful and useful recommendations about how to improve your physical being.

QT: Jack Goldstone on Why Growth is Gone

Sad, but likely true. Of course, policy-makers aren't helping.

QT: Tony Judt on Contemporary Politics

Only shortly before his untimely death did I become acquainted with the work of historian Tony Judt. This piece is a timely meditation on what we're losing, on how the post-WWII consensus worked well in the U.S. and Europe. This piece is an elegy for what we're losing, if not for what we've lost. Like most of the pieces I've now read for him, he appears to have great insight.

QT: Paul Krugman on Economic Quackery

Krugman ponders the last one of the questions that I posed earlier. He can't seem to figure it out, either.

QT: Jack Goldstone on Failing to Learn from History

Jack Goldstone makes a similar point to John Juddis noted in the previous post. Isn't this a fascinating subject? Are we repeating the mistakes of the past? I know Bernacke doesn't want to, and I doubt many others do, but many politicians and many in the electorate seem hell bent on the deficit issue when we're teetering on the edge of a depression. BTW, who is John Maynard Keynes, anyway?

QT: John Juddis on Economic Doom

John Judis has written a fascinating article on our economic predicament. Alas, so few seem to know history, not just Mitt Romney suffers this shortcoming. Why do we want to repeat the 1930's? Okay, we can't ever exactly, but we can make it way too similar if we continue down our current path.

Check out Paul Krugman's comment on the article (and where I first learned of it).

QT: Jack Goldstone on the Econ Crisis Redux

Goldstone sounds a lot like Krugman, although Goldstone is a historian and social scientist who has written about revolutions, the coming of early modern Europe, etc. Worthwhile, because in these times, history is our best guide.

QT: David Frum on the Great Recession

QT = Quick Takes. I'm going to cite some interesting reading that I've encountered and have been meaning to post. Here favorite Republican thinker (not an oxymoron) David Frum has a worthwhile take on America's troubles given to a Canadian audience. If more Republicans were like Frum, we'd have a much better result. Anyway, I find many of his contentions quite worthwhile and convincing.

June 1941: Hitler & Stalin by John Lukacs

Published in 2006 and weighing in at only 164 pages, this is another John Lukacs gem. While in a recent post I pondered the incredible evil of these two totalitarian dictators and how difficult it would be to weigh the relative evils of themselves and their systems, this book provides a different perspective. Lukacs notes that both men were "statesmen," not in a laudatory sense, but in the sense that each of them ran great states that had goals of securing and aggrandizing their positions. They each had goals, and they cooperated in dividing Poland between them in 1939. Then, in June 1941, Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa, invading the Soviet Union. Stalin, who had received numerous warnings from varied sources, refused to believe the warnings. He nearly suffered a nervous breakdown when the invasion began and German forces cut through the Soviet defenses like a hot knife through warm butter.

Lukacs recounts the events with his usual skill, and he draws upon recently released Soviet archives. The relationship between the two leaders and their regimes is a complex one. Of course, Hitler's National Socialism was vehemently anti-Communist (and garnered some support from abroad for this), and Stalin's regime was anti-fascist (a term they used loosely). But in 1939, rather hastily, the two regimes entered into a "friendship" pact that promoted trade, mostly raw materials flowing into Germany to help meet its economic needs. Another pact, secret, was also agreed to at that time that divided Poland and other parts of Eastern Europe between the two regimes. The Second World War broke out a few days after the pact was signed. The pact shocked partisans of each regime as well as embassies around the globe. Stalin was delighted. He believed that the Red Army, which he'd recently decimated with purges, wouldn't be ready to fight the Germans until 1943, so peace, for now, was welcome, in addition to gaining the cash from trade and some territory. Hitler, on his part, slapped his thigh in delight upon learning that the pact had been approved. Hitler had his eye on the territories of the Soviet Union, but his immediate aim was Poland, and this gave him a virtual cart blanche. (Great Britain and France protested and went to war against the Nazi regime's conquest of Poland, but to no effect on the invasion and division of Poland or the Nazi-Soviet relationship.)

As the war proceeded, very much in favor of Hitler's regime, events came to the point, after the relatively easy conquest of France, that only Churchill-led Britain stood against Nazi domination of Europe. Hitler knew that the Soviet Union was a British hope, along with America, for finding an ally to counter the Germans. This, along with Hitler's obsession with lebensraum (living room) allowed Hitler to turn his attention to attacking the Soviet Union after it became clear that he could not successfully conquer Britain by an invasion. In  mid-1940 Hitler informed his generals of his intention to invade the Soviet Union, and plans were shaped near the end of that year. Originally planned for May 1941, the invasion began on 22 June of that year. 

But one can't plan and stage a major invasion without others noticing, and many did. Warnings were sent to Stalin by his own spies and by foreign nations, including G.B. and the U.S. But Stalin refused to heed these warnings, always finding an excuse to discount them. Even as German reconnaissance flights into Soviet territory increased in frequency and intrusiveness, Stalin told his commanders to do nothing to provoke the Germans.

Lukacs does not directly answer the question of why Stalin refused all of the warnings. Perhaps no one can. It seems a matter of wishful thinking more than rational calculation. Stalin didn't believe that Hitler would begin a two-front war, which has some reason behind it, but it pales in comparison to all of the growing evidence to the contrary that was provided to him.  But the failure to find a definitive explanation is one that is likely to elude historians forever. Who can truly fathom the workings of another's mind, especially one as dark and secretive as that of Stalin?

This is a compelling account of the two leaders who cooperated and then crossed one another as told by a master historian. Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union led to his eventual downfall. What if he had succeeded? He came close to winning the Second World War. On the other hand, Stalin succeeded eventually (with the aid of G.B. and the U.S.) and ended up controlling virtually all of Eastern Europe for nearly 36 years. Great forces may set the stage for history, but individual human decisions still create the action.

NB: This review was originally posted on 24 September 2011 after I first (?) read the book. I have edited and expanded it a bit after reading it again in April 2017. While discussing local history, C asked why Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. This sent me back to this book and Ian Kershaw's excellent Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions That Changed the World 1940-1941 and its chapter on the formulation of Hitler's plan to invade the Soviet Union and another about Stalin's response to reports of an upcoming attack. 

Norman Davies: No Simple Victory: WWII in Europe 1939-1945

We can think of WWII as well picked-over territory. Persons my age grew up with it in books, films, and television. If, like me, you're a history buff, it makes for easy pickings. However, I think that there's more to this event than simply easy access and relatively recent memory. Less than 10 years before I was born, when my parents were in the prime of their youth, the world was a hell in large measure. Why and how this could be? How leaders deal with the stark facts of the age? These questions are not easily answered, and their continuing consideration by historians remains an area of fascination. Anyway, this is just a prelude to why I listened to this book and read others like it.

This particular book is fascinating because Norman Davies, is primarily a historian of Eastern Europe, and he places his emphasis on events that occurred on the eastern front. WWII, in Europe, was decided in the east, with the Americans and the Brits and their allies in the west playing an ancillary role. The Soviet army, with guns at their backs from the commissars, as well as in their faces from the Nazi's, defeated the Third Reich. Davies makes all of this clear. In addition, he raised in my mind a further question: was Hitler worse than Stalin, our ally? I'm not so sure, and that's not because I think any less of the Nazi regime. The art of comparative terror and evil is perhaps beyond comprehension, but if we attempt it, we see that we did indeed "supp with the devil" (Churchill on the alliance with Stalin). We did not know the full extent of Stalin's evils at the time, but now we do. Davies makes all of this clear. That politics--and war--makes strange bedfellows is a truism, but for all of it's truth, when one stops and examines it, it nonetheless boggles the mind.

If your looking for a history of WWII (excluding the Pacific theater), you would certainly do well with this effort. I know that there are some newer ones and more comprehensive histories, but this does open one's eyes to the horror and craziness of it all. I recommend it highly.

E. Dionne: If He's Happy, I'm Happy

I missed the President's big speech last night since I was traveling and meeting with clients. However, if Dionne's report is accurate--and from the snippets I saw in TV, it is--then Obama has done what I believe he should do: not only propose a new jobs program, but also lay down the smack to the Republicans. He did both. Bully for him! And good for all of the rest of us!

I spoke to a local Democratic legislator Wednesday night after we both heard former Labor Secretary Robert Reich speak @ the IMU, and I shared these concerns. As she pointed out, Obama has to compromise because the Republicans were putting a gun to our heads with the politics of threat. However, I argued, and still do, that Obama has to rally his troops and show the nation who wants to do what. Protect the very wealthiest from tax cuts? Allow joblessness to linger? Pick up the failed policies of the 1930's? Not for me buddy, and not without going down with a fight. You go Obama!

David Frum: What Inflation?

David Frum continues to amaze me because he keeps pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. In this case, that we don't have an inflation problem, we have a deflation problem. We are in a depression. It's refreshing to read and consider thoughts of someone who considers himself a conservative but who has an open mind. It shouldn't be that way. What we call conservative thought (free market, limited government, etc.) isn't crazy, it has some sound points. But the current crop of Republican presidential candidates are like Stepford wives, all parroting the same contra-factual mantras. It's really crazy, and really sad. Frum should run!

Alexander McCall Smith: The Sunday Philosophy Club

On whim I picked this up @ ICPL, and I found it a delightful read (and it has nothing to do with WWII). If you know Smith from the No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency, you'll find that his manner transforms well to his native Scotland. Ms. Dalhousie, the protagonist, is a rather appealing character. She edits the Journal of Applied Ethics, having studied philosophy at Cambridge, and her comments on life, philosophy, and any manner of subjects are light and engaging. You rather feel that you'd enjoy knowing this woman (and feel badly that the love of her life--who hardly seems worthy in retrospect--passed her by). Smith has a way of making his characters engage you, much like Precious Ramotswe does in the No. Ladies Detective Agency series. (Does Smith have some special insight into women?). Anyway, an engaging and fun read. No action packed adventure, just lots of careful people assessment, hypothesis development and testing (and discarding), and appreciation of this small slice of humanity. I'll read another one!

John Lukacs: The Hitler of History

After reading about the events of 1938 leading up to the Munich Conference of that year that gave the world "appeasement", I went back to the great historian John Lukacs's consideration of Hitler in this book. (I'd read it about a decade ago on a trip to Montreal with Iowa Guru & Africa Girl. Memories associate well with places.) As with virtually all of Lukacs's work, it bore re-reading. Lukacs treats Hitler for what he was: a human being, a politician, and even--perhaps--a statesman. After all, Hitler had political aims in his war (and WWII was his war, Lukacs argues). As with most of Lukacs's work, it's hard to summarize because he throws out nuggets of insight here and there like he's blithely sowing seeds along a garden path. This is a book about other books and historians as much as Hitler himself, and this, too, makes it different, interesting, and well worthwhile.

Am I Smitten? More on Rick Perry

Am I smitten with Rick Perry, or what? This guy intrigues me, and as this post by Michael Tomasky contends, he makes George W. Bush look wise, intelligent, and informed. Wow--now that's a talent! Whereas W used to whisper some of his nonsense, Perry uses a bullhorn to advertise his ignorance and prejudice. If you think about it, from George H.W. Bush to George W. Bush to Rick Perry: isn't this a strong argument for devolution? Darwin in reverse?

The other point of this article is another call to arms for President Obama. As a fellow b-ball player, I understand that Obama doesn't want to get into an elbow swinging match with his opponents, that's sucker stuff. Obama, however, shouldn't want not get even, but to get ahead (thanks Walter "Clyde" Frazier). The greats, like Jordan, Magic, Bird, West, Robertson--they didn't put elbows into opponents mouths, they put stilettos between their ribs. Obama is a cool guy (in more ways than one), but he has to coolly put it to his political opponents, with just a touch of fire. Maybe Obama needs to spend some time watching NBA Classics.

David Frum on Sarah Palin & The Lesson We Should Learn

David Frum is lining up as my second favorite conservative writer behind David Brooks. We might disagree about a number of things, but I imagine that I would have a very enjoyable conversation with the guy if we sat down to talk shop. In this particular article, he tells us the brains are important in choosing presidential canidates, character and not demographics are important in choosing presidential candidates, and that women weren't fooled by Sarah Palin, but men, apparently going all instinctual, were. Three points that make a lot of sense to me. His asides in the column about Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are right on point as well.

I Told You So Edition--Thank you, Christina Romer

In follow up to this post, I can't help but point out this article by former Obama administration economist Christina Romer (and now Berkley econ prof) about FDR's administration and its errors, including the budget-balancing business of 1937 (along with Fed money restrictions). I guess great minds think alike. I'm glad that I posted before her article appeared. :)

If Karl Rove thinks this . . . . ?

My goodness, if Karl Rove thinks that Perry is off his rocker, what should the rest of us think? This adds to my sense that Republicans are utterly bankrupt when it comes to compelling leadership, and the rank-and-file are dominated by the Christian Right (which out to be an oxymoron, but sadly isn't). How sad! How different from the British Conservatives. David Cameron strikes me as intelligent and reasonable, albeit misguided with his current austerity program. Do the Republicans have anyone in that league? If they do, they're hiding for fear of the Tea Party types. Sad and scary.

Et Tu, China? Niall Ferguson's Assessment

Courtesy of Walter Russell Mead's blog: Ferguson seems not so sure that China won't hit the same problems that we did with a real estate bubble of its own. Very interesting! Bubbles, everywhere, all ready to pop!

Rick Perry: Could This Guy Become President With These Views?

I thought that George W. Bush was one of the least qualified and least capable individuals to have been nominated or elected president. Events, I contend, bore me out. Now we have this guy Perry. Why on earth would we vote him into office? If his views that Yglesias quotes from his book aren't enough, note this Krugman analysis of his supposed big selling point. Are we as a country really going off the deep end?

Munich, 1938: Appeasement & WWII by David Faber

David Faber's book (2008, 437 p.) focuses on the events leading up to the Munich Conference of 1937 wherein Neville Chamberlain and the French (with Mussolini looking on) bargained away parts of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in return for "peace in our time". Well, it didn't work. In fact, Faber's book, which focuses primarily on Hitler's actions (and luck) and British diplomatic efforts, shows how Hitler ran the table of Austria and most of Czechoslovakia without firing a shot. Chamberlain does seem clueless in the face of Hitler. Faber's narrative is detailed and interesting, but I would have appreciated more background on the primary players, like Chamberlain & Halifax, and those in the Foreign Office, in addition to Eden, who questioned appeasement. The diplomatic efforts were intense, but no one in power was willing to call Hitler's bluff, if it was a bluff (an interesting historical question). An interesting book, but not one to approach without a firm background knowledge. (I believe my background knowledge to have been adequate but I would have benefited, as I mentioned, from more scene and character setting.)

1937: Deja Vu All Over Again?

I've been saying (even if no one is listening) that FDR took us into a severe downturn in 1937 with his budget-balancing mania (Keynes apparently didn't get his message across in time), and it looks like the Obama administration is doing the same thing. Of course history doesn't repeat itself (exactly), but sometimes you can see the same pattern.

Krugman: A Sense of Humor Amid the Wreckage

Krugman's sense of humor today is worthwhile, one post on "academia nuts" and this cartoon. Krugman, one senses, has an appreciation of the "animal spirits". Anyway, I read him for laughs as well as insights.

E.J. Dionne in London on London (and the other cities)

Interesting follow-up to the last post (on Goldstone). Here we have Dionne talking the politics of all of this (in GB). We (democracies) have a problem having an adult debate. Yes, condemn, arrest, and punish. Stop rioting, but riots don't just grow on trees, they grow out of bad conditions. No rioting here on Magowan Ave. Wonder why not? We can't condone or reward, but we (and I say "we" because it can happen here) or the Brits would be dumb not to address causes. We'll see.

Goldstone on London

Jack Goldstone's New Population Bomb, certainly a great new blog, has another interesting post today, and it's about London. Simply put, we only describe the situation when we say that people (some) are acting reprehensibly, criminally, etc. Of course, but the question we really need to ask is "why?". How do we explain this outbreak of violence? Goldstone has the credentials, and as his recent post on the French Revolution demonstrates, we can (in some measure) learn from history. I believe that his conjectures about London (and Greece earlier) are very persuasive. The police shooting in London was just the match: without fuel, the match doesn't do much of anything. Compare London today to the Rodney King riots in LA: another match in a blighted area. With increasing economic volatility, if not outright downturn, expect to see more of this type of social unrest. (BTW, consider similar underlying conditions in the Arab Spring.)

Krugma on Weston on Obama

Okay, if you've ever read this blog more than a few times you know that I think that Paul Krugman is usually right. I think that events have born him out on most significant issues. And, if like me, you read him in 2008 when Obama was running, you know that he was skeptical, and his skepticism has been born out. I suggest that you not only read this post, but the post he wrote at the time of the inaugural. Also, as an added treat, he gives a shout-out to Keynes that leads me to a new Keynes insight that I thought was original to me: that a depression or severe recession, then, as now, isn't marked or caused by some natural catastrophe (unlike, say the effects of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami), but by a faulty system. Damn, I think this Keynes guy was pretty smart!